Jump to content

Nominations for Tractor of the Month
Garden Tractors and Parts on eBay



Photo
- - - - -

What is the world coming to.


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 bhts OFFLINE  

bhts

    Bob's Lawn and Garden Tractors

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 945
  • 1,413 Thanks
  • 2,115 posts
  • Location: ohio

Posted October 29, 2010 - 08:00 PM

This is got to be one of the worst things i have seen.

http://www.nytimes.c...no_interstitial

#2 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,588 Thanks
  • 29,831 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted October 29, 2010 - 08:08 PM

This world is sue happy. My daughter was bitten by a dog a couple days ago while walking down the road. No skin broken, just a bruise. Guess we should sue huh? Not a chance. I am sick to death of lawsuits for everything under the sun. They were however told to keep their dog up as laws state. If it were a large dangerous sized dog, I likely would have made an official complaint to be sure they kept the dog up for sure.
A 4yr old being sued....PITIFUL! :wallbanging::wallbanging::wallbanging::wallbanging:

#3 Bolens 1000 ONLINE  

Bolens 1000

    DR. Bolens

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 7
  • 12,673 Thanks
  • 17,198 posts
  • Location: Western NY

Posted October 29, 2010 - 08:48 PM

I agree with what Daniel said above.
I just dont know what to think of the world anymore

#4 MH81 ONLINE  

MH81

    Proud to be Deplorable

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 802
  • 27,250 Thanks
  • 28,599 posts
  • Location: N. W. PA

Posted October 29, 2010 - 09:20 PM

We, as a culture, need to get our collective heads out of our 4$$es!!! If I sue someone for nothing, eventually it comes back down to everyone in increased costs & etc. People need to stop looking at every wrong as hitting the redneck lottery!!! And that Judge needs hit butt kicked off the bench for even listening to this case, let alone allowing it to continue.

Remember to vote on Tuesday.

#5 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,588 Thanks
  • 29,831 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted October 29, 2010 - 09:24 PM

I never miss my chance to vote....I like to witch and ya have no right to if ya don't vote!

#6 hydriv OFFLINE  

hydriv

    Tractorholic

  • Validating
  • Member No: 256
  • 70 Thanks
  • 583 posts

Posted October 29, 2010 - 09:29 PM

Civil litigation has been with us since the days of Roman rule. Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. However, there are certain rules and in this matter, the presiding judge was asked to rule whether the child could be held liable for damages or not. After reviewing the rules and existing case law, he permitted the action to proceed. So what?

If I was the attorney for the defendants, I'd insist on a jury trial. The plaintiff's in this action are just a bunch of greedy bastards that stand to inherit from the estate of the woman who was injured. I'd be willing to guess that a jury would see right through all of that and award them either nothing, which means they would be likely responsible for the defendants costs or if they had to find for the plaintiffs, award them $1.00 in general damages and $1.00 in punitive damages.

Just because the law says a child over the age of four can be sued doesn't mean that a jury will agree. Personally, I think that the action is fraught with problems and highly risky but if the plaintiff's attorney is working on a time and costs expended basis, he doesn't care. As Jack (mastifflawyer) will tell you, there's a lot worse happening in the courts than this frivolous law suit.

#7 ducky OFFLINE  

ducky

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 564
  • 1,623 Thanks
  • 3,860 posts
  • Location: Freedom, WI

Posted October 29, 2010 - 10:05 PM

Civil litigation has been with us since the days of Roman rule. Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. However, there are certain rules and in this matter, the presiding judge was asked to rule whether the child could be held liable for damages or not. After reviewing the rules and existing case law, he permitted the action to proceed. So what?

If I was the attorney for the defendants, I'd insist on a jury trial. The plaintiff's in this action are just a bunch of greedy bastards that stand to inherit from the estate of the woman who was injured. I'd be willing to guess that a jury would see right through all of that and award them either nothing, which means they would be likely responsible for the defendants costs or if they had to find for the plaintiffs, award them $1.00 in general damages and $1.00 in punitive damages.

Just because the law says a child over the age of four can be sued doesn't mean that a jury will agree. Personally, I think that the action is fraught with problems and highly risky but if the plaintiff's attorney is working on a time and costs expended basis, he doesn't care. As Jack (mastifflawyer) will tell you, there's a lot worse happening in the courts than this frivolous law suit.


frivolous law suit. 10-4

#8 mjodrey OFFLINE  

mjodrey

    Accumulator

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 92
  • 2,343 Thanks
  • 13,481 posts
  • Location: Upper Granville, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted October 30, 2010 - 04:57 AM

I just dont know what to think of the world anymore

:ditto:

#9 M&M13 OFFLINE  

M&M13
  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 1368
  • 11 Thanks
  • 159 posts

Posted October 30, 2010 - 06:47 AM

Whoever files the law suit should be the one who has to pay 4 both lawyers fees & court costs! That would surely put an end to these stupid suits!

