People are going Sue-crazy!!!

[Zennie 0]

Quote

No more wrong than cigarette, beer or gun ads.

I agree with the rest of your post except this part.
Most people file suit simply to "stick it to" the person that honked them off. many times these suits are totally meritless. So a relatively innocent party has to cough up money to avoid the even greater expense of proving themselves right in the first place.
There's something seriously wrong with that.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[TequilaGirl 0]

Zennie - I think this is a debate to share over a few beers......are you going to be at Spaceland this weekend???

[GrumpySmurf 0]

But it's one (if not the best) way make a corporation conform. You hit them in the pocket book, even if they have insurance to cover the lawsuits, thier premiums are going to go up, eventually it will be cheaper for them to implement better procedure than face a rash of lawsuits (and settlements) - it's all about cost-effectiveness.

[billvon 3,116]

>No more wrong than cigarette, beer or gun ads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I agree with the rest of your post except this part.
>Most people file suit simply to "stick it to" the person that honked them off. many
> times these suits are totally meritless. There's something seriously wrong with that.
Again, people suing each other frivolously is bad. But to claim that all lawsuits are legalized extortion is like claiming all guns are used to commit crimes. It is the user of the gun who is at fault, not the gun. Similarly, it is the person who files the lawsuit who is at fault, not the person whose job it is to take it through the judicial system.
-bill von

[rgoper 0]

as far as i'm concerned, the principles are the same. it's a lose-lose situation. in our ever growing litigious society it's lawsuits that are ruining our economy, why, because a lot of folks are trying to recover the "free" dollar, when there is no such thing. i know of two different lawsuits going on right now, today at drop zones, when all is said and done, the plaintiffs will recover NOTHING. our ever growing litigious society has even spurred 50 kabillion court shows on t.v. it'za joke man! where does it end, and where does it start? and ultimately, WHO wins?
Richard
"You Talk To Me Like That Again, I'll Sue Ya!"

[skybytch 273]

Quote

But to claim that all lawsuits are legalized extortion is like claiming all guns are used to commit crimes.

I can see two sides to the lawsuit debate. I'm big on personal responsibility in skydiving and for the most part in life in general, but there are occasions when a lawsuit is neccessary.
On the one hand, my last tandem jump ended with the passenger breaking his leg. I maintain that he did not perform as trained - he put his leg down before mine after being trained and practicing after the canopy opened and again being told just before we flared to keep them up and let me land first. It turned out that he was suffering from AIDS and was on numerous medications, at least one of which is known to reduce bone density. None of this information was provided to the dzo or myself prior to the skydive (he lied on the waiver), and had I known this information I would have refused to jump with him due to my relatively low tandem jump numbers. There was at least one TI on the dz that day with far more experience than I had who had jumped with "fragile" passengers before; if we'd known the passenger's medical condition we could have sent him with the more experienced instructor. As it turned out, within two weeks of the incident the passenger was "shopping" local attorneys. There were two well known local attorneys who jumped at the same dz. Both were contacted by several other lawyers asking about the waiver; both told them it wasn't worth their effort to go there. I wasn't too worried about myself as I had nothing that they could have gone after - a P.O.S. car, no home, no savings, etc. - but I was worried about the dzo, aircraft owner and gear manufacturer. No lawsuit was ever filed.
On the other hand, around the same time my son and I were spending a day at the lake with a couple of friends and their Jetski's. My son went out with one of my friends on one ski and another guy was riding the other one right behind them for one last run before we loaded up and went home. They were cruising along when out of the dock area came a guy on a Seadoo. The guy set up like he was going to spray them... well, instead of spraying them he hit them, throwing both of them off the ski, knocking my son out and breaking his arm, screwing up Shaun's hip and busting up the ski. We tried to get information from the lake "police" department afterwards so we could contact the other party and get the medical bills and ski damage taken care of, but they would not release any information. So we hired a lawyer. It wasn't about "sticking it" to the other guy, it was about getting the lake to release the information and getting the other party to take care of the damages he caused. We weren't looking to make money off the situation - we simply wanted the bills paid. Eventually, that's what happened - although my friend did not end up getting enough out of it to cover all of his medical bills, and the ski never did get fixed. Had my son been injured because he ran into someone else we would not have "gone after" anyone - and I would have contacted the other party to make arrangements to take care of their injuries and/or damages.
pull & flare,
lisa

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

Fireproofing is a standard building technique that they skipped on the top floors because they were too cheap.

