Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Take it up with your state legislature. They could abolish dignity torts if they wanted to. And for the umpteenth time, just because a plaintiff asks for $1 million doesn't mean that they're going to get anything close to that. In fact, if this thing goes to trial and I'm the defense attorney, I'm going to ask the plaintiff to justify to the jury exactly how they came to the $3 million number. In fact, a good defense theme might be 'although the plaintiff arguably suffered a wrong, it does not mean she has hit a gold mine.' (or something to that effect). My point is that again, there doesn't have to be any basis whatsoever for requesting certain relief... it's just words on paper.
We do that with our cars. Just about every state requires you to carry insurance. I know some are starting to require folks to carry major medical. I don't think, however, for intentional torts, that those should necessarily be insurable. If you attempt to murder me, on purpose, I ought to be able to sue you for everything you're worth. It only seems fair that it should be you, the party who injured me that has the burden of making me whole rather than some general insurance pool. Would it be fair, since your sentence is 10 years that 3,650 people be chosen at random and have to each serve a day of your sentence?
As someone who handles personal injury cases (we don't actively seek them out, but I get saddled with the ones that come through the door), I have yet to see someone get rich in a personal injury settlement. In fact, more often than not, the injured party has to either take the insurance company's check (and take a hickey) or take his chances with a jury which might award him nothing... not to mention have to put up with the difficulty of a defendant who has no assets or exempt assets to go after with a judgment.
Personal injury law, quite honestly, is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. The insurance companies always somehow manage to turn a profit.
|
Weren't we talking third party- deep pockets cases? I don't think we're better off making the nearest deep pocket pay if they are only tenuously involved in the injury. It's not much better than your everybody serves a day example; it's we're basically going to make your company serve this because you happened to be around. I think rather than doing for somewhat associated but not particularly responsible deep pocket, we'd be better thinking of it a different way with people seeking relief from a fund they were obligated to contribute to.
I'm also not sure why you are so hung up on the amount they get in the current case and keep returning to it as if it matters. If the amount is small enough that the people who committed the actual injury to her dignity can pay, the people who posted the photos or texted her, great, but I still don't think McDonald's needs to pay anything be it $3 or $3 million.
They were no more responsible as a corporation for what happened than the guy who left his phone with the nude photos was. Why would they need to pick up his loss of dignity tab?
And I'm not sure why you think I'm completely opposed to dignity torts. I'm opposed to making people pay for stuff that, all things considered, isn't particularly their fault. If I harm your dignity, seek to recovery from me alone, not from an entity not particularly responsible for my behavior simply because they've got more money.
Threaded Mode
