Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Lady Falls in Fountain - Suing for an Apology


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#91 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 12:29 AM

I don't know if this was an attempt at condescension, but whatever. No kidding going over the speed limit will reduce reaction time. But if I literally step off the sidewalk into your car, your reaction time doesn't much matter now does it? Obviously, in that kind of case, you'd have the length of the skid marks analyzed and all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, it would be the idiot who walked into traffic without looking who CAUSED the accident...not the 5 mph over. Both are in the wrong, but only one is the cause of the accident. That was the point...and the comparison.


No, I wasn't being condescending. I was explaining it from the standpoint of the law and comparative fault (or comparative negligence). The trial for a situation like this would depend on exactly what you mentioned evidence of the skid marks, reaction times, etc. From the standpoint of the law both people are at fault: but for the pedestrian not paying attention the accident wouldn't have happened AND but for the driver hitting him with his car he wouldn't have been injured.

The law doesn't recognize who is "wrong" in a situation, only the causes. You may very will be right in your hypothetical that the pedestrian was the only cause of the incident. In fact, there's been cases that have gone both ways on this type of situation. Sometimes the pedestrian is at fault regardless of whether the driver was over the limit. Sometimes the driver is still apportioned a percentage of the fault, sometimes none. All those questions are things to be answered by the fact-finder in a case, either the judge or jury.

#92 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 12:33 AM

What kind of tort reform would you propose to prevent this from happening in the future? I can't think of anything. Limit the amount of damages he could ask for? You could do that but how would you decide what's fair amount of damages to ask for?


Here's an idea - maybe limit it to a multiple of the value of the original item. You know - a common sense rough guide. That way when someone walks in asking for 54 mil for a pair of pants, the judge can tell the guy to go get his head examined.

This isn't brain surgery.

#93 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 12:41 AM

Here's an idea - maybe limit it to a multiple of the value of the original item. You know - a common sense rough guide. That way when someone walks in asking for 54 mil for a pair of pants, the judge can tell the guy to go get his head examined.

This isn't brain surgery.


Are you saying to limit the punitive or compensatory damages then? How do you determine the value of the item if it doesn't have a retail value? What if the value of the lost item has a significant sentimental value attached to it?

What I'm saying is, there's just too many question marks with damages to limit what you can plead them on, hence the need for an entire trial to determine their basis. Additionally, limiting the amount of requested damages doesn't change the fact that he still had a valid cause of action and was therefore entitled to sue. They still would have had to pay for a lawyer and defend themselves against the lawsuit.

#94 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 01:14 AM

But at the end of the day, it would be the idiot who walked into traffic without looking who CAUSED the accident...not the 5 mph over. Both are in the wrong, but only one is the cause of the accident. That was the point...and the comparison.


Violating a criminal statute is called "negligence per se." In the majority of jurisdiction it automatically establishes that you breached your duty of care and were negligent as a matter of law. You still need to show causation and damages though. A comparative fault jurisdiction would reduce damages based on the walkers own negligence. The entire point of a speed limit is to protect human life and prevent accidents. If you are speeding and hit someone you deserve to be punished in my opinion. I know its harsh, but you have to draw the line somewhere to protect human life. Your illustration can actually have far greater ramifications than just civil litigation though, in some jurisdiction you can actually be convicted of vehecular homicide. Usually, you'd have to be found to be acting "reckless", but I seem to remember that some courts have actually found 5 miles per hour over the speed limit to be reckless.

#95 Sporadic

Sporadic

    done with this site

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 01:17 AM

Here's an idea - maybe limit it to a multiple of the value of the original item. You know - a common sense rough guide. That way when someone walks in asking for 54 mil for a pair of pants, the judge can tell the guy to go get his head examined.

This isn't brain surgery.


How does limiting the amount you can sue for stop people from filing lawsuits? 60 million or 60 thousand, they still would have had to hire counsel to defend themselves.

#96 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 01:58 AM

How does limiting the amount you can sue for stop people from filing lawsuits? 60 million or 60 thousand, they still would have had to hire counsel to defend themselves.


60K. For a pair of Hickey Freeman pants? When I said a multiple of the value I wasn't talking double digits - I was talking 4 or 5 times max (and that's pushing it).

As for RvB - sentimental value of clothing - well boo fucking hoo. I'm sorry but shit happens in life. Sometimes the cleaner fucks up your favorite pair of pants. If they're willing to pay for a new one, chalk it up as a win and call it a day. Have some judge throw the book at the head at anyone who just wants to gum up the works because they're butt-hurt. F this lawyer game BS.

#97 Sporadic

Sporadic

    done with this site

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:48 AM

60K. For a pair of Hickey Freeman pants? When I said a multiple of the value I wasn't talking double digits - I was talking 4 or 5 times max (and that's pushing it).


And again, what does it really matter what he asks for? It's up to the judge and/or jury to decide what he gets. Limiting what he can ask for literally does nothing to help out the person getting sued, it only hurts the person suing (and I know it is crazy but there are actual lawsuits that have merit)

#98 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 03:26 AM

And again, what does it really matter what he asks for? It's up to the judge and/or jury to decide what he gets. Limiting what he can ask for literally does nothing to help out the person getting sued, it only hurts the person suing (and I know it is crazy but there are actual lawsuits that have merit)


The very least legislators can do is give judges clear autority on when a case can get thrown out. If someone walks in asking for 80K for a lost Macy's sweater, tell that loony-tunes psycho to get the Fuck out of the court room and stop wasting everyone's time.

#99 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 January 2011 - 03:36 AM

The very least legislators can do is give judges clear autority on when a case can get thrown out. If someone walks in asking for 80K for a lost Macy's sweater, tell that loony-tunes psycho to get the Fuck out of the court room and stop wasting everyone's time.


So what you're saying is no suing for clothing? Or are you saying that if you initially ask for too much in damages your case is thrown out without even examining the merits of it?

#100 VipFREAK

VipFREAK

    Fun Knee!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:00 AM

Really? we are still talking about a guy that got burned by his coffee...?

My Summer Motto: "When Nature turns off the damn heat I'll turn off my A/C"


Trade List

#101 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2011 - 12:27 PM

So what you're saying is no suing for clothing? Or are you saying that if you initially ask for too much in damages your case is thrown out without even examining the merits of it?


I think that's a great idea.

But not too much. Way too much. Anything over a multiple of 5 or 10, say.

The law should have a relationship with common sense and reason. In the real world, nice suit pants do not cost over 50 million. I'm trying to figure out the miscommunication here - are these concepts too much for you to grasp?

#102 FeedMeAStrayCat

FeedMeAStrayCat

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 February 2011 - 08:44 AM

This story is hilarious and amazing.

And yeah, I've been to that mall countless times. Grew up around 30-40 minutes away. Hah