Woman falls into fountain while texting

[JohnnyCockfight]

She is clearly stupid - my source of this is the interview on ABC news yesterday, in which she has trouble forming coherent words and sentences (for similarity, see: Rich Rodriduez, any interview). But then again she may be a con artist judging from past convictions for theft and hit-and-run, in addition to pending theft charges that are now coming out in the news today. Should she choose to sue, the convictions for crimes of "moral turpitude," and theft is certainly one of those, can be used in civil trials to impeach the credibility of that person's testimony.

I just want to reiterate that she will likely not have a cause of action for personal injury - for one she isn't injured, and for two, she would have primarily caused any injury she did have herself. Any claim she might have would likely be for infliction of emotional distress - every state has interpreted that differently. If she were to bring claims that were entirely baseless, there are measures the defense can take to have the other side sanctioned and fined.

Having said all of that, the employer should have guidelines that would not allow for its security employees to use security film in such a way. And if they do not have those types of guidelines, then I do not have a lot of sympathy for them in having to defend any frivolous suit that might arise from such stupidity.

 

[Gatorubet]

I suspect you're influenced by the fact that "loser pays" would also put thousands of your colleagues out of work, or at least force them to do something other than chase ambulances and send letters to insurance companies.

I know that 75% or more of the absolutely valid cases that I have tried or settled would very likely not have been pursued if the family would have been exposed to crippling court costs and attorneys' fees had they lost.

There are already rules for frivilous suits. The fact that one side "lost" a case does not make the actual filing (or spirited defense) of the lawsuit automatically frivilous by either side.

For example, when a person (the defendant) pays their auto insurance premium they get the benefit of "free" respresentation by a defense firm, either in-house or retained. If you are legitimately injured in an auto wreck, with actual herniated disc injury substantiated via MRI and subsequent surgery, while you work up your law suit the other side is deposing doctors, sending you to their own doctor for an independant medical examination, looking at your entire medical history, etc., at while billing at $100- $200 per hour.

Like I say, you have a legitimate claim. Let's say it is a he-said, she said on who ran the red light, with each side having an eye-witness. Under your example (and let's assume for the sake of this example that the plaintiff, really, truly, absolutely had the green light) the poor guy with the f-ed up back - and inability to be an iron worker anymore and make big bucks - and who had a surgery and now has two titanium rods in his back - may lose his house or savings if the jury sides with defendant for God knows what reason....he wears a Buckeye tie at his Ann ARbor trial.

Most people would forego a legitimate and valid claim if it meant that they might have to pay the other side $50-100K if they lose.

So you CAN do that. But I have to tell you that the people you would hurt most is not the insurance companies, but the average guy or gal who is injured and has to sue for damages.

There's a local personal injury lawyer who has made a fortune and yet hasn't set foot in a courtroom in over 10 years. Everything gets settled because of the mere threat of litigation and the prohibitive cost of it, even if/when you prove you were not at fault.

Bull[Mark May]. Make believe fairy tales. I'm not that bad of a lawyer, but nobody is throwing buckets of money at me for mere threats of litigation even when the other side "has proof that my claim is false (not at fault)".

Are there claims of contested liability where the cost of litigation is a factor? Duh. Yeah. But a whole practice of getting cash for made up and spurious liability and damages???? Outside of talk radio, that is not the reality.*

"Loser pays" may not be the best solution, but the status quo is ridiculous.

Well, status quo in fact versus status quo in myth are two different things.

* caveat. I don't do the type of case where there is a rear end collision and the person in the struck car has a bumper dented but no big property claim, and the person goes to a chiropractor for a month or two. In such a claim - without in house counsel it can be cheaper for the insurance co. throw them a few grand instead of having to retain their own doc and to actually try it to conclusion. So in those cases, there may be something more to what you claim about "mere threat of litigation and the prohibitive cost." But it sure as Hell is not "everything gets settled". The insurors know who has made multip[le claims, is a felon, etc., used a shady doc., etc, and they will fight you. Allstate does not setlttle valid claims in my neck of the woods, so I know they do not settle frivilous ones. But it is true that you can strain a back a hell of a lot easier than you think (there was a study a bunch of years back where some docs who refused to believe that you could get "whiplash" from a relatively minor crash volunteered to be hit from behind. shock. several of them had bad cervical strains and changed their opinions), so guessing the injury from the property damage is not a clear connection. I'll cry for insurance companies when I see them stop committing bad faith on a daily basis.

