| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2007 11:05:35 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by crayon:
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? |
Guess what one of those TV judges would do to this guy ... Judge Mathis or one of his cohorts would take him to the cleaners! |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 11:09:57 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
If I fall on someone's sidewalk, I am perfectly capable of pinning the blame on my own clumsiness. |
As I understand it, the homeowner is only liable if the walkway has a vertical irregularity between 1/4 and 3/4 inch. If it's lower than that it shouldn't be considered a hazard; higher than that, you should have seen it and avoided the problem. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 11:11:46 PM · #28 |
Uhhhh... it was kinda meant to be a hypothetical example.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
If I fall on someone's sidewalk, I am perfectly capable of pinning the blame on my own clumsiness. |
As I understand it, the homeowner is only liable if the walkway has a vertical irregularity between 1/4 and 3/4 inch. If it's lower than that it shouldn't be considered a hazard; higher than that, you should have seen it and avoided the problem. |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 11:16:59 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Uhhhh... it was kinda meant to be a hypothetical example. |
Lawyers love posing hypotheticals ... : ) |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 11:26:38 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Lawyers love posing hypotheticals ... : ) |
Well, here are just a couple NON-hypotheticals (sorry, but this is one of those subjects that really set me off, especially when someone suggests that I'd be first in line to cash in on an incident if given the chance).
Three years ago (August 1, 2004 to be exact), my daughter, who was 5 at the time was backed over by a pickup truck. Did we sue the couple in the truck for the mental anguish (and believe me there was mental anguish involved -- much more so for me than for my daughter)?
No, I thanked the good Lord that the only result was three broken bones, and that my daughter is perfectly healthy today.
Last year we ate at a restaurant, and my daughter bit into a dinner roll, and there was an actual piece of a rubber glove inside it. Did we run to the news stations, file lawsuits and go nuts? No, they bent over backwards apologizing to us, insisted on giving us our meals for free, and we've been back many times since then.
Honest people make honest mistakes sometimes. Why is it so necessary to blow things so far out of proportion?
Not all of us are looking for their "free ticket" in life, especially at someone else's expense. And I find it absolutely pathetic that not only are there so many people out there who just seem to seek that free ticket, but we have these law firms planting that very idea in people's minds.
Pathetic.
Message edited by author 2007-05-25 23:29:10. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 01:25:43 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Lawyers love posing hypotheticals ... : ) |
Honest people make honest mistakes sometimes. Why is it so necessary to blow things so far out of proportion? |
It's not -- I agree with you. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 01:34:56 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
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. |
I didn't mean that you'd sue over a "slip and fall" claim but, how would you feel if you were in a SERIOUS accident, caused by another's negligence, that left you a quadriplegic, unable to care for your self let alone provide for your family?
The insurance company of the negligent party is certainly not going to offer a settlement that will come anywhere near taking care of your needs over your lifetime, not to mention those of your family. Your actual medical expenses are only a fraction of your financial worries since it's unlikely that you'd ever be earning an income again. Can you afford not to work for the rest of your life? If you are already wealthy enough that such an event would have no financial downside for your family, you are one of the very lucky few. It'd be bad enough that you'd be paying for someone else's poor decision by having your body left useless and destroyed, but are you really saying that you'd be unwilling to pursue legal action against another in order to preserve your family's standard of living?
What if your daughter had not been so fortunate and had sustained serious debilitating injuries? Would you have accepted whatever the other party's insurance company offered? I can guarantee that they would try to get off for as little as possible, regardless of the effect on your family. What price would you place on the loss of her potential? I seriously hope that you never face such questions, but don't be so harsh when judging the actions of those who do face that reality.
Message edited by author 2007-05-26 01:49:49. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 01:49:36 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I didn't mean that you'd sue over a "slip and fall" claim but, how would you feel if you were in an accident, caused by another's negligence, that left you a quadriplegic, unable to care for your self let alone provide for your family?
|
I don't think anyone is saying that there's NEVER a case that deserves to go to trial, just that it's gotten WAYYYYY out of hand, and society in general is too quick to place the blame with anyone and everyone else. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 01:52:30 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I didn't mean that you'd sue over a "slip and fall" claim but, how would you feel if you were in an accident, caused by another's negligence, that left you a quadriplegic, unable to care for your self let alone provide for your family?
|
I don't think anyone is saying that there's NEVER a case that deserves to go to trial, just that it's gotten WAYYYYY out of hand, and society in general is too quick to place the blame with anyone and everyone else. |
Most of the "frivolous" lawsuits are not filed with the intention of actually going to trial. It's much easier to squeeze a settlement out of a defendant who just wants the nightmare to end than it is to win a case against a determined and well prepared defendant. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 08:32:53 AM · #35 |
As I understand it, a stranger could climb over my locked fence with the intention of robbing my house, trip on the steps and break his/her leg, and take ME to court for damages!
