" IT'S THE  LAW"

...excerpts from a column written by our own

Bob Mackay,  George Gunnink, Greg Christofferson and Stuart Robertson

                                                                       let you to be the judge!! .....

__________________________________________

Judges decide the facts based on evidence put forward by lawyers and then apply the law.  Here is a fact pattern   - how would you decide who was at fault?  Fact patterns similar to this one are often presented in court and liability assessed   by judges - test your judgment!

_____________________________________________________________

 HARVEY THE HORSE -  1      HAPPY HONDA - 0

Suzie Q was driving her Honda with her boyfriend and two children aboard.  It was late July and light was fading from dusk to darkness.  They were driving along a paved two lane rural road.  The moon was up but as they approached an intersection, three trees beside the road made that area almost fully dark.  Suzie's car headlights were on.  Suddenly, as they approached the intersection, a riderless horse appeared at full gallop.  As Suzie stopped, the horse collided with her car on the drivers door, went up over the hood, falling to the ground on the passenger's side.  The horse struggled briefly, got up, and fled into the night.  Suzie's car suffered a damaged door, windshield post, and shattered windshield.  Suzie and her boyfriend suffered whiplash injuries.

Immediately before this incident, Rhonda Rider had been enjoying an evening ride on her horse, Harvey.  Rhonda had injured her thumb a year before and it was weak.  Harvey was not skittish by nature and had been ridden over this ground many times in all levels of light and dark.  This time, as he passed two "blue boxes" placed by the roadside, he began sidestepping.  There was a sign and some brush on the off road side of the boxes.  Rather than riding him around on the paved portion of the road, Rhonda decided to dismount.  There was no traffic.  As he approached the boxes, Harvey whirled quickly away, pulling the reigns from Rhonda's hands.  He bolted down the road Rhonda, followed calling his name.

Suzie sues Rhonda.

P.S.   Harvey injured his hip slightly and suffered some cuts but is alive, well and still being ridden.  The Honda was not so lucky.

              If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

GROPING FOR GRAPES

Shopper Sue wanted to pick up a few items for her family.   She went to a large supermarket where she did not ordinarily shop.  Having picked up some apples for her kids' lunches, she then headed toward the meat section to look over some prices.   To her left was a display of grapes.  As she walked by she inadvertently stepped on a grape, slipped and fell, badly injuring her elbow.

Evidence presented at trial showed that Sue was wearing appropriate footwear, as opposed to high heels or other shoes that might contribute to her fall.  The store had not carried out a check of the area for some time.   The grape had undoubtedly come from the display, likely dropped by a careless shopper or even, possibly, by an employee.  Where Sue fell, grapes were displayed for sale in flats.  Customers were expected to buy whole flats of grapes from that location.  In another location in the store was a display of grapes in bulk.  Customers were expected to pick over the grapes and bag the ones they wanted.   In spite of all this, the judge found the store did not have to pay for Sue's injuries.   Why not?

              If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

"CHILD"  SUPPORT

Helen and George were married, separated, and then divorced.  An Order for child support was made in which they agreed to pay each other child support in accordance with the Guidelines for any child of the marriage in his or her care.  There were three children of the marriage including Richard, the oldest.  At the time that the Order for child support was made, Richard was attending community college in British Columbia and living with his father.  However, a short while later, George moved to Alberta.  The parties' youngest son, who had been living with his father, decided to live with his mother.  The parties' daughter was already living with Helen.  Just before the Christmas break, Richard dropped out of school because he said that he had taken too heavy a course load and was falling behind in his grades.  Richard is presently living with his father and is 18 years of age, which is the age of majority in Alberta.  Helen makes an application to court to cancel or suspend child support for Richard.  Helen said that she was told by Richard that he had no plans to return to school and he intended to move out on his own as soon as he could find full-time work.  Richard said he tried to get into university but was late in his application and that he intended to start the next term.

Should the judge grant Helen's application to cancel child support for Richard?

