Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Yet another ridiculous lawsuit...

Yet another ridiculous lawsuit...
Thread Tools
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 05:56 PM
 
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/artic...l%20Sue%20City

I REALLY hope she loses this suit, and I would be even happier if the city made her family pay the all of the court costs.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:13 PM
 
I don’t know that this is so ridiculous … if they actually left the manhole uncovered, unattended, and un-fenced-off, so it was basically just a hole in the ground in the middle of the sidewalk, then the workers are complete idiots.

What if it had been an elderly, blind woman instead of a texting teen? Sure, the teen has a responsibility to look where she’s going, and she’s a complete idiot for not doing so; but the elderly, blind woman might not have ‘seen’ it coming either, if there was no fencing-off or anything to alert her that the manhole was currently uncovered.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:17 PM
 
Well, she didn't have any real injuries, so yeah, the lawsuit is rather frivolous. If it were me, I'd be seeking an apology, with a statement from the city that they would review how they implement their safety protocols to prevent situations like these.
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:25 PM
 
I guess its official... people (including mac NNers) claim no responsibility for their own actions any longer.

If it were me, I would have just felt like an idiot for not watching where I was going.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:35 PM
 
Over here, if accident or injury is facilitated by faults in the pavement, the owner of said pavement is at least in part liable. This includes failing to secure holes in the ground (e.g. manhole covers or construction sites) in an appropriate manner.
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:38 PM
 
Around here, people are responsible for their own actions.

If they had put cones around it, she still would not have seen it, since she wasn't watching where she was going. And a BIG HOLE IN THE GROUND is usually warning enough for most people.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
I guess its official... people (including mac NNers) claim no responsibility for their own actions any longer.

If it were me, I would have just felt like an idiot for not watching where I was going.
I would have, too. And I wouldn’t have sued anyone, either.

But I would find it just as important that the workers take responsibility for their actions. If they put cones or a fence or whatever around it, they at least did their part to warn people visibly. If the girl had still not seen it, nobody’s to blame but her. If they did nothing to fence/cone the place off, the girl is still to blame for being an idiot—but, as I said, the same might not be said of a blind person. A bit hole in the ground is not really any kind of warning if you can’t see it.

A statement (or, more importantly, an actual following up) from local authorities that they are going to be stricter in enforcing proper implementation of safety measures and protocols would of course be the best reply here. I feel uncertain that this would happen unless the courts decided to fine the city a substantial amount of cold, hard cash, though.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:48 PM
 
I hope she wins...




... an award to cover 10 band-aids.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
Around here, people are responsible for their own actions.
Where do you live ?

-t
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 06:54 PM
 
Why wouldn't she be able to recover costs from her damages? (In this case, there were none I guess.)

It's a freakin open manhole! What if she was taking 3 steps backwards whilst waving goodbye to a friend? What if she was looking to the right at a beautiful woman walking by?

"Take responsibility for your actions" my ass. You can't create those type of dangerous situations and not expect to get sued.

In my eyes you're a moron if you think otherwise.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
Around here, people are responsible for their own actions.
Within reasonable expectations, absolutely.

It is reasonable to expect a public sidewalk not to contain gaping unsecured holes.


If you drink a can of Coke that turns out to be laced with arsenic because you expected cola, you're responsible for your action where you live(d)?
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 07:48 PM
 
Dumbass workers. You never leave an open manhole unattended.
Get cones. Uncover manhole. If cones are in place and a worker was attending the manhole there would be no issues as they took appropriate precautions. I'm sure the workers' supervisor has had this exact discussion with them. They will settle before trial because this is clear negligence, not to mention laziness and stupidity.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
I guess its official... people (including mac NNers) claim no responsibility for their own actions any longer.
There's a difference between taking responsibility for your actions and hopping on a judgmental high horse at the first opportunity. Can you see it?

I might just as well say that you don't believe in personal responsibility because you're letting the city workers off scot-free. In reality, events have causes.

In this case, the girl's lack of attention was certainly a cause. But people are almost never totally aware, so the fact that she wasn't is something you can and should plan for. There also aren't usually deep holes in the middle of the sidewalk, so it's somewhat understandable that she wasn't focused on looking for them.