 

[Bucklion]

I know that 75% or more of the absolutely valid cases that I have tried or settled would very likely not have been pursued if the family would have been exposed to crippling court costs and attorneys' fees had they lost.

There are already rules for frivilous suits. The fact that one side "lost" a case does not make the actual filing (or spirited defense) of the lawsuit automatically frivilous by either side.

For example, when a person (the defendant) pays their auto insurance premium they get the benefit of "free" respresentation by a defense firm, either in-house or retained. If you are legitimately injured in an auto wreck, with actual herniated disc injury substantiated via MRI and subsequent surgery, while you work up your law suit the other side is deposing doctors, sending you to their own doctor for an independant medical examination, looking at your entire medical history, etc., at while billing at $100- $200 per hour.

Like I say, you have a legitimate claim. Let's say it is a he-said, she said on who ran the red light, with each side having an eye-witness. Under your example (and let's assume for the sake of this example that the plaintiff, really, truly, absolutely had the green light) the poor guy with the f-ed up back - and inability to be an iron worker anymore and make big bucks - and who had a surgery and now has two titanium rods in his back - may lose his house or savings if the jury sides with defendant for God knows what reason....he wears a Buckeye tie at his Ann ARbor trial.

Most people would forego a legitimate and valid claim if it meant that they might have to pay the other side $50-100K if they lose.

So you CAN do that. But I have to tell you that the people you would hurt most is not the insurance companies, but the average guy or gal who is injured and has to sue for damages.



Bull[Mark May]. Make believe fairy tales. I'm not that bad of a lawyer, but nobody is throwing buckets of money at me for mere threats of litigation even when the other side "has proof that my claim is false (not at fault)".

Are there claims of contested liability where the cost of litigation is a factor? Duh. Yeah. But a whole practice of getting cash for made up and spurious liability and damages???? Outside of talk radio, that is not the reality.



Well, status quo in fact versus status quo in myth are two different things.

"So call the Law offices of Bro and Mance, using the 800 number at the bottom of the screen...and remember, we don't get money, unless we get money for you. We'll make...them pay"

If I didn't see these commercials 500 times a day (especially when sitting at home ill in the daytime) this would be a much easier claim to believe, but are you really trying to say that gutter trash (of all types) doesn't watch these ads and figure "hey, let's bring a suit, I have nothing to lose, and they might just settle to spare their reputation and all the time they have to take off work going to court"? If not, then why exactly do these "firms" advertise on TV during the daytime when, I don't know, most people with jobs don't see them?

 

[jwinslow]

What about some good public shaming for individuals who bring cases deemed to be a waste of time and an affront to the human race?

 

[Gatorubet]

And you know why I am laughing....

The system is broken, you know it, but you profit, so all's good.

No, actually, but enjoy your chuckle. It is possible to have an opinion about loser pay that is based upon something other than pure self interest Jeff.

While what is good for my clients benefits me - that is self evident - I care a whole lot about the problems my injured clients face, thank you. Most of my cases are referrals from other lawyers, and until you deal with it on a daily basis, you have no idea how hard it is on people who are seriously injured - or how and what their survivors in a wrongful death case face after some family member is killed. Or if you do know, you've forgotten pretty quickly.

I think you are laughing because you don't know what you are talking about. Then, there is your theory: that I enjoy a career built on made up claims and shakedowns, and that I secretly agree with Jake's analysis of it, but bring up the whole client welfare bit as a screen because the system benefits me monetarily.

I disagree with you. So - uh - "sue me"!

 

[MaxBuck]

I have to say that I am immensely impressed with both Gatorubet and JohnnyCockfight for their erudite and concise defenses of the system that permits a venal dolt such as this woman appears to be to profit from the system via frivolous lawsuits.

Nothing I've said here has had any sarcasm associated with it whatever. Seriously.

I hope this woman's next texting episode takes place very near an open manhole that opens to a very deep sewer.

