^^^Look, I have already left you to your Wikipedia hence I didn't bother to reply your last two posts.

All I know is that I am not about to cite Wikipedia before a law court very soon.

KnowAll:


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/act-of-god#ixzz1hMQ9qMR7



The Slap was an “Act of God” I came about this conclusion after reading the intricacies, intrigueness and the banality if not the vagueness or the ambiguity of this ‘ACT’.

My conclusion- it was an ‘ AOG’ If the good people, both ladies and gentlemen on this forum watched that video again, you would notice what the lady said after she was slapped was even worse than what she said before she was slapped.

The first slap was an involuntary action that can only be attested or pilloried down as an ‘AOG’, after the man of God regained his, consciouness, composure from the what I call a retrun from the spiritual realm, despite the annoying and blasphemous disposition of the lady, the man of God exercised inflamed and uncontrollable restrain and should be commended rather than persecuted.

I think there lies our answer to this difficult question?

First, thanks for starting this thread. Now, you may have made your present point in jest, but it is quite significant.

Enigma:

^^^Look, I have already left you to your Wikipedia hence I didn't bother to reply your last two posts.

All I know is that I am not about to cite Wikipedia before a law court very soon.

Doesn't bother me. I responded mainly because you responded to issues I raised or presumably raised on the bullet-proof issue. I was doing some Economics-related research recently and some of the materials I found on wikpedia I'd be happy to use in court, if called as an expert witness. That's not the same thing as saying that anybody should rely on wikipedia as authority for legal propositions. That's another straw man that does not warrant further waste of time and space.

nlMediator:

Thanks for your response. From the bolded, I see a different and better attitude from your initial response, which was to dismiss some of us as going off the deep end, so much so that it is impossible to have a reasoned dialogue on the issue. It may interest you that a court has made a decision on a case with similar facts to the bullet-proof example I gave. Certainly, the court could have argued that the victim consented to being tested but did not consent to being killed. But it did not. When you consent to certain things, you consent to some other things that logically flow or follow from it. You may have the option of exposing your bosom or not but when you are under pressure in public, that option is not really an option, even in the eyes of the law. And when you're rolling on the floor, smeared with other people's vomit, it sure does not look like what you would opt for. Certainly, you're a reasonable man and would not submit to some of these things. But the applicable standard is not what "you" would do. In fact, much of what we do in Christianity - including simple prayer - is considered unreasonable by many reasonable people. As one who has spent a lot of time with the "intellectual types", I know that for a fact.

What were the facts of that case and what was the court's final verdict (criminal or civil)?

The "reasonable" discussion stems from the explanations on the Wikipedia link that you pointed out. It's been highlighted because those are the considerations the legal world would apply, and it seems valid to discuss it based on the title of this thread.

"But the applicable standard is not what "you" would do" I actually disagree with this since I am also a Christian that attended a ministry similar to Oyedepo's for about 8 years. So the "we" in "what we do in Christianity" would include me as well.

Claus:
. . . .
"But the applicable standard is not what "you" would do" I actually disagree with this since I am also a Christian that attended a ministry similar to Oyedepo's for about 8 years. So the "we" in "what we do in Christianity" would include me as well.

Interestingly, the courts do tend to apply a subjective standard and indeed the test would be what the particular victim would do. Clearly, this particular girl had not consented to being slapped ---- that is the key.

-----

Now a little digression and an exercise in "lawyer-speak": watch the effect of the little word "competent".

"There is no way that a competent* court will find consent" = "If a court finds consent, then the court is not competent*"

Yep and in this case this statement is maintained on my own authority as someone knowledgeable on the law.


*Competent meaning sound on the law and of integrity rather than simply properly constituted.

@NLmediator

Actually, his knowledge of the law seems pretty good. Of course, nobody can be 100% sure of the outcome, but the girl is likely to lose if she sues. If you submit yourself to certain situations, you take what normally goes with it. Volenti non fit injuria. Or Assumption of Risk. And the references to the Constitution, such as right to dignity, are off-point. The rights in the Constitution protect us from abuse by the government and its agents, not from fellow citizens.

