| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2007 11:29:47 PM · #1 |
I'm usually pretty easy-going, but this kind of shit just pisses me off. Why can't we take responsibility for our own actions?
Hancock lawsuit |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 11:39:23 PM · #2 |
even if the bar is found responsible, suing the guy who owned the stalled car and tow truck?
geesh. yea, maybe they should have been trying to pull over.
maybe the guy shouldn't have been driving drunk.
admittedly, I don't have all sides of the story, but, still . . . |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 11:42:46 PM · #3 |
| lawyers make lots of money in the US, dont they? |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 11:55:42 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by crayon:
lawyers make lots of money in the US, dont they? |
That'd be the understatement of the year :-)
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 12:09:17 AM · #5 |
| Oh the stories I could tell. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 05:27:29 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by karmat:
even if the bar is found responsible, suing the guy who owned the stalled car and tow truck?
geesh. yea, maybe they should have been trying to pull over.
maybe the guy shouldn't have been driving drunk.
admittedly, I don't have all sides of the story, but, still . . . |
I must admit, I cannot conceive how a bar could be held responsible for ensuring that people don't get into a car and drive after a visit.
I can conceive that if the tow truck did not take the proper precautions, then there may be some fault/negligence and liability (probably insured). However, if the driver was drunk, speeding and driving without due care and attention while using a cell phone, then his level of contributory negligence should almost completely wipe out any fault on the part of the other people.
I am not concerned that people should bring claims when they have proper claims, but I am surprised that it should be something that a grieving family thinks to do immediately after the accident. Rather than being used as a way to settle legitimate claims, it seems to be used as a method of justification, or lashing out in anger, offsetting blame, or avoiding criticism for the unfortunate driver.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 07:00:52 AM · #7 |
What drink or beer was he drinking?
Better get them on the dole, too. Because THEY are the ones that put the alcohol in what he was drinking, anyway. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 08:09:33 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by karmat:
even if the bar is found responsible, suing the guy who owned the stalled car and tow truck?
geesh. yea, maybe they should have been trying to pull over.
maybe the guy shouldn't have been driving drunk.
admittedly, I don't have all sides of the story, but, still . . . |
I must admit, I cannot conceive how a bar could be held responsible for ensuring that people don't get into a car and drive after a visit.
I can conceive that if the tow truck did not take the proper precautions, then there may be some fault/negligence and liability (probably insured). However, if the driver was drunk, speeding and driving without due care and attention while using a cell phone, then his level of contributory negligence should almost completely wipe out any fault on the part of the other people.
I am not concerned that people should bring claims when they have proper claims, but I am surprised that it should be something that a grieving family thinks to do immediately after the accident. Rather than being used as a way to settle legitimate claims, it seems to be used as a method of justification, or lashing out in anger, offsetting blame, or avoiding criticism for the unfortunate driver. |
Welcome to America |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 08:17:09 AM · #9 |
That's just crazy! The scary thing is they'll probably win! As you said, take responsibility for your own actions!
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 08:42:01 AM · #10 |
I think I'm gonna sue Sony, DPC, and all of you for emotional distress...
Username
Votes: 111
Views: 164
Avg Vote: 4.7838
Comments: 0
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 10:51:35 AM · #11 |
Unfortunately from what it looks to me is he's more upset about loosing his cash cow than the reality of loosing a son...
pathetic |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 12:12:24 PM · #12 |
Any chance we could file a class action suit against this idiot for the emotional distress he's causing us?
I hate this crap, too. Since I work out of the house, I keep the TV on as background noise most of the time. And at this time of the day, every other ad is for one lawyer or another, apparently going under the assumption that if you're home at this time of the day, you must have fallen on someone's sidewalk or something.
My blood just boils when I see some of these commercials. We have one law firm, Berger & Green, which has the most unintentionally hilarious ads you'll ever see. The guy stands there and tells you about how much money you're "entitled" to if you've been in an accident, while stock footage of HUGE explosions, crash test dummies, and other really whacky crap plays in the background. I e-mailed them once to tell them how much I laugh at their commercials (pretending to assume that they're meant to be funny). |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 04:34:32 PM · #13 |
Here in Canada, restaurants and bars are legally responsible for the condition of their patrons on leaving. They are liable if a patron gets too drunk at their establishment and causes an accident.
In 2002, a woman left paraplegic by a drunk driver attempted to sue the hosts of the party he was at, claiming the hosts were just as responsible for ensuring their guests weren't drunk as were restaurants. This case went to the Supreme Court, and last year they ruled against her. Full story. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 04:36:59 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Here in Canada, restaurants and bars are legally responsible for the condition of their patrons on leaving. They are liable if a patron gets too drunk at their establishment and causes an accident.
In 2002, a woman left paraplegic by a drunk driver attempted to sue the hosts of the party he was at, claiming the hosts were just as responsible for ensuring their guests weren't drunk as were restaurants. This case went to the Supreme Court, and last year they ruled against her. Full story. |
So are the hosts of house parties. At least in Ontario anyway. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 04:37:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Here in Canada, restaurants and bars are legally responsible for the condition of their patrons on leaving. They are liable if a patron gets too drunk at their establishment and causes an accident.
