Let's hope the judge actually knows some law

Found this at Overlawyered.com:

'The parents of a 23-year-old activist killed while trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home have sued Caterpillar Inc., the company that made the bulldozer that ran over her. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court here [in Seattle], alleges that Caterpillar violated international and state law by providing specially designed bulldozers to Israeli Defense Forces, knowing the machines would be used to demolish homes and endanger people.' Cindy and Craig Corrie, parents of the late Rachel Corrie, live in Olympia, Wash. (Elizabeth M. Gillespie, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 16).

Let's hope that the judge trying the case is actually familiar with the "assumption of the risk" doctrine. As you can probably tell from the doctrine's name, it means that, if you intentionally engage in a known risky activity -- such as standing directly in front of a huge bulldozer -- you can't later complain if you get hurt. UPDATE: Confederate Yankee has a much broader, and less narrowly legalistic take on the Corrie lawsuit then I do:

I'm surprised that Rachel Corrie's parents aren't suing Evergreen State College, a fourth-tier, radically liberal college in Olympia, Washington. This is where Corrie developed the radically liberal ideology that led her to join up with and be used by terrorists, and this ideology she acquired at ESC appears to be the most culpable suspect in swaying Rachel Corrie's impressionable young mind to the point that she would put her life in such danger.

Read the whole thing here.