Mom sues Coors over son's death in accident, Suit also names girlfriend and mother - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

That Guy · #16 04-19-2004, 02:50 PM

Tort reform?!?!?

Narwhal?

If ever there was an argument for it, I think this may be it.

MTI · #17 04-19-2004, 03:57 PM

In every state there is an element of "tort reform" that is under utilized . . . Sanctions for the frivilous lawsuit. Sometimes known as "Rule 11" sanctions it penalizes a party and/or their attorney for knowingly bringing a suit or motion that is wholly frivilous or merely for the purpose of harrasment. The "problem" with this rule is that it is extremely easy to meet the burden of showing that there is a molecule of merit to dodge the sanction bullet.

Then there's the concept of "joint & several" liability, in which a defendant, if found 1% at fault compared to his co-defendants who may be 99% at fault, would be required to pay the whole judgment, presuming that his/her pockets are deep enough . . . hence the suit against Coors is more than likely going for the 1%.

Finally, the American tradition of fees and costs. Without a statute or contract term, each party bears their own costs & fees, which tends to penalize a defendant that is without fault or culpability.

GermanStar · #18 04-19-2004, 04:08 PM

Well, if they're suing Coors for the content of their advertising, why not include the specific media sources that accept that advertising? If Acme Pill Company decides to advertise the wonderful effects of their cyanide pills, does XYZ television network share liability for broadcasting the television commercials? I mean, just how stupid can stupid get?

That Guy · #19 04-19-2004, 04:23 PM

Fair enough, narwhal. Thanks for taking it the right way.

-College Boy

mikemover · #20 04-19-2004, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MTI
Finally, the American tradition of fees and costs. Without a statute or contract term, each party bears their own costs & fees, which tends to penalize a defendant that is without fault or culpability.

This is EXACTLY the reason that frivolous cases get me fired up.

I don't give a damn if some stupid person wants to waste their time on a stupid lawsuit, and spend all of their stupid money on attorney fees....

But I CAN'T STAND it when an innocent person or company has to spend time and money defending themselves against this crap. The innocent defendant in such cases has been victimized, and the plaintiff that brought the frivolous suit against them should have to pay if/when they lose the case.

Narwahl says that this issue is not as common as the media would have us believe, which is probably true....

But I say if it happens to only ONE innocent person or business, then that is twice too often.

Mike

Kuan · #21 04-19-2004, 07:26 PM

Maybe this is a catch-22 of sorts, but how do you determine what's frivolous and what's not before it's in court?

G-Benz · #22 04-20-2004, 02:13 PM

The reason why you see little captions on ads like "Drink Responsibly" and "Professional stunt drivers on a closed course" is to fend off these types of lawsuits.

GM lost one many years ago because some idiot kid took his new GM car and mimiced a stunt he saw on a GM commercial...the stunt failed miserably and fatally...the parents sued on the grounds that the commercial showed the product performing a task it was really not equipped to do. Don't know the "legalese" of this, but the parents did win...

...and now, companies put these disclaimers all over their ads to keep the few morons out there for blaming their mishaps on a product, instead of the misuse of such...

Jim Anderson · #23 04-20-2004, 07:38 PM

I seem to remember reading somewhere sometime on this site, I think, about a lawyer making a lot of noise about the big awards, then got real quiet when he had half a chance to sue the pants off of somebody, and did.

mikemover · #24 04-21-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheVirginiaDude
Doctors are obsessed with making more money than they need (most anyway)

I must disagree here. Many doctors are abandoning their practice altogether because the cost of malpractice insurance, and the risk is poses to their career, is astronomically high.

Mike

GermanStar · #25 04-21-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narwhal
T-e-mpt--atio---n t--o com--ment s--trong. Ge-tt-ing w-eak.....

You are one wily sea creature. I've never seen so much bait scattered about in my life!

How could a pelagic piscivore resist?

mikemover · #26 04-21-2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narwhal
Unlevel playing field.

Go ahead, share with us your great lawyer's insight on the medical field.

Mike

mikemover · #27 04-21-2004, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheVirginiaDude
Yes insurance is high, but the rates they charge are astronomical for 3 minutes of their time wihile they hav 4-5 patiends in rooms at same time.

Around here they can afford cars that cost 100,000 and 2 million dollor houses.

I financed barely more than some of their car cost on my house 7 years ago when I bought it and I am having a hard time making ends meet because of tax increases the liberals stuff down our throats, Mostly property taxes that has tripled in 7 years (yes 300%). while I have seen about 25% pay increases during the same period.

Nobody clearing that kind of green gets my sympathy.

Believe me, the good doctors EARN it, and then some. If I spent that many years in school, and put up with what many doctors put up with, I'd feel NO guilt about driving a $100,000 car if I could afford it.

Mike

mikemover · #28 04-22-2004, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narwhal
Actually Mike, a couple of people pm'd me and asked me to quit making you look like an idiot on this issue, so I deleted some of my posts on another thread and attempted to make peace, so I won't boor you with my insight on the medical field, because I am going to respect their wishes.

Whatever.

Please, don't feel like obligated to "spare me the humiliation" or something. I'm a big boy, and I can handle it.

I don't go crying to moderators or resorting to private messages when I "get my feelings hurt", unlike some of our panty-waist members.

It's so interesting how people who are saying things we disagree with or don't want to hear are always automatically "idiots", isn't it?

Mike

mikemover · #29 04-22-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narwhal
Like you said, whatever.

Hey, I tried. You can "take your toys and leave" if you want to...

Mike

mikemover · #30 04-22-2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narwhal
You tried what, to sound smart? Didn't work. You just come off as a loudmouth who reads too much propaganda in his spare time. I'll continue this as long as you want.

Yes, I am a loudmouth, and I've never denied it. Things we don't agree with are always "propagnada", are they not?

So why don't you stop calling me names, and get back to the topic and present your case?

Mike