            If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

CASSIE

Joe had three adult children from his first marriage.  Joe got married again and he and his second wife had a daughter, Cassie.  Cassie was born with Down's Syndrome and was placed in foster care from birth.  Joe was required to make support payments and did so until he lost his job when Cassie was seven years of age.  Cassie became a permanent ward of the state when she was 9 years of age.  Cassie continued to live with the foster family who had first taken her in but was never adopted.   The foster family received an allowance from the Ministry of Social Services to help with Cassie's day to day expenses.  Joe died when Cassie was 17 years of age.  Joe left a Will and an estate of approximately $550,000.00.  By the terms of his Will, Joe left $5,000.00 to each of his four grandchildren and divided the balance of his estate among the three adult children from his first marriage..  Joe's second wife made a claim against the estate under the Wills Variation Act and that claim was settled by consent.  A claim was also made on behalf of Cassie.

Should Cassie receive anything from Joe's estate?

              If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ...now click on the Judge to see what he decided! .

QUICK RUNNER NABS DRIVER?

Henry Quick was shopping with his wife.  Returning to put their groceries in his car, he noticed from across the parking lot that George Driver, trying to park, had scraped the side of his vehicle.  With a roar, he dropped his groceries and sprinted across the lot to nab George before he left the scene.  Unfortunately, in his haste, he failed to notice a speed bump.  Henry tripped and fell heavily, injuring his knee badly.  He sued George, arguing that he was only trying to protect his property from a possible hit-and-run.  George replied, "Heck, all I did was scrape the side of his car.  And I wasn't leaving the scene - I was just parking so I could inspect the damage".

Does Henry get compensation for his pain and suffering and lost income?

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

SAM THE SNOWMOBILER

Sam  the snowmobiler offered his friend, Lois, a ride on his snow machine.  Lois was nervous and had never been on one before and asked what she should wear for footwear.  Sam said "wear lots of socks".  Lois did but she wore them inside running shoes.  Once they set out, Lois was extremely nervous about the speed as her foot kept bouncing off the footrest but Sam told her not to be a sissy and continued.  Lois' foot snagged on something and the machine ran over her ankle causing serious injury.  She sued for damages.  Sam argued strongly that Lois should have worn boots and that accidents always happen on snowmobiles anyway.  Should Lois be partially to blame?  As a passenger being treated to a ride by Sam, does she have any rights at all?

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

A DEAL IS A DEAL - OR IS IT?

Young Billy was 19 years of age and had been in a car accident.  As far as he knew, he was going to e O.K. soon, so he signed an Agreement with Goliath Insurance.  the Agreement was that in return for $2,000.00 he would make no further claim, even if his condition was worse than he thought.  Goliath's employee, Sam, was an experienced adjuster and knew there was evidence of more severe injury, which he downplayed.  Billy was an adult and knowingly signed a full Release (the Agreement.)  It turned out that Billy's condition was more severe than either Billy or Sam thought.  Billy sued, arguing that the signed Release should be of no effect.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

"T" FOR TWO

Trucker Tilley was leaving a ski resort and the private road on which she traveled made a T intersection with a public road.  She checked for traffic to her right before exiting onto the public road and was immediately crunched by Driver Dan coming from her left along the road.  Tilly told the Judge "look, I entered the intersection and Dan hit me.  He was on my left so I had the right of way."  Dan argued that he was on the "through" road.

If you were the Judge, would you split liability?  If so, who should bear what proportion of the responsibility for the car accident? .........

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

RIDER BEWARE!

On her way to work one morning, before the sun had come up, Cyclist Carrie was riding her bike on the wrong side of the road.  When she came to an intersection, Carrie carried on through the intersection, riding her bike in the well-lit crosswalk area.  As she was approaching the other side of the road, Irresponsible Ian come speeding in his car along the road Carrie was traveling and made a right turn onto the street that Carrie was crossing.  There was a horrific collision when car met bike and both bike and rider went flying through the air.  Ian did not slow down or stop after the collision, but went along his merry way, oblivious to the accident he had caused.  Fortunately for Carrie, Winny Witness saw the accident happen, gave her first aid and called an ambulance.  Besides serious soft tissue injuries, Carrie suffered fractures o her skull and collarbone and permanent facial scars.  She was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

If you were the Judge, who would you hold responsible?........

.

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

A FREE RIDE WITH A CATCH!

