kallend 2,146 #26 December 30, 2012 Quote Quote Quote I have another brain burner for you guys. What the hell is everyone doing on this website on a Saturday instead of at the DZ??? I have a cold and can't jump. Ditto, so I feel ya. Add in a back injury and a serious lack of funds due to my bank accounts being pilfered by a soon-to-be ex-wife. I've never been so broke and so happy at the same time Well, I did get to fly my newly repainted plane this morning, so it's not ALL bad.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #27 December 30, 2012 QuoteIf it was the rule here in the US, that would stop most of this ridiculous lawsuit craziness. What would stop this lawsuit craziness is if juries would stop awarding damages where none are warranted, and if insurance companies would stop "settling" so many frivolous claims because it is cheaper to settle than to fight. That's short term thinking that just encourages more frivolous lawsuits. Just like the situation with our politicians, where we get the ones we vote for, we "the people" have inflicted this lawsuit situation on ourselves by so often awarding "something" to undeserving plaintiffs for no better reason than that the "big corporation/doctor/school district/whatever" can afford it. If lawsuits were about actual restitution for actual damages, and not about "winning the lottery", there would be no incentive to take frivolous cases to court. Some limits on "punitive damages" would also make sense, I think, as long as there is also some criminal sanctions for reckless behavior that causes harm to others. If a company behaves in a manner that causes harm, and that harm was foreseeable, then company officials (i.e. real people) who approved that decision should stand trial. Awarding triple damages or whatever to the victim just encourages lawsuits over trivial matters, and it may not discourage the behavior if the damages are cheaper for the company than the cost of doing things safely, especially if monetary damages are passed on to shareholders who were not responsible for the reckless behavior. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #28 December 30, 2012 Quote You act like a paltry $100 mil goes very far. It's approximately 70% of the cost of a single F-22 fighter. Gee, I wonder why every, single modern, industrialized nation on Planet Earth - except the US - has some form of truly universal health coverage: it's because instead of spending its staggering affluence mainly on caring for own people, it pisses away its largesse on a criminally bloated military. But that's OK, as long as I know my kids are safe in their beds, protected against hostile Afghan tribesmen. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 December 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf it was the rule here in the US, that would stop most of this ridiculous lawsuit craziness. What would stop this lawsuit craziness is if juries would stop awarding damages where none are warranted, and if insurance companies would stop "settling" so many frivolous claims because it is cheaper to settle than to fight. That's short term thinking that just encourages more frivolous lawsuits. Just like the situation with our politicians, where we get the ones we vote for, we "the people" have inflicted this lawsuit situation on ourselves by so often awarding "something" to undeserving plaintiffs for no better reason than that the "big corporation/doctor/school district/whatever" can afford it. If lawsuits were about actual restitution for actual damages, and not about "winning the lottery", there would be no incentive to take frivolous cases to court. Some limits on "punitive damages" would also make sense, I think, as long as there is also some criminal sanctions for reckless behavior that causes harm to others. If a company behaves in a manner that causes harm, and that harm was foreseeable, then company officials (i.e. real people) who approved that decision should stand trial. Awarding triple damages or whatever to the victim just encourages lawsuits over trivial matters, and it may not discourage the behavior if the damages are cheaper for the company than the cost of doing things safely, especially if monetary damages are passed on to shareholders who were not responsible for the reckless behavior. Don I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, as long as we continue to elect lawyers to political positions, this will continue to get worse. Most of them are nothing more than ambulance chasers who actively seek out clients so they can enrich themselves. Typically, these lawsuits are filed based on what the lawyer(s) determines the "Case is Worth". There will never be any type of tort reform as long as we continue to elect lawyers. Want to know one of the main reasons medical insurance is so expensive? Of course, the crocodile tear-jerkers will proclaim they are not the ones responsible for the large awards. But they use jury consultants to run psychological profiles on members of the jury's so they know exactly how to play on their emotions and get those big paydays. It's the proverbial Fox guarding the henhouse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #30 December 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotePinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm." Not only failed to take steps, prevented people from doing so as well. (gun free zone) The suit itself has merit, just the amount is atrocious. BULLSHIT with a capital B. Another Nanny State bit reasoning. "It's your job to protect me from any and all possible situations." Bullshit...it's not possible. "Foreseeable harm" includes earthquakes and epidemics. You want to go there, too? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4413588#4413588 Quote There should be no such thing as a "gun free zone." The laws should be changed requiring x number of armed guards per y occupants if they wish to ban legal gun owners from carrying This is what I hope comes from this. If you're going to remove people's rights to defend themselves in an area, you must do it for them. So either protect them (nanny) or let them protect themselves.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,465 #31 December 30, 2012 Hi Gravity, QuoteThere will never be any type of tort reform as long as we continue to elect lawyers. Just a question (not looking for an argument): Have you ever voted for someone who listed their occupation/education as attorney? JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 December 30, 2012 Presidents I have voted for: Reagan-Not a Lawyer Bush-41 Not a Lawyer Bush-43 not a Lawyer Presidents I have not voted for: Carter-Not a Lawyer Clinton-Lawyer Obama-Lawyer I'm not saying to not vote for someone because they are or are not a lawyer. I'm just saying don't bitch about the judicial system and then vote for a fox to guard the henhouse. Lawyers are paid to lie, parse words and skew the truth. When you elect them, don't expect them to change. Why do you think tort reform was not included as a way to reduce medical costs? Do you have any idea what a physician has to pay for liability insurance? OB/GYNs pay as much as $200,000 per year. General Surgeons pay as much as $175,000 per year. I'd say we are getting exactly the kind of government we vote for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #33 January 2, 2013 "$100 million claim against Conn. in school shooting dropped" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-schoolshooting-legalbre900074-20130101,0,1553137.story"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #34 January 2, 2013 Quote"$100 million claim against Conn. in school shooting dropped" Pfft. What a pussy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,465 #35 January 2, 2013 Hi Grav, QuoteWhy do you think tort reform was not included as a way to reduce medical costs? On Page 23 of the Jan '13 issue of PARACHUTIST is a photo with this caption (portion only): "Twenty months after a surgical error left him with restricted use of his lower body, Eastern Regional Director Randy Schroeder . . ." Do you think he should be allowed to sue the doctor(s), medical facility, etc because this 'surgical error?' The tort liability system is alive and well because IMO it works. JerryBaumchen PS) I have been sued a number of times; and I have sued a number of times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 January 2, 2013 QuoteHi Grav, QuoteWhy do you think tort reform was not included as a way to reduce medical costs? On Page 23 of the Jan '13 issue of PARACHUTIST is a photo with this caption (portion only): "Twenty months after a surgical error left him with restricted use of his lower body, Eastern Regional Director Randy Schroeder . . ." Do you think he should be allowed to sue the doctor(s), medical facility, etc because this 'surgical error?' The tort liability system is alive and well because IMO it works. JerryBaumchen PS) I have been sued a number of times; and I have sued a number of times. Do you think he should be able to collect $100 million? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