The city workers leaving the manhole uncovered was also certainly a cause. It's also well-known that open manholes are dangerous — that's why they have to put up colorful physical barriers around them. In our blame game, I feel pretty certain you would assign the blame to them if the person who fell had been an old woman with poor vision who was walking home from the store — and yet their contribution to the event would have been just the same. I have a feeling this is the cause that city will wind up attributing the most importance to, because it's the most preventable.

There also might have been other causes that we know nothing about.

Your blurb-based judgments and subsequent judgments of everyone here say more about you than they do about the matter at hand.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 07:55 PM
 
The city is responsible to make sure the streets, sidewalks, and public roads are reasonably safe.

Having an unattended and uncovered manhole, without having a warning signed or being fenced off is not safe.


If you have a bunch of manholes on the sidewalk that are uncovered and not fenced off, you'll have lots of injuries resulting from it.

The public has the expectation that sidewalks don't have big holes in them, where you can fall through.


It's like me putting leghold traps on the sidewalk and blaming the person for not paying attention if he gets his leg caught in one.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Jul 12, 2009 at 08:02 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
It's like me putting leghold traps on the sidewalk and blaming the person for not paying attention if he gets his leg caught in one.
its absolutely nothing like that. be honest.


Lets see what they sue for before we are too quick to judge the family...but monetary gain should be strictly off the table.

The workers and their immediate managers should be thoroughly reviewed not just for this incident but their records within the past two years. Either put them through safety training or cut their jobs depending on the outcome of the review.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 10:14 PM
 
Nothing frivolous about this. Had they put the cones out before opening the hole, then yes, it would be frivolous.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
its absolutely nothing like that. be honest.


Lets see what they sue for before we are too quick to judge the family...but monetary gain should be strictly off the table.

The workers and their immediate managers should be thoroughly reviewed not just for this incident but their records within the past two years. Either put them through safety training or cut their jobs depending on the outcome of the review.
Why is monetary gain off the table?

I say monetary gain is definitely on the table. I'm not talking about millions of dollar. That would be frivolous. I'm say anywhere up to a few thousand dollars would be reasonable.

Leaving an uncovered manhole unattended and not fenced off is definitely Gross Negligence.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 10:29 PM
 
wow. just wow.
     
elyzabennet
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pemberley
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 10:53 PM
 
I think I would feel that the lawsuit would be less ridiculous if the mother was complaining about the workers leaving the uncovered manhole rather than the "gross" factor. Shouldn't the mother be complaining about the negligence of the workers rather than how gross it is to fall into a sewer manhole? That would probably give her a bit more credibility.

The family said they will file a lawsuit -- for what, though, is not immediately clear. Her mother, Kim Longueira, said it doesn't matter that her daughter was walking and texting, and also, the 'gross' factor that can't be ignored.
"Oh my God, it was putrid," she said. "One of her sneakers is still down there"
Texting Teen Falls Down Manhole | NBC Chicago
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 11:15 PM
 
I don't see it as a ridiculous suit, although there is some culpability on the part of the young lady. One expects the streets/sidewalks to be reasonably safe when venturing out, and if workers are out, and leaving manhole covers off, even temporarily, the workers should be more circumspect in making sure that the holes are guarded until cones/signs can be placed.
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 11:22 PM
 
This is definitely a litigious society. How sad
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2009, 11:40 PM
 
I'm not one for suing over stupid bullshit, but I'd say that the city workers were at least a little negligent in leaving a manhole open with nobody there to make sure nobody fell into it. Instead of a teenage girl, it could have been a small child or a disabled or elderly person.

She wasn't really injured, according to the OP's article, so I don't know that she needs to get money out of the situation, but the city needs to at least reexamine regulations about this sort of thing.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
This is definitely a litigious society. How sad
Well, look who woke up on the morally superior side of the bed this morning.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Well, look who woke up on the morally superior side of the bed this morning.
Call it whatever you would like. Justify it however you would like. My opinion is just different than yours on this subject.

If you feel that my way is the more "moral" way of thinking about it, maybe you should think about changing your opinion on it too.

It has gotten to the point that no matter what a person does, they will blame others for it if their actions resulted in something unpleasant for them. Say what you will, but I think that is a poor attitude to have.

