Cody Ceci sued for 8 million for freak accident

Ippenator

Registered User
Jan 6, 2016
5,667
4,435
Espoo
You seem to have absolutely zero understanding on what the conversation is about. Legal liability can be defined in any way any legal system wants to define it.

What I claim is that who should be responsible, not who will be given some punishments in some jurisdiction.

What we have is yet another case of you showing off your complete illiteracy.

Anyone with even primitive level of reading comprehension would have understood what I was after in these posts:

" Should car companies be liable if someone drives drunk or goes twice the speed limit, and kills a bunch of people? I dont think so."
" If I go to someone's place, and someone else there misuses a device / does not follow instructions, how is it the owner's fault? "
Ok, so you know-it-all Mr. Muikeabulju know of course better how things should be in these kind of cases than generally approved liability definition through most legal systems and the world wide approved systems for defining liability and covering for it through according insurances or negotiations? Ok, you go on by all means and keep on making a fool of your self... :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fivesberg

Crede777

Deputized
Dec 16, 2009
14,639
4,164
It happened in Canada didn't it?
Yeah but both Canadian and US civil law are based off of English common law. So they're similar.

They both require the same four elements to show negligence.

Here, I think the plantiff's only recourse would be to show that Ceci was negligent in allowing his guests (particularly girlfriend) to get drunk enough that it was foreseeable that something like this would happen.
 
Last edited:

Jugitsu

Registered User
Dec 24, 2016
2,237
1,912
Finland
I'd hate to know what you consider an actual injury.

Your skin getting burnt definitely is an actual injury. But by default, you're not losing your ability to work for a living for the rest of your life. I know it's obviously not that black and white. Every case is unique. The mental trauma alone might cause someone not to be able to function like they used to ever again.

I don't know many burn victims but I know one and he hasn't felt any pain in a very long time. The choice of words on the bolded part is simply because I didn't know a correct term.
 

Ukapitalo

Registered User
Jul 5, 2009
363
220
Santa Cruz, CA
These things are super hard to figure out because of the emotionally charged situation that it involves. No doubt she has been severely scarred. But also no doubt she is super lucky to only come away with those scars.

It makes it even more difficult because the best approach for these kind of things is to think with a rational mind, but how do you do that when emotions override logic? If you're even remotely involved then you can't. If you're a third party, then it's more likely.

But basically, from what I've read, it sounds like a mistake, a freak accident, nothing intentional, whatever. It's like putting your hand on a hot stove.. you literally don't have the choice to keep it there, your brain stem takes over and muscle repulses jerk your hand back. My best guess is this situation is similar to that and also I would guess intoxication to some degree was involved by all parties. Wanting the event to continue meant deciding to re-light the fire, mistake was made, muscle memory took over, a reaction was taken, and an extremely unfortunate consequence came of that.

Dunno where I'm going with this, just sad for all parties involved.
 

dem

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
6,739
2,592
They would be stupid not to sue...

I’m sure Cody Ceci has insurance...
 

The Worst One

Who wants to die?
Oct 5, 2017
2,705
1,710
Money won't heal scars, nor will it help to overcome moral injury. People tend to forget these things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Antropovsky

GOALOFSSON

Game Changer
Jun 6, 2018
2,546
1,820
Aspland
Somebody tossed a flaming bottle on her.

I can't say I know any full details, but ya you kind of can't just throw a flaming bottle at someone and set them on fire without repercussions, especially if the cause of the fire was a mistake by the one who threw it.
 

Samsquanch

Raging Bull Squatch
Nov 28, 2008
8,224
4,965
Sudbury
I can't say I know any full details, but ya you kind of can't just throw a flaming bottle at someone and set them on fire without repercussions, especially if the cause of the fire was a mistake by the one who threw it.

Pretty sure throwing it on purpose would be a bit worse, but Im agreeing with your point ;)
 

razor8

Registered User
Nov 28, 2017
937
712
Common law = marriage

Yeah, well, you won't be held responsible if your common law partner murdered someone out of the blue. How is an accident different? Because money again. It all circles back to money. Money, money, money.

By all means, sue the girlfriend for money. She screwed up, but to go after the guy because he can "afford" to pay millions is scummy. IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedBruin

ref19

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
1,815
709
Yeah, well, you won't be held responsible if your common law partner murdered someone out of the blue. How is an accident different? Because money again. It all circles back to money. Money, money, money.

By all means, sue the girlfriend for money. She screwed up, but to go after the guy because he can "afford" to pay millions is scummy. IMO.
It certainly won't be any skin off Ceci's back. It's not like he's going to write her a check.
 

Jeremy2020

Registered User
Dec 27, 2005
3,171
1,146
Austin, TX
Yeah, well, you won't be held responsible if your common law partner murdered someone out of the blue. How is an accident different? Because money again. It all circles back to money. Money, money, money.

By all means, sue the girlfriend for money. She screwed up, but to go after the guy because he can "afford" to pay millions is scummy. IMO.

She's not a "girlfriend". She's a common law partner (ie Married). If you couldn't go after a common law partner for something that happened in their home then it would be used to avoid repercussions where they'd put the assets in someone else's name.

"Oh, I'm a stay at home wife. I make Zero dollars. Too bad that my husband makes all of the money."
 

paragon

Registered User
May 5, 2010
1,734
1,180
It's pretty insane that Ceci is sued for something he had nothing to do with. Makes me lose sympathy for Engel.
 

tny760

Registered User
Mar 12, 2017
19,493
20,404

"Ceci and Thompson also claim that the alleged injuries, losses and damages Engel suffered were "caused or contributed to by her own negligence."
The defence alleges that Engel was inattentive, endangered her own safety and that she may have been impaired during the incident. Their statement also claims Engel was affected by "illness, injury or disease" before the incident took place."

????????????????

your defense is to claim that the people sitting at your dinner table were negligent to sit there?

oooooooooooooook
 

paragon

Registered User
May 5, 2010
1,734
1,180
She's not a "girlfriend". She's a common law partner (ie Married). If you couldn't go after a common law partner for something that happened in their home then it would be used to avoid repercussions where they'd put the assets in someone else's name.

"Oh, I'm a stay at home wife. I make Zero dollars. Too bad that my husband makes all of the money."
Common law partners in Ontario don't have right to their spouses property. If she's not entitled to his money in a breakup, why should he be liable now?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad