VENOMOUS1 RACING
Has Left the Room - Banned from VTCOA!
I know NYCSTEVE can get in contact with him, but are there any others that know his phone #? I really need to get in contact with him about an item purchased from him.:dontknow:
I thought there was another thread where this got worked out? I'm sorry to hear about being scammed man. Good luck with the pursuit!
dont work at either dodge place just called them
ito Castignoli, Counsel for the Claimant. - Mr. Wielk was a student at Platt Vocational Technical School in Milford. On that day, which was the second day of school that year, he was attacked in the school corridor by another student. It's interesting to note that Platt Vocational Technical School had made elaborate precautions to have hall monitors and to prevent this type of behavior. There was supposed to be a hall monitor virtually on the exact spot where he was attacked in the school corridor, however there was no one there. According to the security plan in place, the first teacher who came upon the scene was supposed to be out in the parking lot at that time. So what effectively happened is the school violated their own policies with regard to where the hall monitors were supposed to be on the second day of the school year. As a result, he was assaulted. The assault lasted for a period of time. He had some pretty serious back problems as a result of it.
We feel the Claims Commission report, which recommends against us being able to pursue this claim, glosses over the fact that the policies that they had put in force and they felt were necessary were being violated by their own people only two days into the school year.
We feel it's a just claim. We feel that the common law in the state of Connecticut would dictate that if it was a private individual, if it was a business that had something like a parking garage, it would be liable in a similar situation.
As a matter of fact, there was a case in Stanford against Bloomingdale's Department Store. Unfortunately, a patron was killed. Bloomingdale's Department Store was held liable for not providing security, realizing that would be a risk. Again, the cases seem to talk about whether or not this behavior is within the scope of the risks created by the respondents, in this case, Platt Vocational Technical and the state of Connecticut's negligence. We feel that an ordinary individual would be liable under this type of claim.
The issue here was one of causation. However, the argument was that it was an unprovoked attack. We agree that it was an unprovoked attack. However, the case law is on our side.
If an assault happens as a result of a risk that's perceived by the person that's supposed to provide security can be proximate cause in that situation, it can be legal cause.
We argued that before the Claims Commission. Obviously, they rejected that claim. That's what we're saying here, it's because Platt Tech had specifically seen this as a risk, had specifically set out a security plan, and had taken steps to implement it. Those steps that they thought were important, that they felt would stop this type of thing, they violated within the second day. So obviously, when something like this happens, we feel they should be held accountable.
HUNNY ASS SHIT HAHAHAHAHA
hunny? does that mean he is your type?
you going to take him to dinner at taco bell, and give him the old, in-out in-out?