Opinions wanted

[molecularfire]

The Home Depot thread brings up an interesting question for me... let's say that we believe this guy and we even believe that the Home Depot employees knew that he was stuck there and chose not to help him (note, I'm not saying that they did it, only that they knew his situation and chose not to help him). Does he have a right to sue Home Depot, and should he have a right to sue Home Depot?

My opinion is no. I don't think it is reasonable given human nature for us to force someone to help others. If someone chooses to then props to them but I do draw the line at punishing someone for not helping others. I mean, should we punish someone for not stopping to help someone stuck on the road? Do we punish someone for not giving money to the homeless guy on the street? Do we punish ourselves as a society for not doing more to help the billions of people starving around the world? I'm curious of you guys have opinions on this and where do you draw the line? I put this thread in off-topic and not the political forum because I'm not interested in what the law is... I'm interested in what the opinion of my fellow G|A'ers are.

[OC]

You're ugly. Need another?

I don't think Home Depot should be sued for this. The bottom line (no pun intended) is that sometimes bad things happen to good people. This guy was the unfortunate victim of a stupid practical joke. If the asshat that did it can be identified and caught, fine. Otherwise, chalk it up to experience and move on. And next time, check the seat before you sit down. Ahem.

I find it ironic that a culture that's gone so sue-happy in the last couple decades (meaning ours) is the same one that came up with "Get over it". Just sayin'.

[InfiniteNothing]

I think yes: suable. I just have high expectations of people I guess.

[bachviet]

No

Just because Home Depot services suck, it doesn't mean he could sue them for it.

[oblongmelon]

It's hard to say if he has the RIGHT to sue..but should he? Yeh, sure why not..his ass was stuck to a toilet seat-regardless of whether or not it was a 'harmless prank"..Home Depot should be responsible for the people they hire and the stupid sh*t they pull..that's why they have insurance..More Power to him..that's what I say.

[YanksFanRy]

I agree with MF, I don't think it's fair to sue for not helping someone in a situation like this. If you're witnessing a crime occuring and don't do something about it, that's another story. We aren't all superheroes on the lookout for problems and attempting to save people.

[molecularfire]

I think yes: suable. I just have high expectations of people I guess.

Then where do you draw the line? Do we allow people to sue those who won't stop to help them on the road when their car breaks down? Do we penalize people for not helping homeless people in the street? Do we penalize ourselves as a society for not helping the starving in the world? What determines what we are obligated to do?

Home Depot should be responsible for the people they hire and the stupid sh*t they pull..

I'm confused... are you saying that the home depot employees did the prank or that the stupid sh*t they pulled was in not helping the guy. I wasn't under the impression that the prank was pulled by a home depot employee but instead another customer. If they could show that it was a home depot employee who did the prank then I would agree with you, they should be held accountable for the people they choose to hire and the harm those people did to him. If it is simply a matter of their employees not helping him... I'm not sure that I would penalize the employees or the company for not helping.

[Grimm]

Well, Home Depot is responsible for things that occur on it's property.
Should they be held liable for the prankster's actions? No. That was beyond their control. I think they can show that they took reasonable precautions by cleaning the bathroom occationaly and having store security, of course they can't put a camera in the bathroom though.
What they are responsible for is removing the toliet seat from the man's err... hindquarters. As for the man's embarasment, well, he should have checked the seat before sitting down... that's what you get.
Home Depot should pay the medical costs and nothing more. Well, perhaps as a show of good will they should give him a new toilet seat too...

As for the people who think the man should have used a seat protector... well, don't you think that if you were going to go to the trouble of puting adhesive on a toilet seat you would go ahead and remove the seat protectors? It's the first thing I would do...

[Grafalgar]

Hmm, perhaps he shouldn't sue but I think someone needs to be held responsible, mainly because he was on their property and they are responsible for his safety/well-being while on their premises.

The road-side thing is different, imo, because you do not own the road and are therefore not to be held responsible for other people's troubles (that you were not involved in). But even then it becomes fuzzy.

