• MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This is for when your ex boyfriend has been stalking you and you go out to dinner and he’s not stalking you this one time, but you can’t enjoy yourself because he might be outside the window taking pictures of you and you don’t know, and your fear is completely reasonable because he’s pulled this shit before.

  • The Assman
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You can sue someone for literally anything, have you not seen Judge Judy?

  • can
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    Let’s put myself right at the top of that list.

    • theOneTrueSpoon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d imagine you wouldn’t sue someone just for this. It’s probably like, if you were paralysed in an accident that someone else caused, you’d sue for damages, etc., as well as loss of enjoyment of life. But I’m not a law person, so maybe I’m wrong

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        law person

        If only there were people trained in law who could function as our representatives in the legal system.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s just a type of injury. Injuries themselves don’t give you a right to sue, you have to be injured by someone else doing something wrong.

      Can I sue for blindness? Yes, if someone caused my blindness in a way that they’d be liable for. Same with other injuries like broken bones or lost employment or embarrassment or paralysis.

      So if someone drives drunk and hits you with their car, paralyzing you and causing loss of enjoyment of life, you can sue them and would have to prove liability (they caused your injury in a way that causes them to have to pay for it) and damages (the amount of money they owe you based on how injured you are). Something like loss of enjoyment of life would be part of the second part of the analysis.

  • Jax
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Whenever I see something like this I’m conflicted. We shouldn’t need to sue for things like this, it shouldn’t ever be allowed to happen in the first place. Obviously do it if you can prove it, I have nothing wrong with the person suing, but it just shouldn’t need to happen in the first place.

    • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      “We should tax things we don’t like” was a sentiment of Ralph Nader’s I liked.

      • higgsboson@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s something nearly all professional economists would agree on as well. Its literally Econ 101. Generally speaking, if a government taxes something, there ends up being less of it. Taxes are a disincentive.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    there is a lot of people who just have issues that can be the source of unhappiness (depression) etc. that may not have been created by an outside source. This is massively problematic in that a person stops learning to cope and just hunting for people to hurt. the lines get mighty blurry between victim and monster.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    If my mother is even still alive I’m sure she’s already wasted all the money from the divorce back in '98.