Maybe that's why the family of Ananias and sapphira couldn't sue Peter for the death of their parents.

Enigma:

Interestingly, the courts do tend to apply a subjective standard and indeed the test would be what the particular victim would do. Clearly, this particular girl had not consented to being slapped ---- that is the key.

Touche.

Claus:

What were the facts of that case and what was the court's final verdict (criminal or civil)?

The "reasonable" discussion stems from the explanations on the Wikipedia link that you pointed out. It's been highlighted because those are the considerations the legal world would apply, and it seems valid to discuss it based on the title of this thread.

"But the applicable standard is not what "you" would do" I actually disagree with this since I am also a Christian that attended a ministry similar to Oyedepo's for about 8 years. So the "we" in "what we do in Christianity" would include me as well.

No, you missed my point a little. In a particular congregation, not everybody is of the same level of reasonableness. There are educated and uneducated, smart and not so smart, trusting and not so trusting. In deciding what is reasonable, we don't start with the most reasonable folks. We use the average man in that community, not the Ph.D types like you. [This has nothing to do with the subjective standard].

Interesting that everybody is citing to and linking their discussions to the wikipedia article. Yet, all we hear is that wikipedia is useless. We need to make up our minds.

The facts of the case were similar to what I gave you. The court applied volenti non fit injuria to hold the native doctor not liable.

Joagbaje:

@NLmediator

Maybe that's why the family of Ananias and sapphira couldn't sue Peter for the death of their parents.

Lawyers with only a Nigerian license would disagree!

Enigma:

Interestingly, the courts do tend to apply a subjective standard and indeed the test would be what the particular victim would do. Clearly, this particular girl had not consented to being slapped ---- that is the key.

-----

Now a little digression and an exercise in "lawyer-speak": watch the effect of the little word "competent".

"There is no way that a competent* court will find consent" = "If a court finds consent, then the court is not competent*"

Yep and in this case this statement is maintained on my own authority as someone knowledgeable on the law.


*Competent meaning sound on the law and of integrity rather than simply properly constituted.

Competent is in the eyes of the beholder. I alluded to the fact earlier that you do not seem to a currently productive "scholar". Now, it appears you do not read much of current scholarship either. Because an anlaysis of recent cases by the Supreme Court of a number of countries would show different outcomes from what some people expected, even when they do consider such courts very competent (under your definition). Nobody can declare with utmost certainty what a competent court would do.

Claus:

Touche.

This is what I said in my initial post on this issue: "If you submit yourself to certain situations, you take what normally goes with it. Volenti non fit injuria."

And we know the girl has not consented to being slapped, how? Knowing that consent could be express or implied.

Hmmm 

If a court finds consent to being slapped on the part of the girl in that video on the basis of known facts, then the court is incompetent being either unsound on the law or lacking integrity. QED

Said on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law. 

nlMediator:

No, you missed my point a little. In a particular congregation, not everybody is of the same level of reasonableness. There are educated and uneducated, smart and not so smart, trusting and not so trusting. In deciding what is reasonable, we don't start with the most reasonable folks. We use the average man in that community, not the Ph.D types like you. [This has nothing to do with the subjective standard].

Interesting that everybody is citing to and linking their discussions to the wikipedia article. Yet, all we hear is that wikipedia is useless. We need to make up our minds.

The facts of the case were similar to what I gave you. The court applied volenti non fit injuria to hold the native doctor not liable.

Individuals need to make up their minds and be consistent, but conclusions do not have to be unanimous. I referred to the "reasonable" principle in the Wikipedia article that YOU cited. I'm not sure how that has been translated into "everybody, citing and linking their discussions to the Wikipedia article" or advice about people needing to make up their minds about the quality of Wikipedia.

Presumably the native doctor was not liable, in a civil case, because the victim consented to the gunshot test. Brings us full circle to the question of whether the "witch" consented to being slapped.

I'm curious about the criminal element of the native doctor case though because surely that sort of manslaughter must still be a crime - somewhat similar to the euthanasia (mercy killing) laws in the UK, where it is still a crime even if the victim consented.

