Edwards!

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

I understand the purpose of the compensation completely. My point again is that
1) I cannot put a value on such things and
2) Society feels it MUST put a value on such things.
Its a paradox, I realize that. But limiting the amount of compensation is simply telling a corporation that if they put out an inferior product or behave in an unsafe way, that it will cost X in compensation, no more - no less. Said corporation simply factors this "price of business" into their product. That doesn't benefit anyone other than the corporations.

Human life cannot have a known dollar value - that is, simply put, the value of life. - That everything has a monetary value or can be measured in dollars and cents. The mentality that you can factor out some dollar figure to equal a life is the real problem. Once that mentality is allowed to pervade, the society as a whole is doomed. Holding something so precious as a human life and quantifying it into a monetary unit or value cannot be tolerated.

Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem. Its as useful as putting oil into a car with leaking seals - the system doesn't need oil, it needs an overhaul.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem.

Well go back to the 1970s when killing people was acceptable. Cited previously was the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds of victims were blamed for their own death. Reasons for those deaths and resulting judicial actions were reported deep inside the New York Times because human life was not important. Where we only learned how to maybe save your life because of lawyers filing suit against everyone involved in that building construction.

Same time was the Ford Pinto - a two dollar solution that was not implemented because it cost too much. People burned to death inside a car because the problem and solution was understood long before the first Pinto was ever sold. A lawsuit filed by State of Indiana that also remained buried deep inside the NY Times because human life had so little value - until lawyers started taking on these issues big time.

Same time was the Firestone 500 - a well known problem that was creating paraplegics and quadriplegics all over America. Firestone was paying off these people if they remained silent. Firestone refused to fix the Firestone 500 design because it was cheaper to pay off victims rather than fix a tire design. When government did a study, radial tire failure rates were on the order of 50%. House subcommittee determined that 13 million of 23 million Firestone tires needed immediate recall. So tire companies went to the Supreme Court to have that study quashed. Clarence Ditlow of Center for Auto Safety photocopied (a new high tech machine) and distributed the report to every reporter as fast as possible until handed a copy of the Supreme Court order. Ditlow is why we know how aggressively Firestone tried to kill Americans. That report was buried inside the NY Times. But something radical and new – Consumer Reports – told us including that seven of their own tested tires failed catastrophically. Still Firestone kept selling the 500. Financial damages were minimal.

Meanwhile you do remember the Firestone Wilderness tire that also was defective, Firestone knew it was defective, Ford then demanded Firestone recall all those tires, Firestone refused, and many reading this never learned the complete story. Ford got stuck paying $billions to fix Firestone's intention and MBA inspired murder. A problem that could be fixed only by lawsuit had Ford not been so responsible.

You know each story? You had better before deciding whether lawyers are a problem or a solution.

Tell me about the Macdonald’s coffee. If you have woefully insufficient facts, then you have believed the commonly acknowledged myth. I leave it to you to learn facts in that case - or do you quickly blame lawyers only because you read about it in a tabloid (too much summary and too few details)? After hundreds suffered, finally lawyers sued to get MacDonald’s to fix a well known problem.

So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.

Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.

Is this long? Yes, because logical thought it not found in Daily News tabloid type reasoning. Provided are four examples. You knew each or did you simply fall for highly hyped tabloid propaganda?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.

Lets just say that you have left us with a long dissertation without actually discussing THE ISSUE. You simply went on about a few notable cases where wrongs were rectified. There are countless cases on both sides of this argument both for and against.

I never said that lawyers were or weren't the problem - YOU did! Hmmm.

Originally Posted by tw

So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.

I believe we were trying to do that before getting sidetracked on another tangent again. Just for clarities sake - the issue is tort reform right? And whether it will solve any problems or issues that our current system is dealing with. I simply offered alternatives - not absolutions. I expressed my point of view only to be ridiculed and disparaged. Now you want to challenge me with a statement like that? I don't think I'll bite on that one, no thanks - I maintain my position on the value of a human life. I NEVER said that cap limits were the answer. I am wholly in favor of QUALIFIED juries making logical and rational decisions. But that is an issue for another thread.

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? 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.

There is no amount of money that can explain what my son's life is to me & that is exactly the amount I would make his life about.
Those who say that they are trying to make a point to a corporation are just greedy. They know statements like that are a lie, both to themselves and the court. Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them... just greed & a sick legacy for their loved ones unless used ONLY to help other victims of a similar fate/crime and not for family profit if part of an existing policy that had to litigated.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them...

Corporations are business entities that are concerned with being profitable. Losing money is losing profit. Nobody here has stated an intention to "make them feel bad" by suing them. Corporations will change their business practices in order to avoid losing money through lawsuits. It's a "check and balance" against their ingrained purpose to generate more and more money. Remove the ability to punish them financially, and then you would be left with appealing to their non-existent conscience as your only option.

As stated previously, they are the ones putting prices on people's heads, not you.

[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.

[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?

[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!)

[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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Part of the problem is what tw touched on... how the legal system operates.
There is a real need for people to seek redress for injuries from those responsible. That must not be downplayed because of abuses by some.

That said.....the television ads for personal injury lawyers, ruffle my feathers, big time. They're blatantly appealing to the get rich quick, money for nothing, quick buck, scumbags.
They're offering a commission, a piece of the action, for the use of your name/story, in fleecing somebody. It's as if they were soliciting screenplays for a docudrama.

[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?

[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.

So, you don't realize they are insured against such suits? The most it will cost them is a slight increase in premium that the company passes on to the consumer. Like a shoplifter, a person looking to cash in beyond their policy payout or settlement is only harming other consumers.
There is no "they".

[Flint]

So why don't premiums go down after Tort Reform is passed? Oops! The insurance companies just keep the money! What I can't figure out is how people are so goddamn naive that they think the insurance companies won't take Tort Reform as a windfall profit, like they demostrably do, every time it gets passed. What do we expect "them" to do, just give the money back voluntarily? Ha! The "harming other consumers" rhetoric does not conform to what actually happens. It's bullshit.