Originally posted by gingerjedi
She's recovered well... I would 
-
She wouldn't!Call the cops
-
I knowOriginally posted by freakydancer
Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave JohnsonComment
-
It's a shame that she survived the fall really.
All that is necessary for evil members to succeed is that good members post nothing Comment
-
At Last. Some common sense!
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34
A young woman who suffered serious injuries after plunging through a skylight while dancing with friends on a garage roof next to her flat today lost a damages action against her landlords.
Anna Mayers, who was celebrating her 24th birthday when the accident happened in February 2002, had her case dismissed by a judge at the High Court in London.
Sir John Blofeld ruled that Mrs Mayers, now 29, had been a "trespasser" on the roof of the garage, which was attached to a flat she was renting at the time with university friends in Islington, north London.
At about midnight she and a small group of others at the party climbed through a window of the flat to get on to the roof, but she fell around 10ft to the ground after inadvertently stepping backwards on to a skylight which was covered with clear, corrugated perspex.
Rejecting her damages claim against Piyush and Naginbhai Patel, of Hendon, north west London, who had denied liability, Sir John said she had sustained "thoroughly unpleasant" injuries.
Mrs Mayers, from north London, who has no recollection of the incident, lost consciousness and suffered serious head and orthopaedic injuries.
Her then boyfriend James Mayers, now her husband, jumped down to help her and broke his heel.
The judge said the evidence was that she had drunk about four or five glasses of wine and a home-made vodka jelly and was "merry" but not drunk.
There was no suggestion, he said, that anyone at the party was drunk.
Sir John announced that he had "unhesitatingly" come to the conclusion that she and her co-tenants on the roof that night were trespassers.
They had no authority to go on to the roof of the garage, which was not part of the property included in the tenancy agreement.
He ruled that it had not been proved that the state of the premises - the roof and the skylights - were "dangerous" within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act.
He said: "Although I have the deepest sympathy for the claimant because it is very easy to do something that one regrets afterwards... I am afraid that she has not made out her case and I therefore dismiss it."
Do you think people who pack the confectionary into boxes at fudge making factories tell people what they do for a living?Comment
Comment