So a few friends of mine were having a legal discussion. They couldn't agree on the answer. I figured I'd ask this question on CGB since I know 1/3rd of you guys are lawyers.
Here's the situation:
Plaintiff was working on a scaffold lawfully erected over a public sidewalk.
While Defendant was trying to park her automobile near one of the supports of the scaffold, Defendant maneuvered it into such a position that she knew there was a risk of knocking the scaffold down if she backed up without someone to guide her. She appealed for help from bystanders, but got not help. Angry that she got no help, she proceeded to back up the automobile without assistance and knocked a support out from under the scaffold causing Plaintiff to fall and become severely injured.
What rights, if any, does Plaintiff have against Defendant?
Give me some answers. What can Plaintiff sue Defendant for?
Also... for the non-lawyers out there... DID YOU KNOW:
THAT THE POLICE CAN LIE TO YOU IN INTERVIEWS & INTERROGATIONS?
In other words... Imagine you're enjoying a nice Tuesday evening at home taking some rips from your beloved bong while watching Jeopardy. All of a sudden the cops come busting into your house. They have a search warrant but they forgo the knock and announce because there is exigency. They slap the bong from your stunned and stoned face, flip you onto your beer gut, cuff you, and haul your candy ass in an interrogation room back at the police station. They then tell you that your DNA was found on a murder victim. That statement is a lie. You don't know it though. Shocked, and in a stupor, you knowingly and intelligently waive your right to remain silent and make some stupid incriminating remarks. Three weeks later, after arraignment, prelim, and trial, your butt is sitting in prison for a crime you didn't commit.
Is that fair?
Is it fair that police can lie to people they are interrogating?
Some might say it's fair because whether or not the police lie to you, an innocent person would never admit to a crime they didn't commit. But in actuality, such reasoning is false. Innocent people admit to committing crimes they didn't commit in shocking frequency. Some do it because they get tricked into thinking they really did do it (police persuasion that the suspect committed the crime while drunk or high or something and merely can't remember at the moment). Others do it to avoid the stress of the interrogation. Others to avoid threat of physical harm or actual physical harm.
For a great example of this, see this 5 minute youtube video about police interrogation of a teen. The police suspected the teen killed his little sister. He didn't. But by the end of the interrogation the boy had confessed that he had killed his sister when he really didn't.
Now, knowing that you know that innocent people admit to committing crimes that they didn't commit, is it fair that cops can lie to you when they interrogate you?
Here is a funny video of a man faking a heart attack in court. Hilarious. Comedy at its finest.
So tell me fellow CGBers:
(1) What can Plaintiff sue Defendant for?
(2) Is it fair for cops to lie to people they are interrogating?
(3) Oscar worthy performance for the dude who fakes his heart attack in court? Yay or nay?