#10 MH81 ONLINE  

MH81

    Proud to be Deplorable

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 802
  • 27,250 Thanks
  • 28,599 posts
  • Location: N. W. PA

Posted October 30, 2010 - 07:26 AM

Civil litigation has been with us since the days of Roman rule.


And is an important part of our system. It allows men to settle disputes without turning to our baser instincts. It is a tool to continue civilization when used correctly. My response was more of a "Where is the wisdom of the Court?" rather than a condemnation of the process.

Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. However, there are certain rules and in this matter, the presiding judge was asked to rule whether the child could be held liable for damages or not. After reviewing the rules and existing case law, he permitted the action to proceed. So what?


Problem 1: He set a precedent for even more of these cases. I know of very few actual "demon seed" children. I might buy that this child was oozing malice toward a random fellow human being if they had studded the tires with razor blades and installed flame-throwers that morning before the big race. (I know that isn't negligence, just tying to be wry)

Problem 2: The existing laws this judge cites are of the same over-reasoned, under common sense ilk that would put you in jail if you tried to invent that bicycle today. Can you imagine offending the safety police with a device like that today?

Problem 3: If you think of the country as a living being, sometimes the smallest, seemingly most insignificant symptoms are a sign of the base root of the problem.
If King Solomon had set such a wise precedent, there would've been one less child in the world & without wisdom from the bench, Merchant of Venice's Shylock would've had an interesting conversation piece in his freezer.

If I was the attorney for the defendants, I'd insist on a jury trial. The plaintiff's in this action are just a bunch of greedy bastards that stand to inherit from the estate of the woman who was injured. I'd be willing to guess that a jury would see right through all of that and award them either nothing, which means they would be likely responsible for the defendants costs or if they had to find for the plaintiffs, award them $1.00 in general damages and $1.00 in punitive damages.


We can only hope

Just because the law says a child over the age of four can be sued doesn't mean that a jury will agree. Personally, I think that the action is fraught with problems and highly risky but if the plaintiff's attorney is working on a time and costs expended basis, he doesn't care.


Amen!
The settle out of court option would seem the wiser choice.

As Jack (mastifflawyer) will tell you, there's a lot worse happening in the courts than this frivolous law suit.


I would have to defer to the more knowledgeable. Jack, I have nothing but respect for the system. It's rules have been based upon wisdom from time immemorial. My frustration is that wisdom is being appended by people with less to offer. I view it as allowing the greatest works of literature being re-written by students of Ms. Nomoore's Kindergarten class.

I would never want the job of Judge. I do not feel that I could be that impartial to many situations. But I do believe that a certain level of expectation is inferred when you decide to become one. In the world of frivolous lawsuits, we have the expectation of competence of our medical professionals and are not afraid to sue when it isn't there.

Sorry if I stepped on any toes, I just get frustrated when I see something like this.:smile1:

#11 hydriv OFFLINE  

hydriv

    Tractorholic

  • Validating
  • Member No: 256
  • 70 Thanks
  • 583 posts

Posted October 30, 2010 - 08:02 AM

Whoever files the law suit should be the one who has to pay 4 both lawyers fees & court costs! That would surely put an end to these stupid suits!



If the plaintiff is not successful at trial, then they are not entitled to be compensated for their costs or legal fees. Secondly, the court has the power to make them pay the defendant's costs and a portion of their legal fees. There's nothing new in any of that but that fact won't prevent such suits from being filed. The law is tested constantly and changing times brings changes in the results.

#12 hydriv OFFLINE  

hydriv

    Tractorholic

  • Validating
  • Member No: 256
  • 70 Thanks
  • 583 posts

Posted October 30, 2010 - 08:52 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image Originally Posted by hydriv Posted Image
Civil litigation has been with us since the days of Roman rule.



And is an important part of our system. It allows men to settle disputes without turning to our baser instincts. It is a tool to continue civilization when used correctly. My response was more of a "Where is the wisdom of the Court?" rather than a condemnation of the process.


You have already cited the wisdom of the court. There is a dispute here. The Plaintiffs believe that they are entitled to damages as a result of the injuries suffered by someone who is already dead and apparently never instituted this suit. However, that trial is yet to be heard. What was happening here is a procedural issue. The Judge was asked to decide only one thing and that is "Do the plaintiffs have the legal right to sue the child personally?"

No other facts of the case had any bearing on his decision. After hearing arguments from both sides and after reviewing the case law presented, the Judge ruled that the matter could proceed as originally filed. He had no real choice here because he bound to work within the scope of the proceeding. The merits of the suit are for another court to decide on another day.


Posted Image Originally Posted by hydriv Posted Image
Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. However, there are certain rules and in this matter, the presiding judge was asked to rule whether the child could be held liable for damages or not. After reviewing the rules and existing case law, he permitted the action to proceed. So what?



Problem 1: He set a precedent for even more of these cases. I know of very few actual "demon seed" children. I might buy that this child was oozing malice toward a random fellow human being if they had studded the tires with razor blades and installed flame-throwers that morning before the big race. (I know that isn't negligence, just tying to be wry)

No precedent was set on that day. The law says that a child less than 4 years old cannot be sued for negligence. At the time of the incident, the child was just shy of his/her 5th birthday. The judge simply upheld the existing law. Nothing more.