In 2002, a woman left paraplegic by a drunk driver attempted to sue the hosts of the party he was at, claiming the hosts were just as responsible for ensuring their guests weren't drunk as were restaurants. This case went to the Supreme Court, and last year they ruled against her. Full story. |
So are the hosts of house parties. At least in Ontario anyway. |
According to the Supreme Court ruling, they're not responsible. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 04:40:45 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Any chance we could file a class action suit against this idiot for the emotional distress he's causing us?
I hate this crap, too. Since I work out of the house, I keep the TV on as background noise most of the time. And at this time of the day, every other ad is for one lawyer or another, apparently going under the assumption that if you're home at this time of the day, you must have fallen on someone's sidewalk or something.
My blood just boils when I see some of these commercials. We have one law firm, Berger & Green, which has the most unintentionally hilarious ads you'll ever see. The guy stands there and tells you about how much money you're "entitled" to if you've been in an accident, while stock footage of HUGE explosions, crash test dummies, and other really whacky crap plays in the background. I e-mailed them once to tell them how much I laugh at their commercials (pretending to assume that they're meant to be funny). |
Yet, if you were seriously injured through another person or company's negligence, I bet you'd be on the phone with one of those lawyers pronto. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 04:50:02 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Here in Canada, restaurants and bars are legally responsible for the condition of their patrons on leaving. They are liable if a patron gets too drunk at their establishment and causes an accident.
In 2002, a woman left paraplegic by a drunk driver attempted to sue the hosts of the party he was at, claiming the hosts were just as responsible for ensuring their guests weren't drunk as were restaurants. This case went to the Supreme Court, and last year they ruled against her. Full story. |
So are the hosts of house parties. At least in Ontario anyway. |
According to the Supreme Court ruling, they're not responsible. |
What was the rationale for that decision? Seems very hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 04:57:38 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Here in Canada, restaurants and bars are legally responsible for the condition of their patrons on leaving. They are liable if a patron gets too drunk at their establishment and causes an accident.
In 2002, a woman left paraplegic by a drunk driver attempted to sue the hosts of the party he was at, claiming the hosts were just as responsible for ensuring their guests weren't drunk as were restaurants. This case went to the Supreme Court, and last year they ruled against her. Full story. |
So are the hosts of house parties. At least in Ontario anyway. |
According to the Supreme Court ruling, they're not responsible. |
What was the rationale for that decision? Seems very hypocritical. |
The linked article has the reasoning of the Supreme Court. The main points are:
It listed three reasons for the difference. For one thing, the Supreme Court said, it's much easier for commercial establishments to monitor alcohol consumption of their patrons.
Secondly, the court also noted that the sale and consumption of alcohol is strictly regulated ΓΆ€“ something that sets up different public expectations and attitudes about the consumption of alcohol.
Thirdly, it said the "contractual nature" of the relationship between a bar and a patron is "fundamentally different" from that between a private party's host and his or her guests.
"Unlike the host of a private party, commercial alcohol servers have an incentive not only to serve many drinks, but to serve too many," the Supreme Court said. "Over-consumption is more profitable than responsible consumption."
The Supreme Court said because "a prima facie duty of care has not been established," it had no choice but to dismiss Zoe Childs' appeal.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 09:04:10 PM · #19 |
And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
$67,000,000 Pants |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 09:21:41 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
$67,000,000 Pants |
That is just insane! It seems over there people will find any excuse to sue somebody to make an easy buck. Over here in Australia (at the moment anyway) he'd get laughed out of court and publicly humiliated through the media. To think that he's a judge too! Total crap! Get a new suit and get over it ya fairy!
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 09:23:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
$67,000,000 Pants |
and so is there anything anyone could do about the legal system? looks like it's being exploited by those who knows it. Victims would be normal people like you and me. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 09:59:28 PM · #22 |
| I think the father should add himself to the suit. Obviously he failed as a father, if you accept his line of thinking that everyone else is to blame except the one drinking then climbing into his car. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 10:57:48 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I think the father should add himself to the suit. Obviously he failed as a father, if you accept his line of thinking that everyone else is to blame except the one drinking then climbing into his car. |
Good thinking. I think you're absolutely right. If he (and the mother), hadn't procreated, then this never would have happened.
While we're at it, lets add all the coaches that taught him how to play ball - after all, if he wasn't a professional player, he wouldn't have been in this situation. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 11:03:37 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
$67,000,000 Pants |
I heard this story earlier ... I wonder if the cleaners can counter-sue (or file a criminal complaint) for extortion. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 11:03:44 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yet, if you were seriously injured through another person or company's negligence, I bet you'd be on the phone with one of those lawyers pronto. |
If that ever happened in a legitimate manner (in other words, someone was REALLY at fault other than myself), I guarantee you the ONLY thing I'd be seeking is the actual medical care I needed. Period. These goons are out there to entice people to sue people for all they've got, and it's pathetic.
If I fall on someone's sidewalk, I am perfectly capable of pinning the blame on my own clumsiness. I would not be out there suing the owner of the property, the people who installed the sidewalk, the cement company, God, my eye doctor who prescribed me contact lenses that failed to see the bump in the sidewalk, and my parents for raising such an idiot in the first place.
In short, you'd lose the bet.
Message edited by author 2007-05-25 23:05:15. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 04:14:07 PM EDT.