On a very snowy winter evening, Intoxicated Ian was walking down the sidewalk on his way home after visiting his family.  As he was crossing a neighbour's driveway, he slipped and fell.  Very shortly after that, from his position on the ground, he saw the rear end of a full size pickup truck coming toward him.  Careless Carrie was going to back her pickup truck right over Ian!  Ian felt he had no choice but to grab onto whatever he could on the truck until he had a chance to let go.  At this point, anything was better than being driven over.  Ian hung on for a short ride, and then wanted to let go of the vehicle.  However, his coat was snagged on the undercarriage of the truck and Ian was dragged a couple of blocks down the road before the truck finally dropped him.  Needless to say, Ian suffered fairly serious injuries, including fractured ribs, liver tears and bruising to his kidneys.  His first memory after latching on to the truck was waking up in the local hospital. 

If you were the Judge, who would you hold responsible?.......

.

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

A QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP!

Security at a local golf course found a young  man named Zorro walking along the golf course in a wetsuit with a bucket of golf balls.  The police were immediately called to the scene .  The crown laid charges of theft against Zorro claiming that the golf balls are the property of the golf course.

If you were the judge, would Zorro be convicted of this crime?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

HARRY'S HAZZARD!

Patrolman Paul was on his motorcycle approaching a large busy intersection.  Ahead of him he saw a speeding vehicle proceed through the intersection against a red light.  He activated his lights and siren, entered the intersection , on a green light, and turned left when traffic in the first three of four opposing lanes had stopped.  Unfortunately, as he was crossing the fourth lane of traffic in pursuit of the speeder, Happy Harry came barrelling through the intersection (also on a green light) and hit Paul.  Harry had neither seen the flashing lights due to the other vehicles in the intersection, nor had he heard the siren for whatever reason (his radio may have been on, there was a lot of traffic, noise, etc). 

How would you decide?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

STEP PARENT MAINTENANCE!!

Ronald and Susan lived together in a relationship resembling marriage (often referred to as a "common-law relationship) for approximately five years.  Susan's two children from a previous relationship lived with them during their cohabitation.  Ronald stood in the role of a "stepparent" to the children while he resided with Susan.  After the parties' separation, the children continued to reside with their mother on property owned by Ronald prior to the marriage.  Ronald had very little to do with the children at Susan's request.  Ronald voluntarily continued to contribute to their support by paying the mortgage on the residence where thy were residing.  Although there was an order that the children's biological father pay support for them, he did not do so.  Three years after the parties' separation, Ronald was ordered by the Court to pay $500 each month for the interim support of Susan's children.  When the matter came to trial a year later, Ronald argued that he should no longer have to pay support for Susan's children.  By that time, both parties were living in new relationships resembling marriage.

Should Ronald have to pay?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

UNLUCKY LOGGERS!!

Larry and Gary were both employees in the logging industry, and were working at the time of a collision on a narrow gravel logging road.  As Gary rounded a corner in his pick-up truck, he came face to face with Larry, who was driving an empty 25-30 ton logging truck.  They each tried to avoid the collision that resulted, but neither had the time to do so.  Pick-up truck meets logging truck and, predictably, logging truck causes extensive damage to pick-up truck as well as to Gary, who suffered multiple broken ribs.  Each driver insisted that he had radioed his position consistently as he traveled on the road, as is standard safety procedure in the logging industry.  Gary testified that he had been driving approximately 50 km/h just before the accident and Larry testified that he had been driving about 35 km/h.  It was suggested that the speed limit on the road was 60 km/h.

Who was responsible?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

INTERSECTION MAYHEM!

Lefty Larry was driving in the through lane on a road that was three lanes in his direction.  AS he approached a major intersection, he decided that he wished to make a left turn rather than go straight.  He stopped suddenly at the edge of the intersection to wait for traffic to clear so that he could make his left turn.  Poor Penny, following Lefty Larry at a reasonable distance, slammed on her brakes to avoid rear-ending Lefty Larry.  Thankfully, her quick reaction allowed her to avoid an accident with Lefty.  However, as she came to a stop, she was rear-ended by Bumper Barry.  Poor Penny was injured as a result and sued both Lefty Larry and Bumper Barry.

Who was at fault?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

WHOA HORSEY!!