Problem 2: The existing laws this judge cites are of the same over-reasoned, under common sense ilk that would put you in jail if you tried to invent that bicycle today. Can you imagine offending the safety police with a device like that today?

Let's not muddy the waters here. The law says what it says and that's all that was at issue in that hearing. If you believe the law is wrong, then start a lobby to change it.

Problem 3: If you think of the country as a living being, sometimes the smallest, seemingly most insignificant symptoms are a sign of the base root of the problem.
If King Solomon had set such a wise precedent, there would've been one less child in the world & without wisdom from the bench, Merchant of Venice's Shylock would've had an interesting conversation piece in his freezer.



Posted Image Originally Posted by hydriv Posted Image
If I was the attorney for the defendants, I'd insist on a jury trial. The plaintiff's in this action are just a bunch of greedy bastards that stand to inherit from the estate of the woman who was injured. I'd be willing to guess that a jury would see right through all of that and award them either nothing, which means they would be likely responsible for the defendants costs or if they had to find for the plaintiffs, award them $1.00 in general damages and $1.00 in punitive damages.



We can only hope


If the matter ever gets to trial then you can be sure it will be reported because of the fact that a 5 year old is being sued. Watch for it and then post the outcome.

Posted Image Originally Posted by hydriv Posted Image
Just because the law says a child over the age of four can be sued doesn't mean that a jury will agree. Personally, I think that the action is fraught with problems and highly risky but if the plaintiff's attorney is working on a time and costs expended basis, he doesn't care.



Amen!
The settle out of court option would seem the wiser choice.

Maybe..... maybe not. All I can say is that I haven't heard all the evidence but if I was one of the jurors hearing the matter, I'd be doing my best during deliberations to convince the other members to find in favour of the defendants. Please explain to me how the estate suffered any damages as a result of that incident? That's the issue. The estate is not entitled to loss of wages, pain and suffering or even loss of companionship. love and affection. The injured woman died three months later of something that wasn't related to the tricycle incident. So, where's the cause of action here?

Posted Image Originally Posted by hydriv Posted Image
As Jack (mastifflawyer) will tell you, there's a lot worse happening in the courts than this frivolous law suit.



I would have to defer to the more knowledgeable. Jack, I have nothing but respect for the system. It's rules have been based upon wisdom from time immemorial. My frustration is that wisdom is being appended by people with less to offer. I view it as allowing the greatest works of literature being re-written by students of Ms. Nomoore's Kindergarten class.

I would never want the job of Judge. I do not feel that I could be that impartial to many situations. But I do believe that a certain level of expectation is inferred when you decide to become one. In the world of frivolous lawsuits, we have the expectation of competence of our medical professionals and are not afraid to sue when it isn't there.

Sorry if I stepped on any toes, I just get frustrated when I see something like this.:smile1:

You haven't stepped on my toes. I don't have all that much respect for the law, thanks largely to my own personal experiences with it. Someone got it totally right a long, long time ago when he said "The law is an ass."


Nonetheless, it is what it is and we have to work with it. Like it or not.



#13 MH81 ONLINE  

MH81

    Proud to be Deplorable

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 802
  • 27,250 Thanks
  • 28,599 posts
  • Location: N. W. PA

Posted October 31, 2010 - 08:49 AM



[COLOR=red]No precedent was set on that day.


I agree or can see you point on all other issues, but even tho you're right in saying he was deciding only if the case could continue, he was deciding. I believe it to be expected that someone will use this as a basis to further another "one of those" lawsuits, thus precedent. IMO, this Judge had the opportunity to rule on the intent of the law and instead encouraged more of the same. He could of just as easily found the intent to be more conservative & let the estate attempt an appeal. Again, just my opinion. I think this case would've had a lot more teeth & less discussion if they were suing the parents for allowing their children to ride on the sidewalk or race...

#14 hydriv OFFLINE  

hydriv

    Tractorholic

  • Validating
  • Member No: 256
  • 70 Thanks
  • 583 posts

Posted October 31, 2010 - 09:06 AM

Judges are essentially bound by existing laws. Apparently, this particular law is worded quite clearly so there was no room for judiciary interpretation. There is no such thing as being " a little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't. In this case, the law said that a child had to be under the age of four to escape liability. Since the child was well over the age of four, the judge had no choice but to find for the Plaintiff's in this "Trial of an Issue".

Had he ruled as you suggest, the Plaintiff's would have taken it to appeal immediately and won. Judges decisions must be sound ones if they want to keep their jobs and if they expect to be promoted. All that judge did was to uphold an existing law. His decision isn't much of a precedent since this was a black or white issue. I think that the Defendant's attorney was sitting in a straw house when he tried that one and he probably cost his clients an easy thousand dollars for what was essentially a shot in the dark.




Top