Claus:
. . .
Presumably the native doctor was not liable, in a civil case, because the victim consented to the gunshot test. Brings us full circle to the question of whether the "witch"

There is a simple explanation. In the Anglo-Nigerian system the trend has been that the defence of volenti is only likely to apply in the witch-doctor type of example. They are sometimes called the "near-suicidal-risk" cases ---- where the risk is so blatant yet the claimant agrees to it, indeed as exemplified by a person who agrees to be shot.

In cases like of the poor girl (labelled a "witch" the courts rarely find volenti as an acceptable defence and, in any event as I said much earlier, you'd be hard pushed to conclude that the girl in that video consented (expressly or impliedly) to being slapped.

Claus:

Individuals need to make up their minds and be consistent, but conclusions do not have to be unanimous. I referred to the "reasonable" principle in the Wikipedia article that YOU cited. I'm not sure how that has been translated into "everybody, citing and linking their discussions to the Wikipedia article" or advice about people needing to make up their minds about the quality of Wikipedia.

Presumably the native doctor was not liable, in a civil case, because the victim consented to the gunshot test. Brings us full circle to the question of whether the "witch" consented to being slapped.

I'm curious about the criminal element of the native doctor case though because surely that sort of manslaughter must still be a crime - somewhat similar to the euthanasia (mercy killing) laws in the UK, where it is still a crime even if the victim consented.

I didn't attack you for mentioning the wikipedia link I provided. I was only trying to confirm its utility, despite relentless attacks to the contrary.

I don't think the crminal aspect is relevant to our discussion. So, I'd rather leave it out.

On whether the girl consented, the truth is that nobody knows, without additional facts. Which is what I've hearped on since the start. Those who presume to know what the girl consented to or what usually obtains in that church are free to continue in that direction. Although I can see some softening in accepting that it may be different if it was a private deliverance session. We never heard such distinction earlier, even when opportunities to do so presented themselves.

Another thing is that I see you bought into the subjective standard diversion. The reality, however, is that you guys are misstating and misapplying the subjective standard. The principle is that if you know of danger and walk into it, you’re responsible. It’s not that if you know there’s danger, but you do not expect the danger to apply to you, you’re free of blame and the other party is responsible for the resulting danger. If you have a church (not saying Oyedepo’s church is one) that believes in deliverance by occasional slaps, advertizes the same on TV and you walk into that church for deliverance and are slapped, it would be ridiculous to claim that even though you knew of the deliverance slaps, you’re too reasonable to expect that to happen to you. However, if the church does not usually administer slaps or you did not know of that, or the practice is so unreasonable, and so you did not reasonably expect a slap, volenti will not avail the defendant. That’s the proper application of the subjective standard. If you have authorities to the contrary, please provide. And I’ll provide at least 20 authorities to support my own position.

For a start, there's this fairly recent case in New York. A prison inmate was injured in an indoor basketball court. He fell into a hole in the floor, that he likely did not even know existed. Subjectively, he could not have consented to it. But the court still held him partially responsible, relying on volenti. The case is Braithwaite v. State, 26 Misc.3d 1239(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 435 (Table)N.Y.Ct.Cl.,2009 (June 26, 2009). I'll provide more facts on it in a separate post for those interested.

If a court finds consent to being slapped (by the wolf in sheep clothing of a pastor) on the part of the girl in that video on the basis of known facts, then the court is incompetent being either unsound on the law or lacking integrity. QED

Said on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law.

Court of Claims of New York.
Robert BRAITHWAITE, Claimant,
v.
STATE of New York, Defendant.
No. 109578.
June 26, 2009.

*1 The Court finds, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Defendant is 50% responsible for personal injuries sustained by Claimant, Robert Braithwaite, on June 7, 2003 when he slipped, tripped and fell while playing basketball in the upper gymnasium at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility (“Arthur Kill”), located in Staten Island, New York. The State failed to address a dangerous condition of which it had notice. The Court also concludes, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Claimant is 50% responsible for his injury on account of his decision to play basketball on the defective court. Claimant alleges that, as a result of his fall, his ankle fractured.

