> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# If you were on a jury, would you have ruled for or against the man’s lawsuit?
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/community-split-over-homeless-mans-lawsuit-this-past-week-q-line-asked-your-reaction-to-the-awarding-of-275-000-to-a-homeless-man-who-was-run-over-by/
- Published: 2003-10-10T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T03:05:13.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Community, Malibu, #archive-import, Homeless

“If you were on a jury, would you have ruled for or against the man’s lawsuit? Why?”

Here are your responses: ■ “If I was on the jury for this homeless man, I would not have given him anything. In the first place, he doesn’t belong in California; second place, he should not have been sleeping on the beach. If he slept in a doorway, no trucks would run over him. I think that all the homeless living in Santa Monica should be picked up and taken to Malibu, Culver City, Venice and all the other cities so we don’t have to take care of them and spend all of our money. I pay taxes in this city, and I expect my money to go to righteous people, not a homeless man who sleeps on the beach.” ■ “Yes, the jury should have found the city guilty. (I would have ) if I was sitting on the jury with the facts that I know now. Since I wasn’t on the jury, and no one else was on the jury, we don’t know any other facts. Liability is liability. When driving a vehicle and you hit someone, even if they’re trespassing, liability is liability. The person should not have been run over, even if it was an accident. Yes, they should have been arrested because the beach is closed at certain hours. But just because they weren’t arrested, that doesn’t give the city or anyone else the right to run over them. If you’re going to comb the beaches, you should have plenty of lights to see what you’re driving over so that accidents do not happen. But it does not excuse that an accident happened. That’s why the city should be out there enforcing the camping laws more vigorously. When they give parking tickets out for street sweeping, the street sweeper does-n’t run over cars... it goes around them. The city should have paid. I don’t like the idea, but they should have paid.” ■ “I would probably never make it to the jury because I would argue that the homeless are not like the ordinary citizens who just happen to be (in the wrong) place at the wrong time. This lawsuit settlement is just one more reason that the city should not put out the welcome mat for the homeless.” ■ “I would have ruled against (the homeless man) based on the fact that prior to living on the beach, the individual could, legally, be considered a vagrant. There is a vagrancy law on the books, but nobody pays any attention to it. One of the things that should be looked at very closely is that Ed Silverstein, a freelance writer, spelled it out explicitly (“City council faces Sophie’s Choice for homeless,” Oct. 8) in the Daily Press. His synopsis of what has happened to the city is so accurate... that anything else pales by comparison... to describe the homeless problems in this community. Santa Monica, by far and large, has the biggest homeless problem in the United States. There isn’t any other city that has so many homeless for such a small population, and tries to do so much but fails constantly. It is the City Council that is at fault. Also, the lack of enforcing the vagrancy law is at the root of this.” ■ “I would have ruled for the man’s lawsuit because thousands of homeless people sleep on public property and dozens of them are injured in accidents in parking lots and streets. But the beach is a little different because he was injured while sleeping during the day when anyone could have been lying on the beach during the day. I don’t know how these tractors cannot see someone lying on the beach during the day. I have laid on the beach during the day, when the weather was good, and have been apprehensive, even when I’ve been walking by the tractors coming along.

Now, when it comes to the streets and public parking lots, that’s a little different because those aren’t areas where people are expected to be lying down. I feel this man did deserve to have money awarded to him for his injuries and the man driving the tractor should have been a little more careful.” ■ “I would have ruled for the man’s lawsuit. In fact, I would have given him the $1 million because I was in the medical field for 30 years and these kinds of injuries that that guy suffered could have a lasting effect on him. Regardless of whether or not a person is homeless, if someone gets injured by the city — take, for example, the tree that fell on the car and the guy got $1 million — I hope that this guy, when he has settled his case, got his medical bills paid. Because if he did-n’t, then he’s screwed. Also, the attorney should be paid for this. The city is responsible. The city shouldn’t be so careless. It could have been anyone on the beach. “ ■ “I would have voted against it because he was sleeping in a place that was not to be slept in, and the whole thing was an accident. He shouldn’t even have had a lawsuit against the city. I can’t understand why, in our city, people are getting away with murder, especially when every homeless man is getting away with (breaking) every rule in the book.” ■ “How can you ask the question when you don’t know anything about the case?”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 10, 2003.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/101003.pdf?ref=smdp.com)