|
Bad
Judges and Tort Law Asshats
Boy Hits Woman With His Leg; Woman Outrageously Sues But, WAIT! |
|
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Flying Body Part Insurance?
18 comments:
-
Walt said...
-
It's injury to third parties that was supposed to be "reasonably foreseeable", which was originally a proximate cause limit. This judge has expanded the possible victims to include the universe. Bet we can guess what party gave birth to this sillly notion
-
1/8/12, 2:19 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Almost unbelievably, there is another story of a person hit by a train in the news:
http://tiny.cc/ancvd
The Moron walked into a moving train.
s2 -
1/8/12, 2:46 PM
-
I-RIGHT-I said...
-
Hopefully the kid's family has an uncle ninja on the way.
-
1/8/12, 2:54 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Lawyer vermin like this deserve nothing but a long, slow and agonizing death and if justice prevails that is exactly how they will all go.
When I first hired into a major electronics manufacturer we were showed a brief clip of a retired Admiral and his speech boiled down to the best thing we could do was kill all lawyers. Oh, and then the screen said that NO EMPLOYEE would ever be forced to join a union to work for them. I liked that then and love it now. Of course there are no balls left there and they would give in like the pussies this current generation has raised.
Bolivar -
1/8/12, 3:06 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I think the callous way the lawyer operated was disturbing, but I have to be honest; if my wrist and shoulder were broken because some kid didn't look both ways before stepping in front of a train, I really wouldn't want to be on the hook for thousands of dollars of medical bills.
The fact that it's a very sad thing doesn't change from the fact that my body is broken through zero fault of my own. -
1/8/12, 3:27 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
What the hell did this 18 year old leave in his estate for this bitch to get? An open three pack of condoms, a flip phone, and '91 Honda with 230,000 miles?
Tim -
1/8/12, 5:05 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
One suspects that Wun Hung Lo's estate will be suing the transit company.
Casca -
1/8/12, 5:23 PM
-
Trialdog said...
-
Plaintiff gets to try her case to a jury. Nothing wrong with that. Her right to trial is preserved under the constitution.
Would it be better if the legislature barred negligence claims involving flying body parts?
Should the federal government find the train transports commuters to Wisconsin and preempt flying body part cases that impact interstate commerce?
Should the suit be barred leaving the state and federal government responsible for the plaintiff's disability and medical care?
Think about this last one Rodge, because it is important.
Right now, FDA rules (yes rules) end up preempting most state court medical device and drug litigation.
Why? Because republicans received donations from medical device and drug manufacturers. So people injured by medical devices and drugs find their right to trial (remember the 7th Amendment?) preempted by federal regulations. The result? The injured people need care and the manufacturers are off the hook. So who pays Rodge? You and I. To fund Medicare and Medicaid or cover losses our insurance pools are on the hook for.
Shouldn't people be able to rely on their constitutionally protected right to trial? Shouldn't those responsible for causing harm pay rather then the state being liable for the damages?
How is it the Tea Party candidates don't recognize this? (Dirty secret - they overlook this for the donations received from medical device and drug manufacturers)
Now, the trial lawyers donate and support the demcong almost exclusively and are very powerful. Suppose, just suppose, how they could support this Tea Party issue and the candidates who support returning the right to trial to the people instead of barring that right through FDA regulation. Imagine. -
1/8/12, 5:35 PM
-
Annoying Mike said...
-
Why is Amtrak running a "high-speed" express train in a busy city, at a station with a pedestrian walkway on the tracks? I've been at these commuter stations. This kid made an error in judgment-not surprising when you see all of the "adults" crossing willy-nilly so they don't miss their commuter train. If you read the original Daily Mail article, you get a different perspective on this unfortunate incident.
-
1/8/12, 5:43 PM
-
I-RIGHT-I said...
-
What's that smell? Stinks to high heaven.
-
1/8/12, 7:27 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
"Would it be better if the legislature barred negligence claims involving flying body parts?"
Disclosure: I see tort litigation (aka 'ambulance chasing) as the most damaging thing to our economy, after Congress (but before unions). Also, my dad and son are both lawyers, of the good kind.
That said, Orly Taitz was fined (upheld) $20,000 for frivolous “Birther” litigation. See where I'm going with this?
The answer to your question is -- Outlaw champerty and institute "Loser Pays" -
1/8/12, 7:29 PM
-
Anonymous said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
-
1/8/12, 8:41 PM
-
Trialdog said...
