While reading this thread I simply can’t resist thinking of the law firm name from several of the old “Three Stooges” movie shorts…remember ‘DEWEY, CHEATEM AND HOW’? [(-D] Yea, I know, but it’s a “guy thing”…just like soap operas are to my bride.
Certainly food for thought, Gabe. I don’t know if I would be looking for an attorney, or not. If that were my kid, I would be distraught, angry, and looking for someone to blame on one hand, and on the other, I am a very logical, and analytical person, and in many situtations, with me, anyway, the emotional response, and the logical response are working at the same time. I don’t know what I would do, I’ll be honest. I am the father of 3 boys, 2 of them are 19 and 15, and given to doing idiotic things from time to time.
My point in my post was that there are people, of all stripes, ages, and backgrounds that are, in my opinion, irredeemably stupid. They take un-nec
I’ll echo Tim’s sentiments. Of course we can blame the media somewhat as well - we don’t hear about the perfectly logical suits in which the complaintant is justified in their complaint and gets a reasonable award. All we hear about is the outrageous stuff, and that colors our view.
We just suffered the death of a young man (19) at a popular swimming hole near here. He was apparently swinging on a rope, struck his head on a rock outcrop, fell into the water (probably unconscious) and drowned. Using the logic some folks seem to apply, this should be treated as anything but an unfortunate accident, and someone should be made to pay for not making this location (used as such for many years) safer.
So far that hasn’t been the case.
This is REALLY off topic now, but there happens to be a building in Boston’s Harvard Square with a sign that says that in the window… It’s the Cartalk building, a lot of you probably listen to that radio show on NPR. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…
Actually, it is much, much worse than that. You not only do not hear about the cases that are legitimate and properly filed, but you never hear about what actually happens to 99.99% of the illigitimate ones. When the case that is subject to this thread is dismissed, I will gaurantee it will not make the headlines any more than the 99.99% of trains that do not derail make the news for not derailing.
But, the reporting of these cases are much worse than media sensationalism involving a derailment, because it is never reported if the justice system properly disposes of a case.
Something else you do not hear is all of the cases wherein someone was legitimately hurt but got dismissed for some unfounded reason.
The only thing that is reported is the filing of an outrageous case.
Gabe
I will say one other thing, before someone chimes in with these cases always settle so they do not have to be defended. If that were true, I and the vast majority of my collegues would not be driving a 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix, or its equivalent.
In 90% of legitimate cases, you have to work like the devil just to get them settled.
Gabe
It shouldn’t have happened either way. Gabe is right, many people, maybe not particularly us but many people, will be looking to sue in no time. This is a world in which you can get in trouble for just minding your own business if someone you work with decides to accuse you of something. I’ve seen it happen and the person it happened to went to seek other career opportunities though he shouldn’t have had to.
Gabe – this is not personal, only for the sake of discussion, as I agree with you:
Probably true, but for what reason? Because the park was truly guilty of neglect?
Or would it be because even though you might acknowledge your son is fully responsible for his actions [which is true], you, in your grief, you feel a need to lash out at something, anything? Or because “everyone does it” [sues]? Or that you “deserve it”? Or because of a desperate need to have an independent arbitor assure you it “wasn’t his fault” even though he had to get through security fences to put himself in that dangerous position?
What I’d like to know is whose initiated the lawsuit? How many attorneys contacted the family in an attempt to get themselves hired… because even if Six Flags settled a $500K lawsuit for $200,000 – 33 percent plus expenses would be over $100,000… Did the attorney who took the case say “It’s not about the money, but just to make sure the system is working properly”?
Remember, most of the wonderful people in Congress are lawyers.
I find it quite flattering that you think we would take two weeks [;)]
If $500K lawsuits for these kind of facts were that common, I would be “Gabe part time lawyer; part time owner of BNSF.”
As for attorneys actually contacting the family, I doubt it. Unless the family was a prior client
How refreshing; a man who knows himself. [;)]
Well, maybe that’s the way it is done in central Indiana. But in Chicago, the often-aggressive contacts in cases like this are made by third parties (called “pickers” or “leg men” in some neighborhood vernaculars), circumventing the “no direct contact” fiat. Especially in the poor neighborhoods. THAT’S the Chicago way, and sometimes it can get pretty ugly.
You’re correct about the high-profile cases because those are the ones the newsies splash across TV screens. I’d say the one that would come to mind for most people if you asked is the McDonald’s hot coffee product liability case [fiasco], where the woman was originally awarded $2.86 million by a jury after she burned herself with coffee and claimed she didn’t know it was “that hot”. Fortunately, the trial judge cut the award to $640,000, and she didn’t get that, either – she settled for an undisclosed number while an appeal was pending. But most people only remember $2.64 million for being a klutz and spilling coffee on a leg.
Living in the UK and reading this thread, it all seems so familiar.
Dennis
Gabe:
I can help you with your doubts.
My wife was involved in a minor property damage only motor vehicle accident. Within 3 business days we had letters from 5 different law offices offering their services.
It’s a frightening thing to be sitting in a court room with your future in the hands of 12 people who aren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
On the other hand, occasionally, justice is served. About 25 - 30 years ago, protesters were sitting on BN tracks outside a nuclear processing facility in Washington state. A train came out of the facility and all but one jumped off of the tracks. That one realized too late that the train wasn’t going to be able to stop and tried to get off too late. The train severed his legs above the knee.
The protester filed suit against BN and the nuclear facility. (Is it Hanford?) And lost.
The engineer and conductor filed suit against the protester for emotional distress as a result of in incident. And they won.
This was, of course, 25-30 years ago.
Found a similar incident in France from November 2007:
Anti-nuclear protester killed by waste train in NE France
http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7782
Jamie
I remember that one too! The reason I remember the Washington state incident was “Photo” magazine carried a photo journalists photos of the incident in every gory detail. The protester who lost his legs was surprised that his ‘sit in’ on the tracks couldn’t stop the train. Though he saw the brakes were applied he couldn’t figure out why the train was not going to stop in time. (perhaps because it’s a TRAIN, dumba$$!)
He lived to tell.
Maybe true in your jurisdiction, Gabe. Several years ago, in my former state of residence, TN, I was the injured party in a collision that hardly qualified as a fender-bender. A police report was filed. The ink was hardly dry on the report when I was called at home (unlisted number) by a personal injury lawyer who was anxious to represent me so that I would receive proper compensation for my, “Whiplash injuries.”
My vehicle had been standing still, and the other vehicle had been moving at 1- mph.
You are probably an ethical lawyer, like the one we found when my wife was injured by a careless teenager. Unfortunately, you share a profession with some folks who aren’t.
Just to finish the story, I was also called by half a dozen chiropractors.
Chuck
I would echo the comments about the lack of really knowing what happened in the case of the sensational and apparently frivolous suits - what I do know is that judges are capable of recognizing nonsense when they see it and they do dismiss cases. As for things in the U.S. being more litigious today than in “the good old days” - I don’t think so. I can’t find the reference but back in the 1800’s a foreign observer of the then current U.S. scene noted that Americans were the most suit happy people he had ever seen. I think the difference is the fact of the current state of near instant communication and the human tendency to focus on and remember the exception.
I also have to wonder if any of you have ever actually served on a jury. I’ve been on both criminal and civil juries and while my 3 times in the box hardly qualifies as a stratified area random sample, I can tell you that my impression of my fellow jurors was that they were indeed a jury of peers and that all of them took their responsibilities very seriously. In every instance I was allowed to take notes and when we were in the jury room we not only referred to our notes but when a difference of recollection/note taking arose we asked the clerk to re-read the section of the testimony we were discussing.
As for 300 questions for jury selection - not here and not in the other state where I served on a jury. I found the questions from both lawyers to be pertinent to the issues of vetting people who might have a genuine conflict of interest and, in the one instance, the judge stepped in and read the lawyers the riot act when he decided they were playing games instead of getting on with the work at hand.
Are there bad apples in the legal profession - of course there are - it is a distribution of people and you are going to have all kinds but like most other distributions the bad apples are not the norm. (and no, I
I’ve sat on one jury - having to do with a child neglect case (a young school-aged child arrived home and no one was there).
One of the questions was whether I had any affiliation with law enforcement, which I did, but I was ‘allowed’ to remain on the jury.
When all was said and done (including one witness who obviously hadn’t heard any of the testimony and who had, it was pointed out, a previous conviction for perjury), we had one or two members of the jury who were in agreement that the accused was guilty as charged, but didn’t want to vote as such as they were afraid that the punishment would be too harsh. It took some time to convince them that the sentence was outside our purview.
The point is that juries do lose focus and can therefore produce results inconsistent with what would seem to be good judgement.