Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

5. Trumpco probably can

Reply to Mendocino (Original post)

Mon Apr 9, 2018, 06:08 PM

Apr 2018

If the sprinklers are not required by ordinance, that does not settle it for once and for all. It still could be negligent not to install them (or something else). They would have to prove notice of a dangerous condition and that might not be out of the question.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm not a lawyer, [View all] Mendocino Apr 2018 OP

Neither am I. What I know is his company (if his company is the landlord, so to speak) Eliot Rosewater Apr 2018 #1

whats the negligence? Fires happen. beachbum bob Apr 2018 #2

I'm not a lawyer, either PJMcK Apr 2018 #3

This thread is like an episode of the Simpsons.....I'm not a lawyer, but.... OnDoutside Apr 2018 #4

Trumpco probably can treestar Apr 2018 #5

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2018 #6

I work in the insurance industry...but not a lawyer... Xolodno Apr 2018 #7

Bulletin: Kingofalldems Apr 2018 #8

I could see a lawsuit Nevernose Apr 2018 #9

That would be a difficult argument unless they could prove that both buildins EffieBlack Apr 2018 #12

Agreed. It would require a lot of things falling into place Nevernose Apr 2018 #13

Depends on what his "duty of reasonable care was" EffieBlack Apr 2018 #10

He can be impeached for negligence according to one of my friends Gothmog Apr 2018 #11