Here we go again,.,blame the lawyers. In every lawsuit where substantial damages were awarded there was a negligent person or corporation who caused the victim to suffer loss of income, pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life. Would you rather have a system where all the negligent party has to do is say "too bad, so sad, your bad luck"? You will only understand this if you are ever injured. Your tune will change if you suffer such a loss.

Don't you worrie dean once the goverment has controll over everything you won't be able too sue for bull shit stuff anymore. Just like it is here. The goverment clames it keeps the costs down when people can't sue for bull shit little things.

Difference between God and a lawyer is that God doesn't think he's a lawyer.

I agree with Dean. When someone gets suffers a loss of whatever it is there is almost always someone negligent that caused it. They're also throwing small numbers around like its a big deal. 25 attorneys gave 1.2 mil over 8 years? Come on that's a drop in the bucket when you divide it up and spread it over 8 years. Pocket change. However Louisiana is one of the only states where you can sue for someone running into your car and other "accidentals" like that. That's why our insurance is so high.. Most states have laws protecting that and we do not. There are both sides to the argument and I really don't think either one is a clear winner.

Tort reform will never gain ground other than lip service. Reason being is politicians are going to protect their own. The majority of past professions for politicians is ....no big surprise here...lawyers. If they get voted out of office, they have to be able to go back to frivolous law suits.

As for causes of accidents...if you do a true root cause analysis, you will find that there was a Darwin Award nominee at the source. I've seen enough liberal incident investigation methodologies that try to not place blame on individuals....basically looking for lack of procedure, lack poor design or inadequate training as the blame. It's a slippery slope for businesses because they become the bully/bad guy if they portray the deceased or injured victim as the idiot that caused the problem.

I say set very low limits of liability and let Mother Nature take its course with natural selection.


Most liberals seem to suffer from the same mental condition....it's called stupidity!

True, but it was also McDonald's. An extremely unhealthy restaurant that is slowly killing us. Stuff is terrible for you and they know it and continue to serve it so that didn't bother me.. Also that coffee was very hot I remember having to look at that case for class and it was almost 200 degrees which did cause third degree burns to six percent of her, and is quite a bit hotter than your normal cup of coffee.. She had to have skin grafts and was partially crippled for two years, which is believable considering how old she was. Also her daughter took off of work to provide care and lost her income for the two weeks of care she provided. Also they tried to settle with Mcdonalds four times outside of court and mcdonalds would not pay them and only offered 800 dollars. So I'd have stuck it in their ass too when all she originally wanted was just enough to cover her medical expenses for 20,000 and they told her to get lost.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

It was simply an analogy. There are many more that prove my point, that is just one example. I'm not gonna brief a hundred cases for you.

Kibb if you had the money would you pay them off? You help them they help you, it's the way things work now. Someone's got to give them money for them to run and stay in office. I have mixed feelings about it but I would donate money to them. They are legislators but really it's not like they can get you out of that much. Maybe sweep some semi-illegal things under the rug but nothing serious.

That's the problem with politics today, money talks. In today's society, in most cases, money trumps morals. What ever happened to holding political office as a civic duty? Hell no, I wouldn't pay anyone off to vote one way or another. I may not be the richest man in the world, but I worked for everything I have. I'm not looking for handouts and I've never asked anyone for help monetarily or physically, outside of work. I go out of my way to help others and usually turn down help doing things if it is offered. I don't need anything from anyone and don't expect it either.

S4!t happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk