Edwards!

[yesman065]

I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence? Does it matter what grades he/she got or what activities or sports he/she played? You gotta be kidding me.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by yesman065

I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you?

If corporation X can save .005 pennies per unit by using a cheaper material, that also makes their product slightly less stable, slightly more dangerous, and they do so with the full knowledge that this will increase the risks of death or injury in the consumer by a specific amount, the they have put a price on your child's life.

If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then they have put a price on your child's life.

It isn't a choice you get to make, they make it for you (so there's no purpose in your feeling squeamish about it, it's out of your hands). The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?

[Undertoad]

Edwards is Farked this morning with a story about how his staff tried to convince a local Walmart to get them a PS3 early. Unfortunately for Edwards, the Walmarters remembered that Edwards is anti-Walmart. This is heads-up PR by Walmart, who then gets to craft the following release and get publicity. They're very good at this:

Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart
electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony
PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family. Later that night, Sen.
Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United
Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son
had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart welcomes Sen. Edwards to visit his local Wal-Mart store and
explore the extensive line of home electronics as well as the Metro7 line
shoes for men and boys.

The Company noted the PlayStation3 is an extremely popular item this
Christmas season, and while the rest of America's working families are
waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front.
While, we cannot guarantee that Sen. Edwards will be among one of the first
to obtain a PlayStation3, we are certain Sen. Edwards will be able to find
great gifts for everyone on his Christmas list - many at Wal-Mart's "roll-back prices."

It's pretty much a non-story for Edwards, who can clearly claim it was the staffer's doing, but it's a funny turnaround nevertheless. Meanwhile PS3s are $1421 at Walmart. Good god.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Meanwhile PS3s are $1421 at Walmart. Good god.

[Shawnee123]

For pete's sake...I was all excited I might get a PS2 with my coke rewards points, but they sold out too.

Anyway, I think games have lost so much playability since the older days. Give me Commander Keen any day!

(Hey, I did it!)

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Flint

If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then they have put a price on your child's life.

The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?

I agree - that is MY point also - They cannot be allowed to lessen the burden of those responsible. However, there must be equally stiff penalties for those who attempt to abuse the system.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by yesman065

I agree - that is MY point also - They cannot be allowed to lessen the burden of those responsible.

Sorry, I've been trying to figure out what you were getting at.

Originally Posted by yesman065

However, there must be equally stiff penalties for those who attempt to abuse the system.

This is the common justification for Tort Reform, hence my confusion. What different kind of meaures do you suggest?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Meanwhile PS3s are $1421 at Walmart. Good god.

My son wanted me to wait in line all day yesterday and all night so that we could buy one and then sell it at a profit so we could buy new furniture for our new place. I almost agreed too. Then again maybe I should have. These game prices are nuts - what ever happened to pong anyway?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

If corporation X can save .005 pennies per unit by using a cheaper material, that also makes their product slightly less stable, slightly more dangerous, and they do so with the full knowledge that this will increase the risks of death or injury in the consumer by a specific amount, the they have put a price on your child's life.

If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then they have put a price on your child's life.

It isn't a choice you get to make, they make it for you (so there's no purpose in your feeling squeamish about it, it's out of your hands). The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?

Well, that sounds like a noble cause..... but not reality.
Personal injury cases don't seek and punish the guilty, they seek the money. Edwards sued the pool drain cover company because he knew there was little chance of a big payout by suing the municipal workers that installed the cover improperly. A jury is more conservative in awarding big bucks from a local community and it's local workers than from faceless evil corporations.

Another case I know personally. A plumbing company wins a contract to install the sprinkler system in a Philly high rise building. The system is designed by the architect, approved by the city code dept and installed as designed. After installation, it's inspected and tested by the general contractor, city code inspectors, and then again by Factory Mutual, an agent for the insurance industry to protect their risk in insuring the building.

Several years later there is a fire on a high floor in which three firemen tragically die.
The General contractor was no longer in business as it in common practice to dissolve after each project is finished. The insurance company paid the building owners the maximum of their liability. The building owners filed bankruptsy.
Who gets sued? The plumbing company, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.
Again, it's harder to get millions from the city than a faceless corporation.

My disdain for personal injury lawyers is not what they do basically bad, but the way they do it is all about the money and justice be damned. They drive the cost of doing business, sky high. That's why a simple item like a lawn mower, chainsaw or ladder, things impossible to make idiot proof, are more expensive than they should be.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Who gets sued? The plumbing company, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.
Again, it's harder to get millions from the city than a faceless corporation.

How did the case turn out? Did the jury rule against an innocent party? If so, shame on the jury.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, they bankrupted the plumbing company with an huge award.
When you parade the children of three dead fireman, the jury melts.

[Flint]

That's an unfortunate result of people favoring their emotions over their intellect. It sucks, but this is how people are encouraged to be.
It's the source of so much that is wrong. But it's one of those "what are you gonna do?" things. I hate it, every time it rears it's ugly head.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Flint

But it's one of those "what are you gonna do?" things.

Perhaps limit the amount of money they can award in damages?

What if the cap were a percentage of the defendant's assets, rather than a fixed dollar amount?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

My disdain for personal injury lawyers is not what they do basically bad, but the way they do it is all about the money and justice be damned. They drive the cost of doing business, sky high.

And then we have the complete opposite. In the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds died, the Governor’s report blamed the victims for their deaths. The club was bankrupt and no money to compensate the victims. Then an attorney took up the case pro-bono. That is only when we learned about the aluminum wiring, installation in violation of standard practice, etc. So the lawyer went after the electrical contractor, the builders, others who did not really understand the danger, etc. Although they did not get much, at least the victims got some compensation because the lawyer did same thing.

Meanwhile we learned about this disaster being created all across the nation in aluminum electrical wire. Done only because price of copper had increased. Done without any consideration for high risk to human life.

Those in Cincinnati well know about the Beverly Hills Supper Club. Many who don't should learn why the Kentucky state investigation blamed the victims for their own death AND why a lawyer used those same tactics to bring justice. For all we know, that lawyer may have saved your life.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Perhaps limit the amount of money they can award in damages?

What if the cap were a percentage of the defendant's assets, rather than a fixed dollar amount?

Fixed dollar amounts are the way Tort Reform is done, at least in Texas, where you and I live. And it doesn't improve the quality of cases, it increases the quantity. More cases are the opposite of what Tort Reform advocates preach, so it just doesn't make sense.

I should add that my uncle is a personal injury attorney. Not the boogey-man you see on daytime TV, but a decent, professional man that serves a legitimate purpose in society that has been crippled by Tort Reform.