Virginia Supreme Court Justice
Powell’s handling of the doctrine of foreseeability is proof that her
conservative ideology dictated the decision, not logic and law. Powell and the
rest of the state Supreme Court were apparently unwilling to consider other
courts’ definitions of “foreseeability” and ignored the definition of
“foreseeability” as spelled out in Turpin
v. Granieri 985 P. 2d 669 (Id. 1999) in which the court wrote:
“Foreseeability is a flexible
concept which varies with the circumstances of each case. Where the degree of
result or harm is great, but preventing it not difficult, a relative low degree
of foreseeability is required… Thus foreseeability is not to be measured by
just what is more probable than not, but also includes whatever result is
likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonable prudent person
would take such into account in guiding reasonable conduct… We only engage in
balancing of the harm in those rare situations when we are called upon to
extend a duty beyond the scope previously imposed or when a duty has not been
previously recognized.”
The New York Supreme
Court has ruled that the fact that a defendant could not anticipate the precise
manner of an accident or incident, or the exact extent of injuries does not
preclude liability as a matter of law where the general risk and character of
injuries are foreseeable. The New York
court hit the nail on the head. In dealing with an unstable person such as Cho,
or any murderer, the exact nature of the violent behavior or when or how it
will occur cannot be predicted. But that he or she will be violent is
predictable and preventive measures, including warnings and lockdowns, can be
taken.
Virginia Tech official
Ralph Byers used the words “killer on the loose.” More violence, then, was
foreseeable. The exact time and place of that violence may not have been
predictable, but it most definitely was foreseeable and therefore there was a
duty to warn. (To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment