Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added example(s)
Added DiffLines:
* AdoptionConflict: The primary conflict of the film is where Max will live. While Max adores Fletcher, Audrey is fed up with him. Fletcher frequently breaks promises to his son in favor of trying to become a partner at his law firm. She is seeing Jerry, and plans to move across the country to Boston with him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* BigDamnHeroes: Greta bails Fletcher from jail when she learns that he had an [[HeelFaceTurn epiphany]] and went "all noble" on his boss.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
** The burglar suing someone because they were injured while breaking and entering into a home? That’s a legal urban legend no such case even exists as Webvideo/LegalEagle [[https://youtu.be/QNnDvdtj9Us pointed out]].[[labelnote:Explanation]]The case seems like a FrivolousLawsuit at first: it's a true story of a burglar suing the people he robbed. But it comes to light that Edward Briney, one of the homeowners, had mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun (aimed downward so as to shoot an intruder's legs, rather than cause a mortal injury) in the farmhouse and rigged it to fire when the north bedroom door was opened — and all of this was done in an unoccupied house, so there wasn't even a potential justification of the homeowners being in danger as they lived elsewhere. A month later, on July 16, 1967, Marvin Katko entered the farmhouse with the intent of robbing the place. When Katko tripped the trigger mechanism, the shotgun fired into his legs at point-blank range. The gunshot wounds required hospitalization, and Katko sued the Brineys after his release from the hospital for his injuries. The case went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, who ruled in Katko's favor. The court said that the Brineys would have had the right to defend themselves had they been there, as a homeowner has no obligation to make their home safe for someone who's robbing them. But using a shotgun booby trap to maim or kill an intruder when the homeowner wasn't present was determined to be unreasonable force, and the Brineys had to pay for Katko's injuries.[[/labelnote]]
to:
** The burglar suing someone because they were injured while breaking and entering into a home? That’s a legal urban legend no such case even exists legend, as Webvideo/LegalEagle [[https://youtu.be/QNnDvdtj9Us pointed out]].out when he took a look at this movie]].[[labelnote:Explanation]]The closest that any case even comes to such a lawsuit is Katko v. Briney, also pointed out by [=LegalEagle=]. The case seems like a FrivolousLawsuit at first: it's a true story of a burglar suing the people he robbed. But it comes to light that Edward Briney, one of the homeowners, had mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun (aimed downward so as to shoot an intruder's legs, rather than cause a mortal injury) in the farmhouse and rigged it to fire when the north bedroom door was opened — and all of this was done in an unoccupied house, so there wasn't even a potential justification of the homeowners being in danger as they lived elsewhere. A month later, on July 16, 1967, Marvin Katko entered the farmhouse with the intent of robbing the place. When Katko tripped the trigger mechanism, the shotgun fired into his legs at point-blank range. The gunshot wounds required hospitalization, and Katko sued the Brineys after his release from the hospital for his injuries. The case went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, who ruled in Katko's favor. The court said that the Brineys would have had the right to defend themselves had they been there, as a homeowner has no obligation to make their home safe for someone who's robbing them. But using a shotgun booby trap to maim or kill an intruder when the homeowner wasn't present was determined to be unreasonable force, and the Brineys had to pay for Katko's injuries.[[/labelnote]]
