Wife's nude pics on lost phone end up online

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Because this is, to be blunt, completely untenable as a system..

The dollar value of dignity could be anything from $0.75 to $750,000 depending on whether the loss of job possibilities, etc. are truthful and correct. The dollar value of a recovery possible from a manager at McDonald's could probably be anything from $3 to maybe $30,000 over the course of decades (and worth less at present-day value).

Simply put, the agent of direct harm likely can't produce a sufficient recovery. So what now? Do you just say "too bad"? The ramifications of that seem much worse than the small chance of an illegitimate recovery when liability is extended to the corporate entity.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because this is, to be blunt, completely untenable as a system..

The dollar value of dignity could be anything from $0.75 to $750,000 depending on whether the loss of job possibilities, etc. are truthful and correct. The dollar value of a recovery possible from a manager at McDonald's could probably be anything from $3 to maybe $30,000 over the course of decades (and worth less at present-day value).

Simply put, the agent of direct harm likely can't produce a sufficient recovery. So what now? Do you just say "too bad"? The ramifications of that seem much worse than the small chance of an illegitimate recovery when liability is extended to the corporate entity.

Okay, so then we go to the sort of general fund idea where we're all self insured against dumbassery of our own or other people's making. (ETA: along with my dueling pistols suggestion earlier, could we consider a debtors' prison for people who make too little money for sufficient recovery but who are the actual agents of harm? I'm not really serious, but one of the really perplexing parts when you think about it, is how little responsibility the actual wrong-doers will have to take.)

Seriously, I don't know how it ought to work, but I'm apparently a whole lot less satisfied with the present system than the lawyers on this thread which probably reflects at least two things: if I had more direct experience, I might change my mind and if you are already making a living within the present system, you probably buy in more.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Okay, so then we go to the sort of general fund idea where we're all self insured against dumbasery of our own or other people's making.

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that's actually how the current system that you're railing against works - that cost is included in every burger (and Norelco razor, and monthly daycare payment, and...).

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Seriously, I don't know how it ought to work, but I'm apparently a whole lot less satisfied with the present system than the lawyers on this thread which probably reflects at least two things: if I had more direct experience, I might change my mind and if you are already making a living within the present system, you probably buy in more.

I think you actually gave the 'correct' answer earlier: no one can really come up with a better system. If I heard one, I'd be down for it - but I've never heard one.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that's actually how the current system that you're railing against works - that cost is included in every burger (and Norelco razor, and monthly daycare payment, and...).



I think you actually gave the 'correct' answer earlier: no one can really come up with a better system. If I heard one, I'd be down for it - but I've never heard one.

I acknowledge that I can't back this up very well, but I still think it would be better for our perception of being responsible for ourselves not to have the pay out connected to some corporation say 5% responsible when the dumbass himself is say 20% responsible.

Sure, we can spread the corporate cost out to the rest of us through other means, but there's still a suggestion of actual responsibility by the company and therefore a suggestion that we aren't mainly responsible for ourselves. And I don't know if this comes out in the societal wash or not.

(Now, I don't really know how my general fund idea encourages individual responsibility better since it probably would require the government to act on our behalf.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I acknowledge that I can't back this up very well, but I still think it would be better for our perception of being responsible for ourselves not to have the pay out connected to some corporation say 5% responsible when the dumbass himself is say 20% responsible.

As per the latter part first, KSK did a good job discussing the comparative negligence consequences - I don't know if you live in a CF% state, and the rules vary state-to-state, but that deals with quite a bit of what you're looking at.

As per the first part, I don't know how to reconcile that with decades of evidence that the 'deterrent' effect of laws or potential punishment varies from quite low to nonexistent.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

As per the latter part first, KSK did a good job discussing the comparative negligence consequences - I don't know if you live in a CF% state, and the rules vary state-to-state, but that deals with quite a bit of what you're looking at.

As per the first part, I don't know how to reconcile that with decades of evidence that the 'deterrent' effect of laws or potential punishment varies from quite low to nonexistent.

Yeah, and if a lot of the problem is actually with media shaped misunderstanding of actual legal trends, it's hard to argue that changing the actual law will correct it.

I will say I still don't like it, and we all know how valuable that it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yeah, and if a lot of the problem is actually with media shaped misunderstanding of actual legal trends, it's hard to argue that changing the actual law will correct it.

Honestly, putting aside the media thing, I just don't think many people want to understand the legal process at that specific level unless they've been involved in a lawsuit or are a member of a law-related field. There's just not a lot of reason why someone (outside of those in law-related employment and those involved in lawsuits) would want to know that much information.

