The Cookie Monster will get you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Hobbes

Fair point, 10.30 is not late to be out, but is perhaps on the late side to knock on a door. However, given it was a friendly act (unless their cookies are vile) I would still contend the reaction was bizarre verging on the theatrical and the legal action a total waste of court time.

However, muchs depends on the community. I have stayed in small communities where noone locks their doors and people open doors and leave stuff without a second thought. Presumably there are parts of LA where this would not be practical. The piece suggested this area did not fall into the latter camp - but I for all I know it might be akin to Fallujah. In which case the girls should not have been out delivering cookies.

---

Hey, don't think I am supporting that twit.

I was just giving some information about what is the norm here. I was wondering if, in Scotland, people would be stopping by at later hours than here.

edit @ Biggles and JP's "open houses": So if I came to your house and it was all locked up, would I be safe in assuming you were "getting busy" with the missus? I would ring the bell and run away, giggling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Hey, don't think I am supporting that twit.

I was just giving some information about what is the norm here. I was wondering if, in Scotland, people would be stopping by at later hours than here.

---

No problem - and apologies for all the typos in my last. :blink: Not sure what was happening to my neurons there.

I don't know if there is more late evening activity here or not - 10.30 would be late for a visit but not late to drop something off or pick up a friend to go out.

Most bars don't close until 1.00am so a lot of people going out on Friday night don't acually leave until after 9.00 or later and there is a lot of milling about and what-not before hand - indeed, as there is at 1.30am/2.00am in the morning once the bars have managed to eject everyone.

It depends on the community, but I would guess there are a lot of places like that in the US too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

@hobbes
I am very aware of the many factors involved and that each case is different, that is why , class actions aside, each individual case is treated on it's individual merit.
The question is asked..... is the harm a result of negligent or intentional actions?.
You may say that the lawyers use emotions to win the case but then obviously they are doing their job and the defense lawyers are not.

Vioxx is an extreme case and in cases such as that the judge should have the right to use discretion in controlling the pay outs....not have a maximum.

But to the bit of my post you "bolded", I don't think vioxx fell into that category pre the dangers being discovered. Cost assesment is where a company KNOWS of the risk but it would be cheaper to take it and risk payouts than preventing the risk.... this has happened in the past

That said do you think that a cap of a quarter of a million would stop frivolous lawsuits?

---

As I said, it was one part partial answer and one part rant.

2 years of my fathers life was wasted by lawyers accusing him and a whole group of other doctors of doing harm. My father had no role in the patients bad outcome, his name just happened to be in the chart.

In the end, none of the doctors had done anything wrong, but the insurance company refused to risk a trial because jurors are often motivated by emotion and the prosecutors were asking for millions.

Net result: my father did nothing wrong, he endured two years of stress, and he is left with the anger of a case settled against him that will taint his record.

The lawyers had learned a niche. All you have to do is file a suit and you get money. Insurers are going to give you something, just to avoid the risk of a big hit in court. Currently 50% of all doctors in South Texas (Rio Grande Valley) are being sued. Why? Because the area is filled with poor people looking for cash.

If caps had been in place, the frivolous suits would not be worth the time and it would become worth it for the insurers to fight the suit.

This is how it works at a University Hospital. Suits are capped and frivolous suits are rare. I think extending this policy to the private medical field would do the same.

I do not think it is a lawyers job to steal money because he knows he can emotionally manipulate the jury. His job is to protect people and their rights, not milk some cashcow called cerebral palsy which is almost never related to physician negligence.

The sickening thing is that these fuckheads adverstise on TV and even leave messages on my answering machine, wondering if I am the victim of medical malpractice. Standing up for the little guy my butt -crack, nothing but thieves attempting to punish people who take pride in their jobs and are doing the best they can.

Can you tell, that lawsuit against my father is still alive in my anger today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2

I asked you a specific question which you did not answer.

Do you think if implemented the kerry proposal would or would not limit frivolous lawsuits better than capping. Keep in mind that Bush is touting caps to prevent frivolous lawsuits as a means to lower health costs. I have yet to see him talk tort reform without using the word frivolous

Personally I feel that payments and costs resultant of frivolous lawsuits overshadow the limited number of extra ordinary payouts in legitimate lawsuits

---

Oh...okay.

Insofar as it could be considered a proposal, it sure sounds good, almost good enough to give an impression of workability.