OK, I'm a bit ignorant here, as I do not know much about construction techniques of large buildings, but I'm fairly good at physics. Do you really think that a 300,000 lb. aircraft (767) or even a 198,000 lb. aircraft (757) carrying thousands of pounds of fuel and moving at that speed would not do enough damage to make fireproofing useless?
...and on a similar note, this suit alleges that this guy's wife survived the initial impact? Somehow I really really really do not believe that...
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[Zennie 0]

Quote

But to claim that all lawsuits are legalized extortion is like claiming all guns are used to commit crimes.

Sorry if I came across that way, because that's not what I meant. I was referring to a subset of lawsuits. Obviously there are many lawsuits that have merit. I'm talking about the ones where:
a. It's pretty clear that people have refused to take responsibility for their own actions; and/or
b. People are trying to cash in on the Legal Lotto for even the most minor slight.

Quote

Do you really think that a 300,000 lb. aircraft (767) or even a 198,000 lb. aircraft (757) carrying thousands of pounds of fuel and moving at that speed would not do enough damage to make fireproofing useless?

The guys I was talking to about this were engineers and I asked that very question. They said the resin is seriously hard stuff that pretty much binds to the steel. So it may get nicked off here and there, but the majority of the fireproofing would remain.
As far as why an alternative wasn't used? Well, the WTC was built back in the 70s and at a time when asbestos was suddenly made illegal. So my guess is there weren't any real alternatives available at the time, or perhaps they weren't sure what structural implications the alternatives would have.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[rgoper 0]

**As far as why an alternative wasn't used? Well, the WTC was built back in the 70s and at a time when asbestos was suddenly made illegal. So my guess is there weren't any real alternatives available at the time, or perhaps they weren't sure what structural implications the alternatives would have.**
all the manufacturers who maybe could have provided the material more than likely declined, afraid they'd be sued in the future, in case it didn't work if something happned.
Richard
"All I Know, Is It Was There When I Left Officer!"

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Zennie - I think this is a debate to share over a few beers......are you going to be at Spaceland this weekend???

Sure will be (assuming remotely jumpable weather). Usually I'm out on Saturdays, but I might go Sunday if Saturday's weather sucks.
I'm always up for chatting about stuff. I'm just going to request that one topic be off-limits. And I think we both know what topic that is.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

OK, I'm a bit ignorant here, as I do not know much about construction techniques of large buildings, but I'm fairly good at physics. Do you really think that a 300,000 lb. aircraft (767) or even a 198,000 lb. aircraft (757) carrying thousands of pounds of fuel and moving at that speed would not do enough damage to make fireproofing useless?

Yes, I do. This is exactly the reason why the first building to be hit lasted over an hour before collapsing, while the second building only lasted about 20 minutes.
The first building had all but the top 7 floors fireproofed, and the second building had only the bottom 20 floors.
Fireproofing is basically insulation that you spray on the steel support beams. It's extremely effective at stopping the steel from softening due to even very extreme heat.
The firepoofing in the first building likely saved many thousands of people who managed to get out. Most of the casualties were in the second building - those who didn't have time to escape.
I'm not pulling this out of my ass, either. There was a very detailed report describing the collapse in the New York Times just a few weeks ago. The lack of fireproofing was a major contributor to the premature collapse of the second building.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[Zennie 0]

Quote

There was a very detailed report describing the collapse in the New York Times just a few weeks ago.

You wouldn't happen to have a link would you? I'd be interested in reading it.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[TequilaGirl 0]

I don't get it......

[AndyMan 7]

The article I had in mind appears to be in the NYTimes Premium archive. I could find it in the searches, but can't link to it because they charge access fees for the premium archive.
There was also a few interesting shows on TLC describe the collapse. They also spoke of the lack of fireproofing in the second tower.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[Zennie 0]

Quote

I don't get it......

Gimme an "E"!
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[TequilaGirl 0]

I get it now - thanks (he he he) I am so smart........

[airdrew20012001 0]

Quote

let's please NOT forget the infamous last page we sign, BEFORE we sky dive. i think it's wrong to sue a d.z. or anyone else for a tragic accident.

Two quick points:
a) No waiver ever excuses negligence. Accidents aren't actionable because they are no fault occurances. Negligence and especially recklessness always are. Think of it this way: if your wife/firned/sister went to a DZ to get a tandem and the instructor wasn't rated, was drunk, had been drunk in the past, and forgot to hook up all but one of the laterals, would you sue when the passenger died?
b) I agree that people sue all the damn time when they shouldn't. We see it every day here at the courthouse. Bad suits brought by stupid people who end up getting nothing and wasting a lot of time and energy. Oh well, the idea is equal access for those who feel wronged. It does get abused but I think it's still a pretty damn good system.
Drewfus McDoofus