 

[Gatorubet]

I have to say that I am immensely impressed with both Gatorubet and JohnnyCockfight for their erudite and concise defenses of the system that permits a venal dolt such as this woman appears to be to profit from the system via frivolous lawsuits.

Nothing I've said here has had any sarcasm associated with it whatever. Seriously.

I hope this woman's next texting episode takes place very near an open manhole that opens to a very deep sewer.

Please provide a link to where she has profited. More importantly, please explain what system you would use to keep assholes from filing stupid shit. Should everyone ask Max what he thinks first? No, really. You condemn a system that "permits a venal dolt" from filing her suit. How do you hope to prevent it? Have somebody look at the merits of the thing before they get to profit from it? GREAT idea. They already have that. That would be a judge. I take it you want to prevent her from filing anything in advance. Cool.

But instead of simplistic hyperbole bashing a "system" for not having the foreknowledge to prevent an idiot from being an idiot, how about explaining in greater detail the Maxonian Civil Procedure Model that would eliminate dolts from filing suit prior to them filing. Then you could work on the system that would eliminate dolts from applying from jobs they are not qualified for prior to supervisors having to wade through their resumes. Then you could work on the system that keeps hypochondriacs from wasting medical providers services prior to seeing doctors and getting medical histories. Which would give you the experience to figure out how to make a system that would prevent trolls from posting on forums before the mods have a chance to look at the content of the post.

I like your motives Max. Now, just give me some specifics.

Max, the system is designed for two sides and a neutral to look at the merits of the case. For you to expect there to be a system that "blocks" the filing of a stupid suit before it is filed is naive. After a stupid suit is filed there is a system of dismissing it, of sanctioning frivilous suits, and of awarding attorneys fee and costs for things brought without good faith. If a person in my juridiction came to me with the texting suit I would advise her to not to sue or to see somebody else. I cannot think a single judge I know that would not grant summary judgment on some theory that the idiot who walked into the pool and almost immediately left was harmed by the actions of a guard in not "helping her". OTOH, they have a problem with copying and uploading the video. There is a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Nobody likes to become a viral laughting stock. The "nobody helped me" things won't get her a dime, IMO. I'd bet you on that.

 

[Gatorubet]

What about some good public shaming for individuals who bring cases deemed to be a waste of time and an affront to the human race?

I'm all about Freedom of Speech man.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Enforce Rule 11.

[/thread]

:bows:

 

[MaxBuck]

Please provide a link to where she has profited.

1. I never said she did. Said venal dolts like her can. You can't deny that with a straight face.

2. I don't have a better system. Just think this one sucks, at least to the extent people like the mall owner are subject to litigation from people like this moronic, greedy twat. That mall owner will pay out the ass in order to defend himself from the absurd allegations this bitch will cook up.

3. You may have missed where I praised you guys. It was honest praise. I have no quarrel with attorneys, except probably personal-injury plaintiff types. Them, I could tie in a sack and throw into the ocean. But in my experience most other attorneys feel the same way.

 

[Gatorubet]

1. I never said she did. Said venal dolts like her can. You can't deny that with a straight face.

My experience is that shitty cases aren't worth the filing fee.

2. I don't have a better system.

nm

3. You may have missed where I praised you guys. It was honest praise. I have no quarrel with attorneys, except probably personal-injury plaintiff types. Them, I could tie in a sack and throw into the ocean. But in my experience most other attorneys feel the same way.

Then we remain....ahh....quarreled.

 

[MaxBuck]

... [Mark May]ty cases aren't worth the filing fee.

Yet so many get filed regardless.

Look, Gator, your practice may be strong enough that you avoid bullshit cases like this one would be. But lots of attorneys are desperate enough to take on a case like this, and if this silly woman can find such a one, then the mall owner is forced to spend significant money on defense. And that's unjust.

 

[BB73]

What about some good public shaming for individuals who bring cases deemed to be a waste of time and an affront to the human race?

Objection, that's a leading question.

Gator would be happy to see Nick Saban and Les Miles pilloried in a public square.

• 
  

 

[MaxBuck]

Gator would be happy to see Nick Saban and Les Miles pilloried in a public square.

• 
  

I think that's a verdict we could all get behind.

 

[BUCKYLE]

...I care...

The ol' "Lawyer with a heart of gold", eh? Pretty Woman was way more believable than this shit.