Thread: blame the state?

A woman driver gets stopped by a state trooper, appears to be under the influence, is tested and found to be about twice the legal limit, which could be argued should be zero but that's a separate issue. Anyway, he arrests and cuffs her, she complains the cuffs are too tight so he loosens them. This allows her to slip the cuffs, and when he's later distracted by another call she manages to escape from the car, and ends up dead in a road accident.

Is the state responsible for her death?

No.

But don't let that get in the way of a good com-pen-say-shun claim from the relatives.

I get the feeling this is a trick/loaded question? Presumably it's based on an actual scenario?

Originally Posted by keda

Is the state responsible for her death?

nope, in the uk it would be misadventure.

Americans need to learn that they are responsible for their own actions and that blaming others for everything that is not quite to their liking is wrong.

Seems the state settled for $350k.

They should've sent her estate a claim for everything from trooper's time to clearing her body from the road.

Originally Posted by Spin

Americans need to learn that they are responsible for their own actions and that blaming others for everything that is not quite to their liking is wrong.

The US was it? Should've known. The most litigous nation in the World.

Someone there cuts there arse wiping it with a razor blade they'd probably sue because the instructions didn't tell them not to.

Originally Posted by keda

Seems the state settled for $350k.

That is just sad, in a pathetic sense.

Yea, fuckin lawyers get 40%, they suck that shit up..Slimy assholes..

Originally Posted by blackgang

Yea, fuckin lawyers get 40%, they suck that shit up..Slimy assholes..

Shooting the messenger, blackgang.

Not their fault the system's screwed and Americans think personal responsibility is a brand of perfume is it.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by blackgang

Yea, fuckin lawyers get 40%, they suck that shit up..Slimy assholes..

Shooting the messenger, blackgang.

Not their fault the system's screwed and Americans think personal responsibility is a brand of perfume is it.

Not really. The term "ambulance chaser" comes from the US where lawyers will take compensation cases on a contingency basis and actually persuade potential clients to pursue cases with the flimsiest validity.

This may have led some people to think they can sue somebody if they fall down drunk (and they do , I had a NY barman explain he wouldn't serve a drunk mainly for fear of being sued when the guy creamed himself and his car on the way home) but it started with the lawyers.

You can sue people in the UK for the same reasons they do in the States but as they haven't that same 'compensation-culture' here nobody rarely does. There are Ambulance Chasers over here but they are regarded as con men.

Originally Posted by shehiredahitman

You can sue people in the UK for the same reasons they do in the States but as they haven't that same 'compensation-culture' here nobody rarely does. There are Ambulance Chasers over here but they are regarded as con men.

Not just ambulance chasers, and not just in the US. Lawyers rule the roost, every element of our daily lives is regulated in some form or other, and they preside over the lot.

My sister was walking my dog in Brent Park a few years ago. The temperature had gone minus overnight, there were a few slivers of ice on the footpath that she noticed and avoided, till she slipped on one and hairline fractured her ankle. Her husband, a high powered lawyer and well respected in the legal community, approached the Council for compo. When they baulked, he contacted the Met Office for the previous night's weather forecast for the area, which indicated a likelihood that the temperature might drop into minus, and argued that it is the Council's responsibility to protect the public, part of that responsibility is to obtain reliable weather reports when there's a chance of ice so that they can safety public paths, and that they would pay right away or after an expensive and well publicised (he also heads a national media group) legal battle which would be handled by his firm, naturally using their top and most expensive legal boffins. About a week later she earned £15k tax free for a week in a cast.

His daughter, my niece, worked for forensics, wanted a change to a desk job due to her bad back, was refused, he threatened to go to tribunal (with the regular publicity angle), they checked him out and coughed up, not sure how much but in the region of £30k.

He buys houses like we do short times. Now, when a routine bank credit check with Equifax came back with an adverse comment, they mentioned it to him though they knew it must be an error and gave him the mortgage anyway. But he sensed there was money to be made, and laid into both Equifax and the firm that provided Equifax with the eroneous data, despite the fact that Equifax have meticulously carved a legal disclaimer in their microprint (for us) on the basis that all of the data they hold is fed to them by financial and other outfits, but as a goodwill gesture (and no doubt in fear of setting a lethal precedent) they agreed to settle for a mere £24k, him being a director of several companies including a PLC. Taking pity on the source of the adverse comment, a small firm, because they readily admitted it was a genuine mistake, he settled for a nominal amount, I think £2-3k, and takes great pride in recounting this episode because that was precisely the cost, would you believe, of the locks on his French windows.

Be wary of lawyers, be very afraid.

I personally love the infamous thai philosophy of Som Nom naa.
I imagine many of you do too.

Ever tried explaing it/why you like it to someone from back home?
They just don't get it.

One of the big problems with lawyers gone wild in the USA is the huge, sometimes crippling legal expenses you can incur just defending yourself against sometimes even frivolous lawsuits. And, you can be joined into a complex litigation even if you had little or nothing to do with it. I know people who've gone bankrupt from such things, and these were very successful business people before that.

yeah, a good friend of my family was a good-natured, kind doctor for kids in LA, California, thru the 60's, 70's and 80's. Around 94, 95 he left the state - to use his words - before the goddamn lawyers get me for something I didn't do and can't afford.

Originally Posted by chinthee

One of the big problems with lawyers gone wild in the USA is the huge, sometimes crippling legal expenses you can incur just defending yourself against sometimes even frivolous lawsuits. And, you can be joined into a complex litigation even if you had little or nothing to do with it. I know people who've gone bankrupt from such things, and these were very successful business people before that.

As that great philosopher Voltaire complained, I've been broke twice in my life, once when I lost a court case, and once when I won one.

The dry cleaners victimised by the opportunist judge that claimed >$40m for his mislaid trousers, said they would've gone broke defending the case were it not for public outrage triggering generosity to the tune of more than $100k towards legal expenses. That says something should be done to protect the people from the legal profession, though it can never happen since judges and lawmakers are themselves part of the rot.

In the old days if a witness gave false testimony, he would suffer the sentence that the defendant would have received on that charge, had he been guilty. Advancing this, if fair be fair and naturally with reasonable protections for all, trivial/nuisance plaintiffs would go to court knowing that if they lose they will be required to pay not just the defendant's costs, but also the amount they were hoping to steal.