A bifurcated trial, addressing liability issues only, was held on February 10, 2009 in New York, New York. There were three witnesses: Claimant; Michael Brown, a witness to the accident; and Gerald Carlo, a special education teacher at Arthur Kill. Thereafter, the parties requested and were granted additional time to submit post-trial memoranda.

FACTS
The two eyewitnesses, Claimant and Michael Brown, a fellow inmate and basketball player, agree about the particulars of the accident. A basketball game had been in progress for about 45 minutes on the one full basketball court in Arthur Kill's upper gym (Tr., pp. 9–10). Mr. Brown testified that he was standing about 18 feet away from Claimant, who, in turn, was located 15 or 20 feet from the basket, toward the base line (Tr., pp. 19–20). Claimant was defending against another player who had the ball. Mr. Brown remembered Claimant “jumping up in the air and coming down and landing on the floor” (Tr., p. 10). He did not recall any contact between Claimant and the player he was defending against at the time that Mr. Braithwaite left his feet (Tr., pp. 20–21). Claimant testified, “I jumped up in the air to intercept the pass. And I fell. My [left] heel went into the hole and I fell. I fell. I fell on my left side and I sat up. And when I sat up, I[saw] the hole right there” (Tr., p. 29; see also p. 37). Claimant agreed that it was the only hole on that portion of the basketball court (Tr., p. 38). Mr. Brown said that, when the players came over to check on Claimant, “you could see there was a hole in the floor” where he was sitting (Tr., p. 11).

Mr. Brown described the hole as a missing “piece of slat,” measuring about five inches long and perhaps two inches wide (Tr., p. 11). He said that the area was “worn” and that “the hole had been there a while” (Tr., p. 11). Claimant also said that a portion of board “wasn't on the floor,” which he reckoned to be perhaps three or four inches long, two inches wide, and an inch or two deep (Tr., p. 30). Mr. Brown did not see Claimant's foot land in the hole, but said that he was lying right next to it when Mr. Brown went over to him (Tr., pp. 11–12, 22–23). Claimant, likewise, testified that he did not actually see his heel go into the hole because his eyes were on the ball, “but I felt it,” and when he sat up he saw “a hole right next to my foot” (Tr., p. 30; see also p. 37). Several players carried Claimant down stairs and he was taken to the infirmary.

*2 Claimant and Mr. Brown both testified that they had played basketball on that court many times prior to June 7, 2003 (Tr., pp. 18–19, 31). Neither witness could say that he had seen the particular hole prior to the date of the accident, but each said there were several holes on that floor (Tr., pp. 13, 32, 36). Claimant testified “[t]o be honest with you, the floor was in bad shape. There [were] holes all over the floor” (Tr., pp. 32–33). They both agreed that they voluntarily chose to go to the gym that day to play basketball (Tr., pp. 23–24, 37). Mr. Brown also agreed that inmates had a choice as to whether to go to an outdoor yard or to the gymnasium for recreation (Tr., p. 17). Claimant noted, however, that the “outdoor court was in worse condition than the indoor , Listen, nobody would be playing outside, it was a cement floor with a whole bunch of holes and pitches and valleys and nobody played outside” (Tr., pp. 33–34). Both witnesses agreed that: the gym was not cordoned off; prisoners were not prohibited from using it; and there were no warning signs to watch for holes in the floor (Tr., pp. 24, 34).

Gerald Carlo had been a special-needs teacher at Arthur Kill for 27 years in June 2003. In the months preceding the accident, Mr. Carlo had been asked by Arthur Kill's administration to be on the facility's health and safety committee. In that capacity, he inspected the gym and was asked to provide a layperson's assessment of health and safety issues in that portion of the facility, where he did not normally have occasion to visit.

