Mr. MLeave:
This is getting way off topic and I don't have all day discuss basic legal concepts. I will only respond to your last comment.
Quote:
|
You have still provided no instances where your theoretical situation has happened. You are the one claiming the law would be interpreted that way; the burden of proof is still on you. (Those arguing for changes to existing law bear the onus; standard debate rules.) Are you going to present any actual instances of this?
|
I have met my burden of proof by sorting out the basic laws of statutory discussion. My interpretaion merely follows the plain language of the statute.
In the real world you aren't going to find cases interpreting crystal clear statutes. That is all the more so when the issue fails to frequently arise and we are talking about a matter in a civil court.
I doubt that there has been more than 1,000 Florida SYG cases since the current laws passage in 2005. Of them ony a fractiion would involve injury to a bystander. Of those, the bystander wouldn't have a case unless the homeowner was at least negligent.
What happens if thoe few injured as a resuolt of neg go to an attorney. the attorney is going to read immunity provision and, unless they are very foolish, the inuries are severe, and the negligence egregious, pas on taking the case on a contingency. Sure, they might make a claim against the insurer but any that I represented would refuse to pay anything substantial. Most wouldn't even pay nuisance value.
Try finding any record of cases that are never even filed. Even if they are filed, trial court decisions aren't published since they have virtually no precedential value. It is possible that someone has mentioned ann obscur trial court case in a legal treatise on Florida law, but don't expect to find that in many libraries in this state.
Enjoy your burden of proof.