The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457

The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

warspite1 -> The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 2:36:37 PM)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34523300 [X(]

Chickenboy -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 2:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34523300 [X(] Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue the parents of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear. For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage. I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter. But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8\|] I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D]

warspite1 -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 2:52:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34523300 [X(] Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue the parents of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear. For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage. I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter. But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8\|] I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D] warspite1 Yes, but in fairness we are talking hors d'ouvres. I mean this is serious right?

Chickenboy -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 3:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34523300 [X(] Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue the parents of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear. For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage. I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter. But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8\|] I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D] warspite1 Yes, but in fairness we are talking hors d'ouvres. I mean this is serious right? I knew my spelling on this would come back to haunt me. [:'(]

Aurelian -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 7:49:02 PM)
Inset lawyer jokes here.

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 8:18:20 PM)
Thankfully, there are people who can still reason correctly. The women was not awarded anything by the jury. So not only did she loose the case but will probably loose the affection of the young boy and her sister or brother.

jcjordan -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 9:50:11 PM)
I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger

Aurelian -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 10:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jcjordan I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger Since the kid lives with his father, there is no will or estate to get a share of. She wanted the money from the homeowner's insurance company. But under Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant. And she isn't his aunt. She's a cousin of the father.

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 10:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: jcjordan I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger Since the kid lives with his father, there is no will or estate to get a share of. She wanted the money from the homeowner's insurance company. But under Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant. And she isn't his aunt. She's a cousin of the father. Still being reported as Aunt by several news media. That's typical too inaccuracies in reporting is rampant.

Aurelian -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 10:34:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zap quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: jcjordan I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger Since the kid lives with his father, there is no will or estate to get a share of. She wanted the money from the homeowner's insurance company. But under Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant. And she isn't his aunt. She's a cousin of the father. Still being reported as Aunt by several news media. That's typical too inaccuracies in reporting is rampant. They haven't caught up yet :)

rhondabrwn -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 10:34:25 PM)
Since she was going for the insurance money, I doubt that any family members were offended. Had a neighbor approached me once about re-roofing my house for half the price of the contractor's estimate. I let them do it. He started the job with rain threatening, then as he was trying to cover the stripped roof with a tarp, he slid off the 2nd story roof of my tri-level, falling onto the driveway asphalt below. He was very seriously injured with multiple bone fractures and was in a wheel chair for almost a year. He turned the bills in under his employer's insurance, pretending it was an accident at his own home. Doing roofing on the side wasn't eligible for coverage... so he committed insurance fraud. When they found out, he lost his job. Then, he sued me for damages! My Homeowners Insurance carrier handled the defense and won the case, no money from me! Then he filed a Worker's Compensation claim which was also denied. They were pretty well screwed. I don't blame them for trying to get money out of my insurance carrier. That seems a harmless target to most people... right? Of course, this kind of stuff runs up everyone's premiums so we all pay in the end. So, I suspect in this instance, all parties were participating with a "nudge and a wink" as they attempted to get money out of an accident.

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/14/2015 11:09:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn Since she was going for the insurance money, I doubt that any family members were offended. Had a neighbor approached me once about re-roofing my house for half the price of the contractor's estimate. I let them do it. He started the job with rain threatening, then as he was trying to cover the stripped roof with a tarp, he slid off the 2nd story roof of my tri-level, falling onto the driveway asphlt below. He was very seriously injured with multiple bone fractures and was in a wheel chair for almost a year. He turned the bills in under his employer's insurance, pretending it was an accident at his own home. Doing roofing on the side wasn't eligible for coverage... so he committed insurance fraud. When they found out, he lost his job. Then, he sued me for damages! My Homeowners Insurance carrier handled the defense and won the case, no money from me! Then he filed a Worker's Compensation claim which was also denied. They were pretty well screwed. I don't blame them for trying to get money out of my insurance carrier. That seems a harmless target to most people... right? Of course, this kind of stuff runs up everyone's premiums so we all pay in the end. So, I suspect in this instance, all parties were participating with a "nudge and a wink" as they attempted to get money out of an accident. Hi Ronda, the only problem with them going after your insurance, and they win. Your monthly will go up and if you were negligent your insurance will probably drop you. I too had a similar experience as you experienced. The case just ended after 5 years. People came by, the women slipped on a stair (was not hurt) but decided to go after my insurance. She pulled out when a witness who saw the whole thing and was ready to testify. This same women had a suit against Mc Donalds (who she worked for them) she tried to get a friend to lie for her, in order to win her case. The friend chose not to testify. She was fearful because she believed Macs had a camera in store that would catch her false testimony. There is another point that should be mentioned. There is the character issue. What about the lack of honesty of people. Ethical and moral formation by the parents