He filed monthly safety and environmental services inspection reports in February, March, May, and again in June 2003 containing his observations (Tr., pp. 42, 44–45; see Exs. 1–4). The written reports cite the gym floor as a safety hazard, in poor condition, with holes and weak spots in the floor (Exs.1–4). Mr. Carlo testified that, if he saw more than nine holes, then he noted holes in the gym floor on his reports, though he did not keep records of the exact number, size, depth or location of those holes (Tr., pp. 52, 54). He based his observations upon walks around the perimeter of the gym because there were always a couple of hundred inmates in the gym playing basketball, handball, or exercising, when he made his inspections (though he agreed that only 10 people would play on the basketball court during a game). He stated that, for security reasons, he was not allowed to visit the gym at other times (Tr., pp. 51, 64–66, 70). Mr. Carlo also made oral reports to the committee, chaired by Kathleen Gerbing, Arthur Kill's Deputy for Administration (Tr., p. 47).

LAW
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, Claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that: (1) Defendant owed Claimant a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) Defendant's breach of that duty was a substantial factor in the events that caused the injury suffered by Claimant .

*3 The State has a duty to maintain its facilities “in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk,” with foreseeability constituting the measure of liability.

That duty extends to the State's institutions, including its correctional facilities. The State is not an insurer of the safety of its inmates, however, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the occurrence of an accident. Moreover, a claimant has the duty to use reasonable care to observe his or her surroundings, to see what is there to be seen and to avoid accidents.

In order to establish a breach of that duty in a slip and fall case, it is incumbent upon Claimant to establish that: (1) a dangerous condition existed; (2) Defendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and failed to alleviate the condition within a reasonable time; and (3) such condition was a substantial factor in the events that caused the injury suffered by Claimant.

With respect to dangerous or defective conditions, there is no minimal dimension test or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable. Rather, it is generally a question for the trier of fact to determine whether such conditions exist based upon “facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance' of the injury”. Some physical defects, however, may be too trivial and slight in nature to be actionable. Where the condition is open and obvious, “the condition is a warning in itself”.

*4 “When an injury arises in the context of a sporting activity, the question of assumption of risk must be considered” to determine whether that doctrine precludes or limits liability ( Masline v. State of New York, Ct Cl, Claim No. 104521, March 31, 2004, Hard, J. [UID No.2004–032–502] ). Two categories of assumption of risk must be distinguished. One “is akin to comparative negligence; it does not bar recovery, but diminishes recovery in the proportion to which [the culpable conduct attributable to a claimant] contributed to the injuries” sustained. The other, is the “primary” assumption of risk doctrine. It asserts that when claimants voluntarily engage in sporting or recreational activities, they may be deemed to have consented “to those injury-causing events, conditions, and risks which are inherent in the activity”. Defendants are relieved from liability “when a consenting participant is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” (“The doctrine also has been extended to the condition of the playing surface. If an athlete is injured as a result of a defect in, or feature of, the field, court, track, or course upon which the sport is being played, the owner of the premises will be protected by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk as long as [the] risk presented by the condition is inherent in the sport”)

As Chief Judge Cardozo stated 80 years ago, “ Volenti non fit injuria. One who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary”

DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of all the evidence, including a review of the exhibits and listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so, the Court finds that Claimant has met his burden, and established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant was negligent in connection with his fall at Arthur Kill. At the same time, as discussed below, the Court further determines that Claimant must bear equal culpability for his accident. Each of the witnesses provided credible and forthright testimony.

Enigma:

If a court finds consent to being slapped (by the wolf in sheep clothing of a pastor) on the part of the girl in that video on the basis of known facts, then the court is incompetent being either unsound on the law or lacking integrity. QED

Said on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law.

I like the the crafty qualifier - "on the basis of known facts". Meaning that additional facts, not now known to the discussant, may change the picture. And that was exactly what I told him in my FIRST response to him on this issue. But he chose to journey along, to prove a non-existent claim. Now, he has come full circle to accept what he should have accepted earlier. And saved us all the bytes and bandwith.

I say again, on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law, that if a court finds that the defence of volenti avails the slap-happy "pastor" on the basis that the girl consented (on the known facts), then the court is incompetent for being unsound on the law or lacking in integrity.

nlMediator:

I didn't attack you for mentioning the wikipedia link I provided. I was only trying to confirm its utility, despite relentless attacks to the contrary.

I don't think the crminal aspect is relevant to our discussion. So, I'd rather leave it out.

