Allen Glosson's email asks why criminals injured in the act of committing a crime should have a cause of action in negligence, and he cites various cases he's heard about. It's a good question. I don't have specific answers relative to the specific scenarios to which he referred. I would point out, however, that often what you read about is disseminated through the filter of Big Insurance propaganda.

Thus, regarding the guy who slipped on his ladder and won at trial because of the lack of warnings on the ladder, (1) the incident may or may not have happened at all, (2) the verdict may have been thrown out by the trial judge or reduced, (3) the verdict may have beed reduced or reversed by an appellate court, and (4) maybe there was a reason a jury, that heard ALL the evidence, found in favor o the plaintiff in that possibly-hypothetical case. There's usually more than one side to these cases, and if the defense lawyer who was surely beating up on this purported criminal was not able to sway the jury, then maybe there was something to the case that was not in the report you read.

One of the purposes of this Blog is to encourage readers to realize -- and believe -- that "Trial Lawyers" are not the boogeymen. Just as importantly, I realized just now, is to encourage people to have more faith in their juries -- a reflection of themselves -- than Big Insurance does.