This is the kind of case that can go in a county court in Texas. But, there were some minor differences in these cases. For example, while the Texas circuit court's decision in the two Lightning Charge cases has caused some uncertainty in state and federal judicial law, this is not in itself a problem. This was a case that had been decided by a federal judge. This was a hydroxyurea that had been decided by a district court judge. This was a case that had been decided by a federal judge.
The Texas judge had said that this case could be handled by any federal judge in Texas. It was a case that was decided on the merits, not a case decided on the basis of the federal judicial system, which has the benefit of more robust judicial review than does a case decided in the federal courts. All of these factors may be considered in making decisions on whether the lightning charge was an appropriate reason to settle the case with the plaintiff for damages that are equivalent to the damages that are claimed in the two Lightning Charge cases. In the Lightning Charge case, the district court agreed with the district court judge that a lightning strike could cause damage and ruled that the plaintiff did not have to pay. But, as I said earlier, this does not mean that the defendant does not have to pay. The Texas courts have been very clear that a defendant has to pay even though it is not in the defendant's interest to do so, which is a situation where the defendant could make an excellent argument that it should settle.
Both customers are perfectly innocent, and neither had done anything to cause the accident. How does this scenario differ from a lawsuit of negligence? First, the two customers in this example could have either negligently or knowingly caused the accident. In the second scenario, the customer who shoves the jar of baby food has no responsibility for the consequences of the accident that was prevented. He or she does not even know that the item had been accidentally spilled. And as for the other customer who turns into the aisle and falls over, his or her negligence was not the only one at fault. Another customer in the aisle is equally negligent in causing the accident, and both he and the other customer are entitled to compensation.
The problem with relying on this definition of negligence can be seen by examining two similar instances of an accident. In the first example, a man is killed when his pickup truck hits a pedestrian. The man is carrying a small baby girl in the truck, but is unaware that a pedestrian is crossing the street. The toddler hits his shoulder, and he falls over. Two of the bystanders, who are both in their 40's, are equally at fault. We were on the side of the road and it was just too far to turn back without hitting anything. If we could save one little girl, we'd have done it a long time ago. In his case, the father is entitled to the$10,000 in compensation.
The boy's mother, for whose loss he is responsible, is not entitled to compensation under the theory of negligence, because she has no role in the accident. There are numerous situations in which the law would require compensation if the parents and children were equally negligent. For example, if a pedestrian is struck by a passing vehicle, who is liable for the injuries? In the case below, one of the pedestrians is at fault, but not the other.