A number of years ago, a nonprofit animal oriented organization I am with was at a public event when a kid in the crowd pulled the tail of one of our llamas. The llama jumped and stepped on a womans foot and sprained her ankle. No question she needed medical care and at first, that was all she wanted us to cover. When she got home someone suggested she see a lawyer, and she did.
The lawsuit she filed was for $50,000 and included money for permanent trauma (she claims now she is terrified of llamas) and loss of conjugal
rights with her husband. Her husband also sued for loss of conjugal rights in the amount of $15,000.
The judge paid her $15,000 and threw the rest out of court. (yay judge!) |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 10:34:23 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I didn't mean that you'd sue over a "slip and fall" claim but, how would you feel if you were in a SERIOUS accident, caused by another's negligence, that left you a quadriplegic, unable to care for your self let alone provide for your family? |
This thread isn't about someone who has a "legitimate" lawsuit. This thread is about a moron who is trying to cash in on the loss of his son when it was his son's fault (and no one else's). It's a thread about accepting personal responsibility, and the fact that many in our society are seemingly incapable of doing this any longer.
Of course if I were in a serious accident caused by someone else's negligence, I would expect that my care was going to be covered by them or their insurance company. That would not be an act of greed on my part; that would be something a person is rightfully due.
If you read my posts and the original message, this is about people who are using the legal system as their free ride through life. I'm vehemently against people who just can't wait to sue someone to satisfy their inflated sense of entitlement.
Message edited by author 2007-05-26 10:44:54. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 11:45:09 AM · #37 |
Yes, but many of the posts, yours included, vilify personal injury attorneys. Yet these same attorneys are the ones who will make sure you're taken care of in the event of a personal tragedy caused by another's neglect.
FWIW, the insurance company doesn't care about you, your family or your loss. All they want to do is minimize their costs and that means paying the injured party as little as possible. Also, there's a limit to the liability that the insurance company has. Anything beyond that you will have to go through the courts and that means personal injury attorneys. As for the "ridiculous" awards, they not only serve to cover the expenses of the injured party, they are also intended as punishment for the negligence of the injuring party. Where else is the deterrent to negligence? Some people act responsibly because they honestly care about other people. Others do not, they only care about themselves and if it were not for the fear of being sued, they would do as they pleased, without regard for the safety of others.
I do agree that some people take advantage of their right to settle a dispute with another party in a court of law, but I'd much rather have the freedom to access the court at will than to risk being excluded in the event of a true need.
Message edited by author 2007-05-26 11:45:43. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 12:52:36 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, but many of the posts, yours included, vilify personal injury attorneys. Yet these same attorneys are the ones who will make sure you're taken care of in the event of a personal tragedy caused by another's neglect.
FWIW, the insurance company doesn't care about you, your family or your loss... |
Yes, and that army of selfless personal injury attorneys are airing all those well thought-out commercials and promising millions in compensation out of the goodness of their hearts. |
|
|
|
05/26/2007 01:00:06 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, and that army of selfless personal injury attorneys are airing all those well thought-out commercials and promising millions in compensation out of the goodness of their hearts. |
Bingo. |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 12:00:32 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Louis:
that army of selfless personal injury attorneys are airing all those well thought-out commercials and promising millions in compensation out of the goodness of their hearts. |
..and their bank accounts |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 01:28:26 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, but many of the posts, yours included, vilify personal injury attorneys. Yet these same attorneys are the ones who will make sure you're taken care of in the event of a personal tragedy caused by another's neglect.
FWIW, the insurance company doesn't care about you, your family or your loss... |
Yes, and that army of selfless personal injury attorneys are airing all those well thought-out commercials and promising millions in compensation out of the goodness of their hearts. |
Do you then advocate restricting access to the legal system for recourse?
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 02:16:28 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, but many of the posts, yours included, vilify personal injury attorneys. Yet these same attorneys are the ones who will make sure you're taken care of in the event of a personal tragedy caused by another's neglect.