On whether the girl consented, the truth is that nobody knows, without additional facts. Which is what I've hearped on since the start. Those who presume to know what the girl consented to or what usually obtains in that church are free to continue in that direction. Although I can see some softening in accepting that it may be different if it was a private deliverance session. We never heard such distinction earlier, even when opportunities to do so presented themselves.

Another thing is that I see you bought into the subjective standard diversion.  The reality, however, is that you guys are misstating and misapplying the subjective standard. The principle is that if you know of danger and walk into it, you’re responsible. It’s not that if you know there’s danger, but you do not expect the danger to apply to you, you’re free of blame and the other party is responsible for the resulting danger. If you have a church (not saying Oyedepo’s church is one) that believes in deliverance by occasional slaps, advertizes the same on TV and you walk into that church for deliverance and are slapped, it would be ridiculous to claim that even though you knew of the deliverance slaps, you’re too reasonable to expect that to happen to you. However, if the church does not usually administer slaps or you did not know of that, or the practice is so unreasonable, and so you did not reasonably expect a slap, volenti will not avail the defendant. That’s the proper application of the subjective standard. If you have authorities to the contrary, please provide. And I’ll provide at least 20 authorities to support my own position.

For a start, there's this fairly recent case in New York. A prison inmate was injured in an indoor basketball court. He fell into a hole in the floor, that he likely did not even know existed. Subjectively, he could not have consented to it. But the court still held him partially responsible, relying on volenti. The case is Braithwaite v. State, 26 Misc.3d 1239(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 435 (Table)N.Y.Ct.Cl.,2009 (June 26, 2009). I'll provide more facts on it in a separate post for those interested.

The girl was slapped in anger while trying to explain her "witchcraft" and we still say nobody knows whether she consented to being slapped!!!

The case of the prison basketball player is clearly different. I skimmed the details you provided and it clearly says the players may not remember that particular hole in the court, but they knew the court was defective and had a number of holes. The players clearly knew and accepted the risks of playing on the court, so your statement about him falling into a hole he "likely did not know existed" is misleading. In any case, the verdict clearly shows that the defendant was also partially responsible, so it's perhaps not the strongest case you could have brought forward. I commend your resourcefulness in this matter though.

I'm not so sure where you got my "buying into the subjective standard diversion". Ironically, my one word response was to stop me from being diverted into an area I knew I didn't have enough information to defend, but to you that one word itself was enough to conclude that I had been diverted.

Also not sure where you "see some softening, if it was a private deliverance session". I suspect that in responding to both Enigma and I, you attribute responses to the wrong person.

I'm jumping off the carousel at this point. Enjoy Christmas!

I'M OUT!!!

I value your contribution to the debate. Happy to leave the discussion at this point too, with these few comments.

The girl could have consented, even if slapped in anger, if such things happen at deliverance sessions at that church and she went there knowing that that is a possibility.

It was not just a one-word response to the subjective standard diversion. It was a word that suggested you considered it a home run!

There was nothing misleading about my commentary on the case. The player knew there were holes in the field, but did not know about that particular hole. Similarly, somebody may know about rough deliverance tactics, but can't claim he did not choose one of those particular tactics (hole in the field). As you rightly said, he knew there were holes there. Same could be said of any person that goes to a church that conducts deliverance by slapping. The subjective standard that was misstated earlier would hold neither the player nor the the girl here responsible. After all, many educated and smart people would not play in such a dangerous basketball court.

Yes, the player was held partly responsible. We've discussed contributory negligence on this thread which shares responsibility.

The private deliverance session was not in reference to you. The person that softened his stance knows himself.

I appreciate your kind words, re my resourcefulness!!

Again I say on my own authority that if a court finds that the defence of volenti avails the white washed sepulchre of a "pastor" on the known facts when the standard is the subjective test whether this particular victim poor girl consented to being slapped, then the court is incompetent for being unsound on the law or lacking integrity.

Fake clerics opening fake schools and doing fake things and getting away with it because they live in a fake land. SMDH, Do we fully realize what we are in? There is no future for this country if we continue like this and just keep shut.