-
Rodger, loser pays would be great for me, a plaintiff's lawyer who sues insurance companies, because like the vast majority of plaintiff's lawyers, I pursue legitimate claims. I cannot afford to fund losing cases because, as is obvious, I'd go broke very quickly. But if I knew the carriers would have to pay my fee, I could churn those fees like crazy, just like the vast majority of attorneys who work in private firms defending carriers. In fact, I think I might be better at it than them for I know their tricks. The carriers wouldn't like that Rodge; having to pay the pinstrip slickster who always encourages them to pay him exhorbitant fees and then having to pay me. Now, you want to couple that with a ban on contingent fee contracts. The practical effect of such would be to ban the right of trial for those of my clients who cannot afford the thousands and thousands of dollars needed to prosecute a personal injury claim to trial because the pinstrip slicksters have bottomless accounts to draw from and it is necessary I spend money to counter their nonsense. (Rodge, there is an entire industry of "experts" who exist solely off a gullible insurance industry that pays to be told what it wants to believe)
So, as you see, we both have arguments for and against tort claim process. Moving beyond what I consider the cursory discussion, I submit the republicans have long been on the wrong side of the debate, as I argue you are. I consider myself a constitutioinal conservative. A Tea Party member. I argue the republican party should seek to preserve our individual right to trial, not promote policies that close the courthouse doors - either as encouraged by the insurance industry or as encouraged by the medical device and drug manufacturers. You see Rodge, I don't care which party is trying to limit constitutional liberties, the politicians who do so need to go. As the RINO who ignores the 2nd Amendment to curry favor with the left needs to be voted out, so does the republican who ignores the individual right to trial in order to curry favor with the medical device and drug manufacturers or insurance industry.
Again, if you take away an individual's right to trial for damages caused by another, those damages don't just disappear. They get paid. Paid by the state, the feds, or by the pool of insureds having health and disability policies with the same carrier as the injured individual. Thus, those damages are paid by our taxes or premiums. It is wrong to socialize medical and disability costs for the benefit of certain segments of the insurance industry or medical device and drug manufacturers. Those responsible should pay and those injured have the constitutional right to trial for that payment.
Thank you for reading my prior comment and responding. You need not respond to this comment. I've had my say. -
1/8/12, 9:39 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
It's 99% of the lawyers that give the rest a bad name.
Tim -
1/8/12, 11:06 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
"...I consider myself a constitutioinal(sic) conservative. A Tea Party member..."
Lawyerspeak for: I'm not what I'm apparently claiming to be, but if I wrap it in enough verbal prestidigitation, maybe you won't notice the misdirection. -- Skyhawker, Doug -
1/9/12, 10:27 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Sorry, trialdog, I ain't buying a bit of what you're saying.
I have practiced law for almost 30 years and your arguments about churning legal fees to tag insurance companies is specious and you know it, because the judge would have to approve them as is the case in probate court.
What the current system provides (you lose a fortune if you are sued, irrespective of whether you prevail in the litigation) is an incentive for lawyers to sue people for anything or, as frequently, for nothing.
The defendant is out money either way, so in the case of a bogus suit, it is simply easier to pay a modest amount of money to someone who is trying to take advantage than to litigate for years and spend more money to win.
Courts don't enforce Rule 11 sanctions with any frequency.
And having to pay for the litigation costs of the person you wrongfully sued does not equate to denying someone a right to a trial.
You say you take only quality cases, and I believe you, so loser pays legislation shouldn't affect you. -
1/9/12, 10:34 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
The way I see it, *I* and the rest of us citizens will end up paying for the medical bills no matter who wins, no matter who is sued.
If the railroad is sued, and loses, the fares go up .. who pays them?
If the deceased is sued, and loses, the 'victims reparation fund' may end up paying the winner. Where does that money come from?
If the pharma Co that provided the 18 year old with his meds gets sued for distoring his reality, causing him to misjudge, who pays?
You and I who happen to take medication.
No matter who is sued, the winner will get his funds from the rest of us.
Notice the fines CountryWide is paying have been tagged for distribution to SEIU, etc, by Holder and Crew. Not the people who got ripped...
tomw -
1/9/12, 11:36 AM
-
Kristophr said...
-
Then who should pay for this woman's hospital care?
Amtrak ain't ... it's a government agency, the track had warning signs up, and the ticket the lady bought contains a contract to not sue Amtrak unless they do something outrageous.
The 18 year old adult was the dumbass here. She wants a share of what ever please don't sue us money Amtrak might pay his relatives. She should get enough to compensate her for her med bills and loss of any wages she had.
I don't buy this business that this 18 year old asshat's estate gets out of this.
If the kid was rich, jumped off a building, and injured people below him, we wouldn't be hearing any complaints about suing his estate. -
1/9/12, 6:08 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)