Western classic legal story: Why don't coconut trees in Hawaii bear fruit?

Hawaii, a green emerald, is the 50th state in the United States. Located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it has a humid maritime climate, with mild climate and blooming flowers all year round. Oahu, the capital of the island, is called Honolulu in China. It has a winding coast, vast beaches, clear water, white beaches and whirling coconut groves, attracting many tourists from all over the world every year.

On this beach, which is known as a holiday paradise, there are many famous ones. One is that there are many beautiful women. It is one of the world-famous "four beaches in the world", which is as famous as Miami, Melbourne and Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. On the beach, beautiful women are like clouds every day. The second is that there are many coconut trees. Layers of green coconut groves, accompanied by white water beaches, stretch for dozens of miles, and the exotic scenery is infinite, which makes tourists from all over the world linger.

Coconut trees in Hawaii are as fruitful as those on beaches all over the world. Sweet coconut juice and fruitful coconut trees were once the important advantages of this tourist attraction to attract tourists. However, from one day in the 1960s, an unexpected "coconut killing case" happened, which changed the fate of Hawaiian coconut trees.

It turned out that that day, an American tourist was lying on the beach in the sun. Suddenly, a strong wind blew a ripe coconut from a tree more than 20 meters high and hit the top of the tourist's skull impartially. He came back from the dead.

The younger brother of the deceased was a lawyer in Washington State, who was proficient in civil litigation. After he suddenly received the news of his brother's death, he flew to Hawaii in a hurry to deal with the aftermath. On the beach where the incident happened, he asked around: Who is the owner of this coconut tree? When many people told him that the coconut tree belonged to the state government, he made a decision-sue the state government! A lawsuit was filed in the Hawaiian court. This "coconut killing case" finally caused a sensation in the press. The court will open in three months, and it is said that the audience is crowded with journalists from all over the world.

In court, the younger brother of the deceased put forward the reason for suing the state government: Hawaii is a public beach. Coconut groves on the beach are also public property. The state government of Hawaii is directly responsible for managing all public facilities in this public entertainment place, such as beaches, swimming pools, roads, ditches, street lamps, toilets, fences and coconut trees. Where these public facilities are in disrepair and out of control, resulting in personal injury or death of tourists, the Hawaiian state government has an unshirkable responsibility for dereliction of duty in management and is obliged to make economic compensation for the casualties. What is the price of life? Life is extremely precious and priceless. Moreover, the deceased was a successful businessman who ran a big business before his death. Therefore, the state government is required to compensate the family of the deceased for an astronomical sum of $654.38 billion.

When defending the plaintiff, the lawyer representing the state government of Hawaii reportedly quoted an old saying of China: "Natural and man-made disasters have their own destinies". First, the state government has erected warning signs everywhere in the coconut grove to warn tourists to be careful of coconuts, which has done its utmost for tourists. Second, the accident was purely accidental. At some point, someone was lying under a ripe coconut, just in time, there was a sea breeze blowing. Under the combined action of various natural phenomena, unpredictable "force majeure" occurred. Traditionally, no one has ever been responsible for the damage caused by force majeure. So the state doesn't need to compensate the deceased for a penny. If it wants to complain, it will only complain.

The plaintiff immediately retorted that the warning signs unilaterally erected by the state government completely violated the rights and freedoms of citizens. Tourists spend money to travel, but they are not allowed to travel here and there. Where are the rights and interests of this consumer? Where is the freedom of tourists? As for the defense lawyer's theory of "force majeure", it is even more absurd. The so-called "force majeure" refers to unforeseeable or even unpredictable natural forces, such as volcanoes, earthquakes and hurricanes. And the power of coconut falling from the sky is definitely not "force majeure". Hawaii is full of coconut groves and tourists. There is a sea breeze every day, coconuts fall down every day, and people are in danger of being killed at any time. The state government put up warning signs to prove that they had foreseen this danger, not "unforeseeable". The problem is that although the state government foresaw the danger, it did not fulfill its obligation to actively remove it, but adopted a negative way to restrict the freedom of tourists. Spent a lot of money on advertising to attract a large number of tourists, but left thousands of "coconut bombs" hanging overhead in Qian Qian. When there is a casualty accident, use the words "I have warned" to push the responsibility. This is not dereliction of duty, ignoring citizens' lives, rights and freedoms. What is this?

China's law is written law, while American law has both written law and British case law. Statutory law is characterized by "taking articles as the basis", while case law is characterized by "following precedents". But this coconut killing case is unprecedented in the United States. Since there is no precedent to follow, it can only be handled and "judged" by the judge's conscience. Here, the judge's knowledge and conscience really play an important role in the law. Is his ass sitting on the side of "official" or "people"? Still regardless of the government and the people, just sitting in freedom and justice.