It's the same thing, in my mind, as knowing about the legislative process. It's not a bad thing to know, but at the same time the public is very much results-oriented and doesn't care about or wants to ignore the process.

That's obviously painting things with broad brush strokes, so take it as you will...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you actually gave the 'correct' answer earlier: no one can really come up with a better system. If I heard one, I'd be down for it - but I've never heard one.

Exactly - there are a lot of smart lawyers, judges and law professors who have been trying to come up with a better system, but nothing has come up as of yet.

Also, as far as being "self-insured" against these risks, even putting aside the larger companies that are self-insured in one way or another, that's what property/liability/umbrella insurance is there to do. As long as you are within the insurance contract, the insurers are picking up part of the bill on this. Now, it might trickle down into higher insurance rates later on, but there is a mechanism there for at least partial protection. (I could go into more, but this is what I do for a living, and it would probably get too boring for most of the board).

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the law community is satisfied because they are "already making a living" in the current system. Honestly, lawyers will still find work in an alternate system, through counseling individuals and companies, putting together risk avoidance plans, etc. Plus, as I noted above, there are people in the profession who are looking for a "better" option.

Also, again, the perception of widespread outrageous court judgments isn't entirely correct. RC, Kevin, GP and others may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't in-court litigation at an all-time low (i.e. the "Vanishing Trial" theory)? It obviously doesn't account for all litigation (since it takes so long to get to court anyway, through discovery, depositions, etc.), but it shows that these types of cases are the exception, not the norm.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I acknowledge that I can't back this up very well, but I still think it would be better for our perception of being responsible for ourselves not to have the pay out connected to some corporation say 5% responsible when the dumbass himself is say 20% responsible.

Sure, we can spread the corporate cost out to the rest of us through other means, but there's still a suggestion of actual responsibility by the company and therefore a suggestion that we aren't mainly responsible for ourselves. And I don't know if this comes out in the societal wash or not.

(Now, I don't really know how my general fund idea encourages individual responsibility better since it probably would require the government to act on our behalf.)

As to your first point in the above post, a number of states have a mechanism in place for this in comparative negligence; in that way, either the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by his/her "fault" in the incident, or, in some states, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% liable by the judge or jury, the plaintiff will walk away with nothing.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Exactly - there are a lot of smart lawyers, judges and law professors who have been trying to come up with a better system, but nothing has come up as of yet.

Also, as far as being "self-insured" against these risks, even putting aside the larger companies that are self-insured in one way or another, that's what property/liability/umbrella insurance is there to do. As long as you are within the insurance contract, the insurers are picking up part of the bill on this. Now, it might trickle down into higher insurance rates later on, but there is a mechanism there for at least partial protection. (I could go into more, but this is what I do for a living, and it would probably get too boring for most of the board).

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the law community is satisfied because they are "already making a living" in the current system. Honestly, lawyers will still find work in an alternate system, through counseling individuals and companies, putting together risk avoidance plans, etc. Plus, as I noted above, there are people in the profession who are looking for a "better" option.

Also, again, the perception of widespread outrageous court judgments isn't entirely correct. RC, Kevin, GP and others may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't in-court litigation at an all-time low (i.e. the "Vanishing Trial" theory)? It obviously doesn't account for all litigation (since it takes so long to get to court anyway, through discovery, depositions, etc.), but it shows that these types of cases are the exception, not the norm.



As to your first point in the above post, a number of states have a mechanism in place for this in comparative negligence; in that way, either the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by his/her "fault" in the incident, or, in some states, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% liable by the judge or jury, the plaintiff will walk away with nothing.

Good to know.

[DaemonSeid]

This whole thread just goes to show why cell phones are evil...


























*sending an incrininating pic to someone now.*

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

This whole thread just goes to show why cell phones are evil...

*sending an incrininating pic to someone now.*

Yeah, and it also makes me wonder if I'm unusually prudish in my lifelong photo taking habits.

Maybe digital photography has created a pretty big divide in terms of people's photo taking sensibilities. If you're old enough to have had your memories shaped by having strangers develop your photos, you're also probably old enough that the idea of taking nude digital images of yourself is pretty horrific in its own right.

I just don't get how casually carrying around naked photos of your wife and leaving them at McDonalds is something that someone with much dignity would do.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

As to your first point in the above post, a number of states have a mechanism in place for this in comparative negligence; in that way, either the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by his/her "fault" in the incident, or, in some states, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% liable by the judge or jury, the plaintiff will walk away with nothing.

I was under the impression that comparative/contributory negligence is only available as a defense to negligence torts (which defamation/libel/intentional infliction of emotional distress are not) so in this case would only be available as a defense if they were asserting a claim of negligence against McDonalds.