Ah, Georgia

I'm reviewing my Family Law outline now, and I just thought I'd pass along that I'll be living in a state where:

  • first cousins can marry,
  • there's no minimum age for marriage if children of the union are involved, but
  • same sex couples can't marry (this rule is so important in Georgia that they first passed a law, then added it to the state constitution).

Carry on.

Comments

But Then Again: Ah, North Carolina

I'm not sure why I feel compelled to rant about this, but it's obvious to me that I won't get any more studying done until I do, so here goes:

<rant>

North Carolina still recognizes the tort of Alienation of Affection, meaning that if your wife leaves you because she fell in love with me, you can sue and get money damages from me! Crazy. 43 states have gotten rid of this rule. We also still recognize Criminal Conversation, which is basically the same thing except you don't have to prove that your wife stopped loving you, just that we did the dirty.

But this is the big one: Comparative negligence. Say there's a RR crossing where the lights and arms and bells don't work, and you cross it without looking both ways. And say that a train conductor dozed off when he was supposed to blow the horn before entering the same crossing you're going through. And you get smashed. Who's to blame? The conductor, of course. And the train company, for not keeping up the crossing. And you, just a little bit, for not looking both ways before crossing the train tracks.

In most states, they ask the jury to put some numbers on how the blame should be spread around and then the court distributes $$$ accordingly. Maybe you were 10% to blame and the conductor and the train company were each 45% at fault. (For you law folk, I'm intentionally leaving out agency and respondeat superior issues, so don't pick on me, ok?) 46 states do things this way.

But not North Carolina. In NC, if you're to blame even a little bit, you probably don't get a dime. There was a case that came down from the NC Court of Appeals in the summer of 2004 about a woman who was in an accident outside Carowinds. She had a green light and entered the intersection when someone completely ignored a red light and plowed right into her from the side. She recovered nothing. Zero, Zip, Nada, etcetera.

Why? She said on the stand (or in deposition or somewhere in the record) that she didn't look to see if anyone was running red lights when she entered the intersection. The Court of Appeals said that a green light gives you permission to enter the intersection using reasonable caution, not a free pass from all responsibility. Because she negligently didn't scan the intersection before going through, the other guy's negligence didn't mean a damn thing. Crazy, right?

</rant>

Back to work.

Ah, Lance.

Thank you for that splendiferous rant.

I will now look all ways when doing anything at anytime no matter what, except that'll I'll probably spawn disaster with all my looking and then be liable for too much rubbernecking.

Study hard Lance

Fingers, toes and eyes are all crossed for you. I've said a few prayers, lit candles and know that none of this is needed because you and Targator are brilliant and don't need luck, prayers or candles.

Still.....What can it hurt, right?



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Basically Lance

this law compels people to lie. I'm sure if her attorney had been worth a dime himself, he would have coached her to say she looked both ways.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me