FWIW, the insurance company doesn't care about you, your family or your loss... |
Yes, and that army of selfless personal injury attorneys are airing all those well thought-out commercials and promising millions in compensation out of the goodness of their hearts. |
Do you then advocate restricting access to the legal system for recourse? |
What about harsh penalties for frivolous lawsuits both to the client and the lawyer?
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 04:36:43 AM · #43 |
I'm from the US, living in the UK, teaching in a law school -- how's that for not being DNMC?? :)
Courts in various places have procedures for dealing with inappropriate or abusive claims. I hope they are in place here (for the dry cleaning case), and that this admitted lawyer and administrative law judge (ostensibly with a "place" in the system of law and justice) gets what he deserves. He's an ass, but he's not more of an ass for using the courts; it's just the kind of ass that he is.
At least no one has yet mentioned the McDonald's coffee case (which people, once people actually get the full facts of it, often think the plaintiff was [iunder[/i]compensated in the end).
There are larger issues in any discussion of individual cases; if anyone can design a perfect justice system, then do it. The one the U.S. has is actually pretty good, as most lawyers will agree (most do not advertise on TV, for example, and TV is a horrible way to find a lawyer).
As for the OP's case (that started this), I am astounded that people think a restaurant that serves people alcohol should not be responsible for what they do when they leave. As the Canadian court pointed out, they have an incentive (money) to serve more. Why should I pay for that with my life? If the problem is the person suing (ie, the drinker), why is the duty to protect against drinking and driving limited to the non-drinker? That doesn't make sense to me. If I go to a bar, and expect to have one drink, and I "end up" having ten, I am no longer in any position to make a choice about my driving. The bar owner/worker/manager is. And they should do so. I shouldn't be absolved of liability if I drive, even though it is not a "choice" in the normal sense of the word (that excuse worked for far too long), but just because I'm responsible doesn't make others any less responsible for the part they've played (which, by the way, is all they will be held responsible for).
One thing about lawyers that drives the general public nuts is that lawyers are always willing to look at all sides. Here, I have no idea what the facts of the tow truck operator and car driver were. But I hear "no flares, long time (ie, reasonable time) to move the car out of the way which wasn't done" and I think it's worth asking a court about the reasonableness of their actions. The court may decide a non-drunk person could have avoided the truck and car; that's that, then. But if the court decides that's not the case, then they are at least partially responsible for this man's death.
One final thing to mention: many times people make money by cutting corners. You implicitly approve this in your decision making. What if the restaurant didn't train new staff because it took time and money to do so, cutting into their profits? What if they were just too lazy as owners to do the training? So, a new person starts, that new person is also lazy, and the restaurant owners know this, but he's cheap because he's lazy. Then your glove example happens. You forgive; of course you do, people make mistakes. But it happens the next week, and the next, and then someone gets X disease (hepatitis, let's say). Why? Because he wasn't paying attention, cut himself, bled in the food, because he was untrained, and sloppy, and couldn't care less. Yes, an exaggeration of circumstances (a hypothetical), but the point is this: when you forgive mistakes, especially in a commercial setting, you are making a host of assumptions regarding the mindset of the individuals involved that are not necessarily justified. Perhaps you start from, "Turn the other cheek," a mantra dictators and bullies love. I don't. I start from, "Take care, and I'll do the same."
People make mistakes. But even then, the question is, who should pay? Would your response to the truck that hit your daughter change if the drivers didn't have insurance and didn't want to pay her medical bills? Or if they had failed to get their truck inspected (let's say to save the money on potential repairs) and the emergency brake had failed? Or if your daughter was the fourth to be run over by them and their truck? You made a choice given what you saw and knew about the situation. That is entirely appropriate. The system could not survive if each mistake, even those where there is legal culpability, were brought to suit (or even to claim). But where we begin to expect forgiveness, especially in the marketplace, then market participants actually have a way to exploit that and externalize costs that should be internalized.
Best,
Rob |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 05:22:04 AM · #44 |
In my opinion if you're too stupid to know when you've had too many then it's your responsibility to stop. Not someone elses! But, I know the law doesn't back up my opinion!
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 05:40:48 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Makka:
In my opinion if you're too stupid to know when you've had too many then it's your responsibility to stop. Not someone elses! But, I know the law doesn't back up my opinion! |
This is my feeling as well. We continue to move more and more away from personal responsibility. Bars may be out to make money but last time I checked they don't shove drinks into people's mouths. No that's more likely to occur at private parties particularly at college settings yet according to Canadien law that's ok.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 09:17:42 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by rheverly:
As for the OP's case (that started this), I am astounded that people think a restaurant that serves people alcohol should not be responsible for what they do when they leave.
