Comments on: Student sues school after brutal attack

By: C.L.

C.L. — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:46:42 +0000

I’m very tired of people constantly using the McDonald’s coffee case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. People–Look up the details of this case so you know what you’re talking about!

By: Jim T

Jim T — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:03:12 +0000

I strongly agree with SM. Why is it always somebody else’s fault when something happens to you? Will you sue the city if you are robbed? If you slip and fall down because you are clumsy, will you look around for somebody -anybody- to sue?

By: SM

SM — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:00:54 +0000

No, not “too bad sissy, get a life”. Rather, call the cops and prosecute the bastards. It would be great if the school had 24/7 armed guards on every floor, or cameras with a monitor who would have been able to stop the crime in progress, or perhaps caught the guys on tape to facilitate their future capture & (I hope) severe punishment. That said, I just don’t feel it’s the SCHOOL’s fault, to the tune of $400k. It’s not the college’s fault that the girl in NYC can’t find a job. It’s not McDonald’s fault that a woman put coffee in her lap and burned herself, and it’s not the lifeguard’s fault if someone drowns in a pool before the guard can reach them, or if a person swims in an obviously unguarded area and has an accident. Life happens, and it can be ugly. It’s just not always someone eles’s fault.

By: Kerun

Kerun — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:53:44 +0000

TWO against ONE;
ARMED against UNARMED;
stabbed in the face;
pay lots of money to us for an education;
we know similar crimes take place around here;
but if you get attacked –
too bad, sissy, quit complaining, get a life! Really?!?

By: SM

SM — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:19:58 +0000

I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. First of all, video surveillance does not guarantee safety. If the school doesn’t have staff to watch it all day. Second of all, since when does every single institution have a ‘duty to protect’ everyone who may pass through? What happened to personal responsibility? Living your life? Security is wonderful, but it is never guaranteed. I realize the argument is about where you draw the lines of responsibility, but it’s just more evidence that we’re a nation of sissies, and getting worse every day.

By: Kerun

Kerun — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:54:18 +0000

The VERDICT was in favor of the victim so, YES, it should have stood. The APPEAL should be overturned. The school SHOULD be “punished” for making NO attempt to protect its students from harm; Parking garages everywhere are notoriously dangerous places and there are many ways to provide security, some of which cost – relatively – very little.

The excuse that they couldn’t have ‘“precisely foreseen” that a violent, armed attack would take place in its parking garage, the court said’ is like saying that your fire insurance doesn’t have to pay because the fire started in the basement, not the kitchen, so it couldn’t have been “precisely foreseen.” Baloney!

By: Eric F.

Eric F. — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:18:52 +0000

This is a school with a lot of problems.
It is also situated in an area where there is a lot of crime.

That said, the university is not able to afford much improvement, let alone video surveillance.
However, the university leaders (if they were able to think proactively) could have asked for federal money to hire additional security personnel.

So, should the verdict have stood?
No.
I agree with “Stunned”, above.
The history of crime is there…it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that its not a question of “if” but of “when” something like this would occur.

By: Stunned

Stunned — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:04:13 +0000

The verdict should not have stood. While the school cannot forsee a violent attack, they were obligated to be proactive and had some measures in place to assist students given the fact that crimes had happened prior to this attack.