However, since the entire system is of, for, indeed, all about lawyers, I can only imagine how long and loud a lawyer would laugh if you even said "three strikes" to him/her, or expected a judge to tell a tort lawyer working a contingency case that he/she is pursuing a frivolous action.

Kerry's idea would merely present more opportunities for a lawyer to inflate his/her billing.

No, I think Bush's idea for caps is a better starting point owing to it's simplicity, which is the best weapon against lawyers.

I guess, then, that I would have to say no, it is not a better idea, which is not to say that it shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

No problem - and apologies for all the typos in my last. :blink: Not sure what was happening to my neurons there.

I don't know if there is more late evening activity here or not - 10.30 would be late for a visit but not late to drop something off or pick up a friend to go out.

Most bars don't close until 1.00am so a lot of people going out on Friday night don't acually leave until after 9.00 or later and there is a lot of milling about and what-not before hand - indeed, as there is at 1.30am/2.00am in the morning once the bars have managed to eject everyone.

It depends on the community, but I would guess there are a lot of places like that in the US too.

---

Yeah, I was talking about salesman coming to your door or people unannounced just dropping by.

For me, in Texas, I usually pre-bar (release the apple)starting at 10:00, go to my friends house at 11:00 and hit the bars at 12:00. Alcohol stops being served at 2:00am, Bars closes at 3.

Incidently, you can buy cookies all night long.

J2
I would say that it's greed on the part of the claimant that fuels frivolous lawsuits...not the lawyers, however put an element of risk onto the lawyers and they are less likely to take on a frivolous case
I've heard people blame real estate agents for expensive housing, but it's the vendor charging the money.

i don't think government has any business interfering in settlements..... each case is subject to appeal and it is for the appeal court to decide if the award is fair....not the government to set a limit.

You wouldn't accept government dictating the maximum a private insurance company can charge would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Everose

The piece Vidcc posted suggested that she was feuding with another neighbour and given the way she reacted to these girls one has sympathy for the neighbour.

Her first reaction was one of fear and vulerability. Could her second reaction be to cover up this vulnerability? And we don't really know what her experience with the other neighbor was. These girls meant well, and as I said, it is a sad deal that they were taken to court.

Presumably the girls will have learned that they should have opted for the cussing and drinking. However, hopefully, they will get the support of their local community and learn that kindness is its own reward.

I think they learned, by the other seven or so families, that their kindness was appreciated for what it was.

Is 10.30 late on a Friday night for 17 and 18 year olds?

---

No, for a 17 and 18 year old, the night has just begun. :D


I am one, though, that even though this woman had taken these girls to court, I would still feel sorry for her and if her car broke down I would be willing to help her with it. Even if it meant I might be taken to court for damaging it sometime in the future. :lol:

I hope these girls don't let this one woman's retaliation prevent them from being kind to others in the future either.

I'm sure the girls would have learned a lesson if the woman had just let them pay the medical bills as they offered.
It is my belief that she only won those because the offer had been made so responsibility had been accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2
I would say that it's greed on the part of the claimant that fuels frivolous lawsuits...not the lawyers, however put an element of risk onto the lawyers and they are less likely to take on a frivolous case
I've heard people blame real estate agents for expensive housing, but it's the vendor charging the money.

i don't think government has any business interfering in settlements..... each case is subject to appeal and it is for the appeal court to decide if the award is fair....not the government to set a limit.

You wouldn't accept government dictating the maximum a private insurance company can charge would you?

---

As long as there are ambulance chasers, there will be easy proof that your first supposition is wrong.

I would say you are definitely in the minority when you state that lawyers do not solicit frivolous suits; after all, everyone deserves his/her day in court, no?

I don't think government should have it's finger in most of the pies it does, though from past debates, I feel I can state you are more comfortable with it's propensity to assume entree than I.

As re: insurance, it would be pretty sweet if they felt compelled to charge me what I feel is a fairer premium, but I would much rather they themselves could regulate this rather than involving the disinterested government.

If the lawyers rather than the plaintiff were made responsible for the costs where a case is deemed frivolous that would soon cut the number of such cases.

Obviously there would be cases which are borderline and no doubt the lawyers would be able to get insurance to cover these instances, but if there were too many they would rapidly find themselves unable to get insurance. The result would be to change their ways or go out of business.

Of course, it then depends on someone ruling that the case was frivolous in the first place, which might not be quite so easy.