I agree that the workers should be reprimanded, but I disagree with any sort of lawsuit being filed about it. The girl wasn't paying attention, and she got a few scrapes because of it. That should have been the end of it. Her parents should have talked to her about being more aware of her surroundings instead of patting her on the head and saying that it was someone else's fault (it couldn't have been her fault, right?).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
Call it whatever you would like. Justify it however you would like. My opinion is just different than yours on this subject.

If you feel that my way is the more "moral" way of thinking about it, maybe you should think about changing your opinion on it too.

It has gotten to the point that no matter what a person does, they will blame others for it if their actions resulted in something unpleasant for them. Say what you will, but I think that is a poor attitude to have.

I agree that the workers should be reprimanded, but I disagree with any sort of lawsuit being filed about it. The girl wasn't paying attention, and she got a few scrapes because of it. That should have been the end of it. Her parents should have talked to her about being more aware of her surroundings instead of patting her on the head and saying that it was someone else's fault (it couldn't have been her fault, right?).
Would your attitude be any different if the workers' negligence had resulted in her being bound to a wheelchair?
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 06:03 AM
 
Well, OSHA might have something to say about it, in a way of a big fine:

Here's a regulation that might apply:

OSHA 1910
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
It has gotten to the point that no matter what a person does, they will blame others for it if their actions resulted in something unpleasant for them. Say what you will, but I think that is a poor attitude to have.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that; just that this particular case, while showing some signs of it, does not entirely belong to this kind of thinking/blaming. The whole ‘gross’ factor part of it is ridiculous, of course—but the ‘gross negligence’ part of it is not.

Would you have thought it any different if it had been, for example, on a rural backroad with no lighting, and the workers had left the manhole uncovered overnight? Would you still say that it’s the responsibility of the pedestrian—and only the pedestrian—to make sure there are no dangers lurking in the dark? ’Cause basically, even if the actual situations would be very different, the safety regulations being violated would be the exact same, and the punishment should be the exact same, as well.

I agree that the workers should be reprimanded, but I disagree with any sort of lawsuit being filed about it. The girl wasn't paying attention, and she got a few scrapes because of it. That should have been the end of it.
Do you really think anything would have changed if that had been the end of it? You’re a lot more optimistic, then, than I am. The company (or city, if the workers were working directly for the city) needs to feel the pain financially—and most likely, the workers themselves need to feel the pain financially on a personal level as well—in order for anything to happen. Otherwise, you might as well just not do anything about it at all.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 09:18 AM
 
I think someone that hates texting is taking out his frustrations by getting ticked about this.
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Would you have thought it any different if it had been, for example, on a rural backroad with no lighting, and the workers had left the manhole uncovered overnight? Would you still say that it’s the responsibility of the pedestrian—and only the pedestrian—to make sure there are no dangers lurking in the dark? ’Cause basically, even if the actual situations would be very different, the safety regulations being violated would be the exact same, and the punishment should be the exact same, as well.
The situation is different than the one you are comparing it to. The people left it uncovered for a *very* short time (seconds) , and were very close by. They didn't leave it uncovered all night, in the dark, where no one could see it. But, if that was the case, I would still say that everybody has the personal responsibility to watch where they are going. Especially in an outdoor setting in a rural area.

Others have asked whether I would feel differently if it had been an elderly person, or if it was a blind person... I do not think elderly or blind people are exempt from paying attention to their surroundings.

Do you really think anything would have changed if that had been the end of it? You’re a lot more optimistic, then, than I am. The company (or city, if the workers were working directly for the city) needs to feel the pain financially—and most likely, the workers themselves need to feel the pain financially on a personal level as well—in order for anything to happen. Otherwise, you might as well just not do anything about it at all.
The workers saw the girl fall, and they ran over apologizing profusely. The next time they are taking a cover off of the man-hole they most likely will remember what happened the last time they let their guard down for a second, and they would do it differently. Or the workers could have been given a reprimand and/or extra training, and told that if they did it again they would be fired. No lawsuit needed (or deserved) in my opinion.

But, the way I was raised, I was taught that a lawsuit should be the *very last* course of action, and only in extreme situations. Which this was not.

I understand that the workers should have put up the cones before taking the cover off. But the larger (majority) portion of the blame falls on the your lady that was texting and not watching where she was going. It's not like they jumped in front of her and pulled the top off just as she was stepping over the man-hole. If she had been paying any attention, she would have seen it coming before she even got close. The lawsuit is just a way to get a quick buck for the girl not paying attention.

