(no subject)
the drive from nashville to chicago was agonizing. ten hours is too long to spend inside a car under the best conditions, but after what was pretty much straight 24 hours of packing and moving, it was physical and psychological torture. my dad has next to no confidence in my driving (i don't know why, i have an excellent record) so he took control of the wheel the whole time. we left nashville around 8 pm and i wanted to drive all the way home, but predictably my dad was against the idea. we ended stopping for a little shut eye at a hampton inn somewhere in kentucky. i have a categorical hatred for hotels and like establishments. even the really nice ones never fail to make me feel a little icky and in need of proper cleansing. fortunately the hampton inn wasn't totally seedy and i was able to grab a few hours of fitful z's.
on an interesting note, in the lobby i discovered a brochure for Marengo Cave. Marengo Cave is a US national landmark located in indiana. supposedly "the most profusely decorated cavern with speleothems of highest quality," it offers long walking tours and a 3000 sq ft gift shop. it was also the subject of a law suit that i just studied in property this semester.
the facts of the case are as follows. the entrance of the cave opens onto property (a), but the full length of the cave stretches into adjacent property (b). the owner of property (a) began a business charging people to walk through the cave. some time later owner of property (b) found out about the business and the fact that the caves ran under his property and sued owner of property (a) to keep him from utilizing the portion of the cave that ran under his property. the case was eventually decided in favor of property (b) owner. now, one would think that a rational person in the position of property (b) owner would find a way to play nice with his neighbor while preserving his interest. after all property (b) owner can't even access his portion without going onto property (a), so he might as well collect a reasonable fee and let property (a) owner continue his business unhindered. but no, this guy had his portion taped off and every now and then would buy a ticket to walk through the cave to make sure that no one was entering his portion. the take-away point: people are spiteful bastards and it's fun when cases come to life.
on an interesting note, in the lobby i discovered a brochure for Marengo Cave. Marengo Cave is a US national landmark located in indiana. supposedly "the most profusely decorated cavern with speleothems of highest quality," it offers long walking tours and a 3000 sq ft gift shop. it was also the subject of a law suit that i just studied in property this semester.
the facts of the case are as follows. the entrance of the cave opens onto property (a), but the full length of the cave stretches into adjacent property (b). the owner of property (a) began a business charging people to walk through the cave. some time later owner of property (b) found out about the business and the fact that the caves ran under his property and sued owner of property (a) to keep him from utilizing the portion of the cave that ran under his property. the case was eventually decided in favor of property (b) owner. now, one would think that a rational person in the position of property (b) owner would find a way to play nice with his neighbor while preserving his interest. after all property (b) owner can't even access his portion without going onto property (a), so he might as well collect a reasonable fee and let property (a) owner continue his business unhindered. but no, this guy had his portion taped off and every now and then would buy a ticket to walk through the cave to make sure that no one was entering his portion. the take-away point: people are spiteful bastards and it's fun when cases come to life.