Best,
Rob |
Does this count if they rape, rob, or shoot (murder) someone after they leave, also?
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 09:57:57 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
As for the OP's case (that started this), I am astounded that people think a restaurant that serves people alcohol should not be responsible for what they do when they leave.
Best,
Rob |
In this instance I am more inclined to think that a lot of the comments are relative to the degree of culpability of the tow truck driver and the driver of the stalled vehicle. It must also be borne in mind that most people are rightfully offended by the fact that the primary cause of this mishap are the actions of the deceased, yet all we are offered is essentially a form of "Justification" and no acknowledgment of the fact that the course of action of this person could be viewed as being the primary cause of of the ensuing events.
Originally posted by rheverly:
Does this count if they rape, rob, or shoot (murder) someone after they leave, also? |
... an interesting point, and I remain convinced someone is apt to litigate using this very premise.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-05-27 09:58:47. |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:11:47 AM · #48 |
Hey, the stalled vehicle and tow truck driver were stopped and there to be seen.
If it had been a child standing on the side of the road, would there be as much sympathy for the drunk driver?
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:21:14 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by L2:
Hey, the stalled vehicle and tow truck driver were stopped and there to be seen.
If it had been a child standing on the side of the road, would there be as much sympathy for the drunk driver? |
I do hope this was not directed at me, as I have no sympathy at all for the driver.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 11:09:46 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
As for the OP's case (that started this), I am astounded that people think a restaurant that serves people alcohol should not be responsible for what they do when they leave.
Best,
Rob |
In this instance I am more inclined to think that a lot of the comments are relative to the degree of culpability of the tow truck driver and the driver of the stalled vehicle. It must also be borne in mind that most people are rightfully offended by the fact that the primary cause of this mishap are the actions of the deceased, yet all we are offered is essentially a form of "Justification" and no acknowledgment of the fact that the course of action of this person could be viewed as being the primary cause of of the ensuing events. |
Do we actually have enough facts to know the "primary cause"? No, we all think we know it because the driver was drunk (As L2 said, "they were stopped and there to be seen"). How do we know this? In fact, we don't, and it is an assumption the law doesn't make. There is a legal and factual question raised as to whether the actions of the driver and the tow truck operator were negligent. I haven't seen any report that answers this with other than the contradictory assertions of the various parties. Time for court.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Does this count if they rape, rob, or shoot (murder) someone after they leave, also? |
... an interesting point, and I remain convinced someone is apt to litigate using this very premise.
Ray |
I'm doubtful that the bar owners have legal liability for all actions of a person who leaves their premises drunk. Rather, the law imposes specific liability (through specific laws) because drunk driving was so out of control, and the primary people with the power to fix the problem -- people serving alcohol -- were less than inclined to do so. People generally got to bars by car (in the US), and left by car, and bar owners knew it; now they have to check and do something about it. If mass rapes/murders start happening as drunk people leave bars, to the extent of what was an epidemic of deaths by drunk driving, the legislatures might act again.
I believe there have been lawsuits against the creators and distributors of hard-core (I would call it "vicious") pornography by women who have been attacked in a fashion similar to what is portrayed, but these have all failed for claims of "freedom of speech" of the creators/distributors. Who do you think is more responsible (if either) for what their customers do?
I once worked in relation to state legislation (not as a lobbyist); I drafted and presented to a legislator that I knew a law that said that if a legally drunk driver was involved in an auto accident, they were fully and completely legally responsible regardless of the circumstances. If they were sitting at a red traffic light, all their lights on, etc. etc., and were hit from behind by someone who speeding, without a license, and who was not paying attention to the road, the drunk (doing nothing) would be responsible. The legislator wouldn't introduce the bill, and the law has remained. If the drunk driver in this case wasn't legally responsible for the accident (because the negligence of the truck operator & car driver actually caused it by their actions, and a non-drunk person could also have ended up in an accident), then he wasn't legally responsible. That's a question for the courts.
Best,
Rob
P.S. I fixed the quote above from Ray's post, which wasn't mine, but was Tracy's ( dacrazyrn).
P.S.S. I also have little sympathy for Hancock (the driver), by the way; but the law isn't based on sympathy, and I think that's probably a pretty good thing.
edited to fix typo
Message edited by author 2007-05-27 11:11:33. |
|
