Edwards!

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Flint

If working with that limb was part of an income they have lost the ability to generate, then it is more valuable by exactly that amount.

Thats the problem - you would increase it by "exactly what amount?" How can you say I wouldn't have needed it or increased my earnings in the future with that appendage?

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on. Its impossible. The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists. All of this creates a situation that is untenable. There is no clear answer, no solution, nor can there be.

If you cannot put a value on a limb, eye, etc then you are no where near as ruthless as I am. Think about that for a minute when you consider that, here, I have been called a liberal.

If you cannot put a number on something, then only emotion and chaos results. We even have a number for the value of an average human life. If you are an emotional type, then you don't like it. Too bad. That ruthlessness is also called reality.

Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.

To tell me that "it is impossible" is ... well you also ran away from another discussion when I asked "what is the purpose of war". I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.

A reasonable number can be applied only if logic prevails. And yet the jury room cow towed to emotion. Others even represent personal assumptions into hype – such as people only sue for windfall profits. We were not even permitted courtroom testimony in that jury room. Everything was based only on personal recollections. That is a room ripe for decision only based in emotions.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.

I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

[tw]

You are again posting words only posted by the emotional:

Originally Posted by yesman065

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? ... You scumbags will ... Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

Of course everything has value. Do you think a life in Darfur is worth more than a life in North America? Reality - and whether you like it or not. A life in Darfur has a value far less than a N American life. You need not like it. But that is only an emotion. Reality: the world does so little to protect a Darfur life. Why? Every life has a value.

You want to change it? Then do something that makes the Darfur life worth more. Increase his value to make it worthwhile to save him. And no, that does not even mean spending money. Value increases simply with an intelligent solution. Currently a life in Darfur has so little value, in part, because no viable solution exists.

An opinion also has value. When your opinions arrive full of emotional tirades and without supporting facts, then your opinion goes to the clearance rack. Again, it is reality. Things have quantitative value - even human life. Using such disparaging adjective tends to lower another quantitative value - your credibility. Sorry. Just reality - without emotion.

[lookout123]

my one and only interaction with personal injury lawyers was when i was part of a mock jury, hired (unknowingly) to be the guinea pigs for the attorneys. they went through there case against the state of arizona, showing us photos of auto accidents with fatalities and blah blah blah. in the end they said the state's choice in median barriers caused like 12 deaths (number is hazy with time) during a number of years. they wanted money from the state for these families.

they got seriuosly pissed off when several of us jurors asked why the families were due a single penny from the state. every single accident was caused by excessive speed and/or alcohol. their point was that people died and somebody needed to throw some money at the families and the state seemed the most reasonable.

BS. people died, it was a tragedy, move on.

Originally Posted by yesman065

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

That is not an emotional response?
Wow... I sure would like to see one if that is your idea of logic and reason.

I was in the insurance industry for a long time. You have to come to some conclusion at some point, that is the fact.
You have to be truthful about what is a reasonable amount for both parties and what will set precedent for others in the same situation and how it will affect all others tied to the businesses involved for the long run.
Otherwise, a few will profit and the majority will suffer... end of story, no matter how you try to put empathy into the argument for one side/story alone. It cannot be looked at that way.
That is where it ends... the facts.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

... 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?

You are assuming a world where everyone has same perspective. Value of that child to you makes zero difference from a perspective called society. Society values that child's life completely different. And society is paying the compensation. Again, you are quantitatively measuring using emotions. That cannot be accomplished. Lives have finite value. Society can be manipulated by emotion to grant more money for that death. That is emotionally gratifying - and wrong. Compensation based in emotion should be miniscule. Human life has a known value - no matter how insulting, cold, or ruthless that may be. How much that value is even changes with the person.

What is the purpose of compensation? The future. So that others need not suffer from the same human failures. It is normal and must be expected that humans will always make mistakes. Designs must continue to advance as solution become available and normal human activity – to make mistakes – becomes less catastrophic. The fact that lawyers are necessary says so much about – are symptoms of - others in society. So many forget the purpose of that compensation - so that others will not die.