While vacationing at a guest ranch, Novice Neil and his wife and son decided to experiment with trail riding.  This would be the first time on a horse for both Neil and his son, so all three signed up for a "beginner's ride" that was offered by the ranch.  Due to some miscommunication, their trail guide, Calamity Jane, was expecting two rather than three riders, and had to scramble to find a horse for Neil at the last minute.  As they were preparing to commence their ride, Jane gave some very basic instruction about riding and they left for their ride.  During the ride, Neil became quite warm trying to handle his jumpy horse and took off his jacket, stowing it somewhat insecurely on his horse.  Throughout the ride, Neil's son's horse set the pace, traveling at its own speed.  Near the end of the ride, it began to speed up in anticipation of a return to the ranch, and the other 3 horses followed suit.  As the ride became more and more uncontrolled, Neil's jacket came loose and spooked his horse, causing Neil to lose his balance and fall to the ground headlong, resulting in a serious skull fracture.

Who was to blame?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!

A Super Bowl party is hosted by a couple.  The party is a BYOB type.  At the party is a guest who has a known history of Drinking & Driving infractions.  This guest leaves the party in his car at about 1:00 a.m., having consumed around twelve beers.  As he is driving home, he loses control of his car and hits another vehicle, causing serious injuries and death to the occupants.  One of the surviving injured person sues the hosts of the party for their involvement in the events that led to the collision.

If you were the judge, who would you hold responsible?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

EXPERIMENT GONE AWRY

 Labouring Lenny had a history of back problems, in part due to the physical nature of his work. He was to have his back treated surgically to allow him to continue working. His surgeon had Lenny sign releases prior to the surgery. The surgeon decided to try an experimental form of surgery on Lenny by inserting synthetic spacers in his spine.

Five years later, Lenny hurt his back moving a heavy object. He sought medical help again. At this time he was informed of the experimental nature of his previous opera­tion.  He needed a second operation. He sued the doctor who performed the original surgery. Lenny's position was that he had recovered in the past from back strains but could not recover from this episode. He insisted the difference this time was the existence of the spacers. Lenny contended, and the Court accepted, that Lenny had been made aware of the type of surgery that was being performed, but not that it was considered experimental. He insisted that he would not have consented had he known that the procedure was unusual.

 Experts for Lenny and the doctor both agreed that they would not have used the spacers and would have used more conservative surgical techniques. They agreed that the use of the spacers was not accepted universally by the medical community. Both experts also added that it was like that further surgery would have been needed even if more conservative treatment w performed. Lenny argued that when experimental procedures were used, it should up to the defendant to prove that the surgery did not result in the damage claimer.

If you were the judge, who would you hold responsible?.....

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

ANGELINE!!

Angeline was born in Vancouver, in 1987, while her parents were visiting from Hong Kong. After her birth, the family returned to their country of origin. When Angeline became 14 years of age, she returned to Vancouver to live with her aunt and to attend school there. Her parents remained in Hong Kong, but planned to visit her reg­ularly. Although Angeline was entitled to Canadian citizenship by virtue of her birth in Canada, the Vancouver School Board refused to permit her to register for school as a local student, unless she had a local guardian. Application was made in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, for an order that Angeline's parents share joint guardianship of Angeline with her aunt liv­ing in Vancouver. In support of the application was evidence from Angeline, stating that it had always been her wish and dream to return to Canada, attend school there and to make it her home. 

Was an order made granting joint guardianship of Angeline to the aunt and her parents?

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

BORDERLINE ABDUCTION!!

Cindi was unhappy with the situation at her home.  She resided with her grandparents who were her guardians.  The grandparents frequently fought.  Cindi did some babysitting work for Sketchy Stu, who lived just across the border in the United States.  She telephoned Stu to tell him that she was running away and asked for his help.  she stated that she would run away regardless of whether he was involved or not.  the grandparents did not consent to her leaving.  Stu agreed to meet her and take her to his home.  She left her grandparent's home and met him, after which they went across the border to his residence.  The police came and retrieved the child and took her back to her grandparent's place.  Stu was charged with the abduction of a child under 16.

The criminal charge includes a requirement that the child be taken out of the possession of, and against the will of, the guardian.  Stu contended that there was no 'taking'.  He met Cindi after she had removed herself from the grandparent's house on her own initiative.  The crown contended the 'taking' did not require the child to be in the physical possession of the guardian (grandparents) when he met her, nor did it require an element of persuasion for the charge to succeed.  Further Crown contended that the actions of Cindi did not provide Stu with a defence to the charge.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

WHAT A MESS!!

One summer day in a cul-de-sac in Small Town, BC, Mr. Clean and his three daughters ventured outdoors for the weekly pick-up by the local garbage contractor, Oscar, and his helper, Swampy.  Mr. Clean had quite a heap of garbage this week, having done some spring-cleaning around the house.  After Mr. Clean and Swampy had thrown the pile into the back of the truck, Oscar began to drive away.  The truck had moved only a short distance when Mr. Clean's 14 month old daughter, Minnie, screamed, having been run over by one of the truck's front tires.  Oscar did not know that Minnie was outdoors, and had clearly not seen Minnie when he started to drive away because she was in a "blind spot," and he had not been warned that she was near the truck.  Both Swampy and Mr. Clean knew that Minnie was near the truck, but did not warn Oscar.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

RED DEER ROCKET?

Peter "the Red Deer Rocket"  was an over the hill hockey star who was driving along a B.C. highway late at night.  Peter's car left the highway for no apparent reason and Peter was badly injured.  He had no recollection of the accident and couldn't help the Court to try to decide what had caused his accident.  His theory (which was ironically appropriate for a hockey player) was that there was black ice, causing his car to rocket off the highway.  There was circumstantial evidence of temperature and other witnesses who were able to say that it was cold enough to cause black ice.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

FLYING INTO TROUBLE!

Elmer arranged to go on an extended hunting expedition with the help of a guide/outfitting company in British Columbia.  He spent the night at lodgings provided by the outfitter.  The next day, the outfitter provided Elmer with a helicopter flight to a base camp in some remote big game territory.  For the next ten days, Elmer hunted in the area of the base camp.  While in the vicinity of the base camp, Elmer and a guide used horses for transportation.  After ten days of hunting, he was provided with another helicopter ride out to the lodge.  A problem arose in that the Wildlife Act prohibited the use of helicopters to transport hunters or game, and the use of a helicopter while on a hunting expedition.  Elmer and the outfitter were both charged under the Act.  The Crown contended that the use of the helicopter was for the purpose of the hunt an that transporting gear and supplies into the back country by helicopter falls within the phrase "while on a hunting expedition."  Elmer and the outfitter contended that, looking at the provisions of the Act, it was not clear that he was a hunter or on a hunting expedition when he was in the helicopter.  He maintained that he sho8uld not be considered to be a hunter until he commences hunting, and should no longer be considered a hunter when he has finished hunting.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

WATER WARS!

Farmer Fred and Backhoe Barry were country neighbours.  Their land was separated by an abandoned railway, with Fred's land being on a higher grade than Barry's.  One spring, after significant rainfall, Fred's farmland (and source of income) began to flood.  His culverts and normal drains had been plugged by a pack of busy beavers.  He talked to the railway and obtained permission to cut a few holes in the railway dike so that he could drain the water onto Barry's Land.  He spoke with Barry about it, who said that would be okay if Barry could use his backhoe to do the work.  Next thing you know, Barry is out of town and impatient Fred takes matters into his own hands, cutting two large holes in the dike.  Barry's land begins to flood.  His driveway and yard are ruined and as soon as possible he uses his backhoe to plug the holes in the dike.  Fred's land floods again.  Barry and Fred sue each other fro damages caused by the flooding.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

BEWARE - YOU MAY GET BENCHED!

Cal from Calgary was visiting the BC Seaside town of Black Rock when the town was sponsoring a fireworks display.  Cal arrived early and wanted to reserve a park bench for his family.  He sat down on one "in normal fashion" and it promptly collapsed, injuring him badly.  A witness, who happened to be a Town Councillor, had observed an unknown runner jumping on the bench.  thereby breaking its bolt mounts, some time in the half hour before the incident.  The runner didn't not stop; the Town Councillor did not immediately report the initial toppling; and some time before Cal came along, a mystery person re-erected the bench.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

BAD FIRST IMPRESSION!

Bernie found a car that suited his tastes.  However, instead of seeking assistance from a sales person, Bernie took the key out of the ignition and made an impression of it in plasticine that he was carrying.  Unfortunately for Bernie, an employee at the dealership witnessed the shenanigans.  Bernie tried to flee but was caught.  Bernie was charged with attempted theft of the automobile.  He was convicted at trial but appealed.  The Appeal Court had to wrestle with whether Bernies's actions constituted an attempt at theft.  Actions that are merely done in preparation for theft without a course of conduct designed to immediately accomplish a purpose are not enough to be considered an "attempt.".

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

LOST DOG!

Sad Sadie dropped her dog, Fido, off at a kennel prior to a trip to Hawaii.  She cares deeply for Fido, and calls the kennel after the first night of the holiday to book activities for the dog.  Sadie is shocked to hear that Fido has just escaped.  She is hysterical and tries, but fails, to book earlier flights home.  She is inconsolable for the remainder of the trip.  In the meantime, the kennel goes to great lengths to find Fido.  A staff member saw Fido escape by pushing aside a loose board.  Staff routinely make visual inspections of the fence-line, and the loose board is not noticeable in this manner.  Dr. Do-Little, the kennel’s veterinarian, admitted that the groundskeeper must have loosened the board by hitting it with his “ride-on” lawn mower.  The dog is never found.

Sadie has signed a waiver that applies to the dog’s stay in the facility.  The waiver includes a clause that states that the kennel, “…shall not be liable for injury, loss of or the death of the animal due to illness, accident or escape or any other cause.”

Sadie sues the kennel for the cost of the ruined Hawaii vacation, telephone expenses from Hawaii, the cost to replace Fido and an amount for pain and suffering.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  ....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

STOP THE PRESS!

Careful Carol was going on a two week holiday. She was concerned about the possibility of a break-in at her residence while she was away. To guard against the possibility of a break-in she used timing devices on lights and set her alarm. She also contacted the newspaper company that she subscribed to and had a hold put on her deliveries. She reasoned that the sight of papers piling up on her front step would be an indicator to unsavoury types that the residence was not occupied. 

About ten days into her vacation, Carol's house was broken into. The creep took over $25,000 worth of her property. Many newspapers from the company she had instructed to put a hold on deliveries were at her front door when the break-in was discovered. Carol reasoned that the pile of papers led to her house being targeted. She sued the newspaper company for the portion of her loss that her home insurance did not cover.

The paper company argued that there could be many reasons why Carol's house was targeted. Without having the thief present to state why he picked her house, they could not know and therefore not blame the newspaper company for causing her loss. They also claimed that it was not reasonable to anticipate the loss Carol incurred by simply failing to put a hold on her deliveries for a period of time.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  .....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

    THE PERPETUAL STUDENT!

 Dead-beat Dan and Bad-choice Brenda were married for 3 years.  They had two children together.  Dan decided to leave Brenda for another woman.  Brenda kept the children.  Brenda obtained an order for sole custody of the children along with an order that Dan pay child support.  Dan saw the children once in a while and paid a modest amount of support when he wasn't between jobs.  Dan had, unfortunately, always been disinterested with the children during the marriage and little had changed after the divorce. 

Brenda eventually met another man by the name of Richie Rich. They fell madly in love and she and the children started living with him in his mansion.  Richie treated the children as his own and spoiled them rotten.  He even sent the children to private school. 

Unfortunately, 8 years later, Richie was caught cheating with another woman.  Brenda left Richie and took the children with her.  Brenda applied to the court for child support for the children from Richie.  Richie refused to pay because Brenda continued to receive child support from Dan.

             If you were the judge, what would you decide?......

  .....now click on the Judge to see what he decided!

            OVER THE LINE!

   Jimbo and his pal went moose hunting on the first day of the hunting season. They knew the local area well.  After driving into the bush they began their search for a moose.  Shortly thereafter, Jimbo fired a shot.  Some time later, two more shots were fired. Then a quad (a small all-terrain unit) was fired up and driven into the bush.

All this activity was monitored by Fish and Wildlife officers from a distant vantage point. The officers went down to check on the activity. They found that part of a fence to an expanse of private land was down and that the men had used the quad to drag a moose (that Jimbo had shot) to their truck. It seems that the moose had been wounded by the first shot, had broken through the fence and stumbled a short distance away. The hunters tracked it on the private land and fired the two killing shots.