Anyway, I obviously hold the minority opinion here, so I will quit griping and move on. It's not important to me what happens with this particular situation, I just thought it was a ridiculous lawsuit.
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think someone that hates texting is taking out his frustrations by getting ticked about this.
lol

That's possible, but if they were reading a newspaper or writing in their journal while walking, I would probably feel the same.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
The situation is different than the one you are comparing it to. The people left it uncovered for a *very* short time (seconds) , and were very close by. They didn't leave it uncovered all night, in the dark, where no one could see it.
Legally, there’s no difference. It doesn’t matter if it’s five seconds or five hours—the manhole was left unattended and unfenced. That’s a breach of protocol.

Others have asked whether I would feel differently if it had been an elderly person, or if it was a blind person... I do not think elderly or blind people are exempt from paying attention to their surroundings.
It can be quite hard for blind people to pay attention to something you need sight to be able to pay attention to, though. A cane might alert them to the hole in the ground; but it might not, if they were unlucky. A fence definitely would, though.


The workers saw the girl fall, and they ran over apologizing profusely. The next time they are taking a cover off of the man-hole they most likely will remember what happened the last time they let their guard down for a second, and they would do it differently. Or the workers could have been given a reprimand and/or extra training, and told that if they did it again they would be fired. No lawsuit needed (or deserved) in my opinion.
Maybe I’m just tainted by bad experiences with workers, but in my own personal experience, reprimands and extra training do exactly zilch to help any such problems. They’re completely useless. Fines (and big ones, at that) seem to be the only thing that gets through to anyone in that industry. Could just be here, though.

If it works without fines in NYC, then good on them. But I’ll remain sceptical.
     
raf66
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 02:15 PM
 
As a lawyer I simply hate these kinds of lawsuits, although I'll do you one better: Several years ago a woman sued a sneaker company after she allegedly suffered injuries while running on a track. She claimed that the shoe company was negligent in putting the little "hangie thing" on the back of her sneakers (you know, that little cloth hook just above the heel that some sneakers have) as her shoes allegedly came untied and the right shoelace got stuck in the left shoe's "hangie thing" and she tripped.

I blame society as a whole for always looking for a "culprit" and I blame some us lawyers for always chasing the money. Sometimes you just have to tell the client no.

I'll get off my soapbox now.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 02:18 PM
 
As a lawyer I simply hate these kinds of lawsuits, although I'll do you one better: Several years ago a woman sued a sneaker company after she allegedly suffered injuries while running on a track. She claimed that the shoe company was negligent in putting the little "hangie thing" on the back of her sneakers (you know, that little cloth hook just above the heel that some sneakers have) as her shoes allegedly came untied and the right shoelace got stuck in the left shoe's "hangie thing" and she tripped.
Now that is frivolous and ridiculous. That situation is so random, rare, unpredictable, and un-recreatable that there’s no way it could have been foreseen or prevented. That’s just no one’s fault.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Now that is frivolous and ridiculous. That situation is so random, rare, unpredictable, and un-recreatable that there’s no way it could have been foreseen or prevented. That’s just no one’s fault.
Well, you could always blame it on God and sue him. It's been done before.

-t
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 09:41 AM
 
I did a night school A-level for a year and studied law. The teacher showed us some of the 'bizarre' lawsuits that were won. The best one that I remember was that a man sued a country club after getting stung by a wasp. The country club, being private, shouldn't have let the wasp 'in'.

I also looked into the MacDonalds scalding coffee case, and was quite surprised by what the woman suffered and what MacDonalds did to not have to make coffee more often.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 10:52 AM
 
Didn't that guy get over a million dollars? I seem to remember something like that. Or what about the guy who tried to kill himself by jumping in front of a train, and who then sued the train company and won a few hundred thousand when he was only injured?