Let's try an analogy on a different angle perhaps:

Let's say there's a fully-qualified doctor sitting in a park, enjoying his lunch. A passerby randomly collapses 20 feet away from him. Doctor, fully aware of the situation, does nothing. Should he be held accountable if the passerby suffers serious injury due to lack of medical assistance? I didn't read the HD/glue thing, but IF the employees knew full well there was a man in need of help and they ignored him, then they should be held accountable. Perhaps not the entire franchise, but certainly those employees who did not do anything (and were aware of the situation).

[molecularfire]

Let's try an analogy on a different angle perhaps:

Let's say there's a fully-qualified doctor sitting in a park, enjoying his lunch. A passerby randomly collapses 20 feet away from him. Doctor, fully aware of the situation, does nothing. Should he be held accountable if the passerby suffers serious injury due to lack of medical assistance? I didn't read the HD/glue thing, but IF the employees knew full well there was a man in need of help and they ignored him, then they should be held accountable. Perhaps not the entire franchise, but certainly those employees who did not do anything (and were aware of the situation).

In most states, the doctor is not required to lend assistance or even tell anybody he/she is a doctor. That said, if the doctor does get involved, then the person is now the doctor's responsibility and the doctor is required to stay and lend assistance at least until the paramedics arrive... i.e. they can't do a half-a$$ job and leave. If the doctor did the best job he/she could and didn't do anything blatantly stupid and something bad happened, even if the doctor didn't do all the right things the doctor is not liable for the bad event (thank goodness for good samaritan laws).

As for the property thing... does that mean that if I go to Home Depot and attack someone, that Home Depot is responsible for that? What if I was really big and the employees don't wanna step in because of fear of me (I'm a really scary dude when I'm pissed) Another way to look at this is that I know of many, many people who are suffering whom I am doing absolutely nothing at all to help. I walk by the street and am actively not helping the people lying down there. I send home people with prescription that I know they aren't ever going to be able to fill. It's not like I'm shelling out my own money on a regular basis and can't afford to buy some of those people food and medicine. If it is an issue of property doesn't the suffering in the U.S. count as within our property? Why can we condem them for their actions and not do so with our own?

[DarkFury]

It's hard to say if he has the RIGHT to sue..but should he? Yeh, sure why not..his ass was stuck to a toilet seat-regardless of whether or not it was a 'harmless prank"..Home Depot should be responsible for the people they hire and the stupid sh*t they pull..that's why they have insurance..More Power to him..that's what I say.

But are we sure that an "employee" did this?

What if a HD customer did this.... and it happened between bathroom inspections (we know that they do that EVERY hour on the hour right. )


If an employee had done this and got caught, he would surely be fired and then the lawsuit would really take off... but as it is, we don't know who did it, only where it was done.

[Grafalgar]

As for the property thing... does that mean that if I go to Home Depot and attack someone, that Home Depot is responsible for that? What if I was really big and the employees don't wanna step in because of fear of me (I'm a really scary dude when I'm pissed)

Of course HD can't be held responsible for you attacking someone in their store, BUT if they just sorta watched from a distance as you took down people without taking any action whatsoever (like calling 911), should they NOT be held responsible?

I'm not saying we should all feel guilty and be held responsible for other people's miseries JUST because we know about it. I'm saying that if someone is (legitimately) present on your private property, and something happens to that person that compromises his/her health/safety .. then you are obligated to help.

[YanksFanRy]

The man didn't die... He didn't get any more injured because it took some extra time. He had a friggin' toilet seat stuck to him... Just a thought.

[mcs328]

I think you are criminally responsible or negligent for letting a customer attack another customer and not doing anything to help if the event occurs in the store and you have the safe and reasonable means to prevent serious injury.

As for the HD thing I think he should sue because the out of my butt answer is that this guy is "imprisoned" against his will. Wonder if no one helped him and he died on the toilet from starvation or dehydration after weeks of cries for help and HD ignored him. The slippery slope conclusion you draw is that if you don't help eventually he will die on the toilet and as far fetched as that is, it's a reasonable assumption to conclude.