You crazy, crazy Amerikans.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
Around here, people are responsible for their own actions.
In your mind, it is impossible for two parties to share responsibility for a single incident. Fortunately, the courts don't work that way.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
Well, OSHA might have something to say about it, in a way of a big fine:

Here's a regulation that might apply:

OSHA 1910
Please. OSHA was gutted by the previous administration, to the point where it only has a few hundred inspectors to cover the nation. A few years ago, here in Metro Detroit, a worker employed by a large bridge painting corporation, fell to his death due to faulty safety equipment. OSHA took almost two years to reach that conclusion, fined the company under $10,000, which was less than a slap on the wrist for the size of the company.

Another case in the past few years; a worker digging a large trench was killed when the dirt collapsed in on him, literally burying him alive. It is an OSHA requirement that trenches larger than a certain depth/square footage have retaining walls in place when workers are in them, doing any manual labor. OSHA slapped that company on the wrist as well, for a few thousand dollars.

Worker, and public, safety is now a joke, albeit a tragic one in most cases.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
Around here, people are responsible for their own actions.
Unless they're city workers, apparently.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 04:00 PM
 
I gotta say that's funny! Should it have been marked off? What I'd like to know is what she was txting, I bet it was about that skank ashley in home room!
In other news thankfully I'v eonly hit my head on low hanging branches while txting.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Why is monetary gain off the table?

I say monetary gain is definitely on the table. I'm not talking about millions of dollar. That would be frivolous. I'm say anywhere up to a few thousand dollars would be reasonable.

Leaving an uncovered manhole unattended and not fenced off is definitely Gross Negligence.


Because the point of a lawsuit is not to gain anything but to recoup losses that you have incurred due to someone else's negligence or ill-will.

She hasn't lost anything, and therefore should not be in a position to recoup on losses that she has not suffered.

If she was put in a wheel chair then she should have all those bills paid plus a monetary reward (punitive damages) for the life of suffering she will surely live.

Again i'll reiterate. If you lost nothing, you cannot sue for it. At least that is the intent of a civil lawsuit...what this country is today...i guess anything goes.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 07:35 PM
 
Punitive damages don't exist in your world, Snow-i?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 07:53 PM
 
Punitive damages aren't awarded to the suing party (at least, it makes no sense to me to do so, and it isn't the case here in Euroland AFAIK).

They go to the state.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 08:49 PM
 
Socialists
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Punitive damages aren't awarded to the suing party (at least, it makes no sense to me to do so, and it isn't the case here in Euroland AFAIK).

They go to the state.
As is usually the case, Europe is not America.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
torsoboy  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
In your mind, it is impossible for two parties to share responsibility for a single incident. Fortunately, the courts don't work that way.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Unless they're city workers, apparently.
Thank you for telling me how my mind works.

In this case, I just think the girl was the one at fault. If a couple of cones had been up, she most likely would have still fallen in since she wasn't paying attention to her surroundings at the time. A big hole is enough of a warning to most people.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
As is usually the case, Europe is not America.
Though it sounds like Europe has a better policy on what should be allowed in a civil suit.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
As is usually the case, Europe is not America.
I guess.

Of course, if I had a chance of getting $200,000 out of complete nonsense (with another 1.3 million $ out of 1.5 million total going to the lawyers), I'd do my damndest to clog the court system with as many frivolous claims as I could muster on an average day.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty View Post
I bet it was about that skank ashley in home room!
Are you saying I could have sued someone about that?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I guess.

Of course, if I had a chance of getting $200,000 out of complete nonsense (with another 1.3 million $ out of 1.5 million total going to the lawyers), I'd do my damndest to clog the court system with as many frivolous claims as I could muster on an average day.
Just to be clear: Punitive damages aren't awarded very often. I doubt they will be in this case, though I'm not all that familiar with New York law. Frivolous suits are usually meant to be settled rather than won. If nobody ever settled, shooting off suits willy-nilly would be far less profitable than it is. The owner at a company I worked for lost a huge wad of cash by refusing to settle a frivolous suit just to teach the plaintiff a lesson.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2009, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Just to be clear: Punitive damages aren't awarded very often. I doubt they will be in this case, though I'm not all that familiar with New York law. Frivolous suits are usually meant to be settled rather than won. If nobody ever settled, shooting off suits willy-nilly would be far less profitable than it is. The owner at a company I worked for lost a huge wad of cash by refusing to settle a frivolous suit just to teach the plaintiff a lesson.
Why did refusing to settle cost him money?

The losing party generally covers lawyer and court costs, here.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,