jamus34 -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 1:19:22 AM)
Biggest problem nowadays - a complete lack of self responsibility.

KISSMEUFOOL! -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 2:02:27 AM)
Abolish insurance altogether. The cost of living will then drop by 50% overnight.

jwarrenw13 -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 3:04:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34523300 [X(] Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue the parents of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear. For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage. I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter. But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8\|] I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D] warspite1 Yes, but in fairness we are talking hors d'ouvres. I mean this is serious right? But are these light hors d'ouvres or heavy hors d'ouvres. It makes a difference.

rhondabrwn -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 3:17:41 AM)
My case dragged out over three years, but my insurance wasn't negatively affected. It was just viewed as a "nuisance suit". In this case, the example being set of moral turpitude can't be good for the kids :(

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 4:09:54 AM)
Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time. Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico.

Chickenboy -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 7:58:21 PM)
For non-name brand house service people (e.g., electricians, plumbers, etc.), I steadfastly ask after their license and bonding information before I let them do my work. That's got potential lawsuit written all over it otherwise.

Gilmer -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/15/2015 10:54:04 PM)
We've become too sue happy in the states. My brother had a party for his 9 year old son and the kids were out in the yard riding a red cart down a 3 foot hill. Seems harmless. But, my brother still went out and specifically told them, to stop. They did not, a kid broke his arm, his family sued and the insurance people settled. My brother should have made them stop, I get that, but when I was a kid, if you broke your arm at a neighbor's house, you got it treated and no one sued crap.

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 12:54:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jamus34 Biggest problem nowadays - a complete lack of self responsibility. I think this attitude has made it to legal litigation. Look for negligence of others for a possible payoff. Even though in most cases it should simply be classified as an accidental occurrence. Until our society figures out personal responsibility should be the emphasis our cry baby society (wa,wa its the others guys fault) will add to societies ills.

rhondabrwn -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 6:07:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zap Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time. Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico. This was 25 years ago and back in Indiana! I actually never had to appear in court and never gave a formal deposition other than a recorded phone call with someone from GEICO. I got a couple of letters from them and that was it. The 2nd letter said it had been dismissed and the claim was closed. Pretty easy. Then a few months later I got some inquiries from the Worker's Compensation Board that I answered in a letter and that was followed with a letter advising that the claim had been denied for WC as well. Never talked to the neighbor about it at all... not one word to me about what was going on. Guess they were embarrassed about suing me.

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 8:53:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote: ORIGINAL: Zap Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time. Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico. This was 25 years ago and back in Indiana! I actually never had to appear in court and never gave a formal deposition other than a recorded phone call with someone from GEICO. I got a couple of letters from them and that was it. The 2nd letter said it had been dismissed and the claim was closed. Pretty easy. Then a few months later I got some inquiries from the Worker's Compensation Board that I answered in a letter and that was followed with a letter advising that the claim had been denied for WC as well. Never talked to the neighbor about it at all... not one word to me about what was going on. Guess they were embarrassed about suing me. 25 years ago well that explains it. Today, he would have obtained a lawyer who would take his case taking 25 to 35% of whatever is won. If not winning your neighbor would not have to pay anything. Its a no loose for the litigant. So any fall today expect a lawsuit.

Chickenboy -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 1:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zap quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote: ORIGINAL: Zap Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time. Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico. This was 25 years ago and back in Indiana! I actually never had to appear in court and never gave a formal deposition other than a recorded phone call with someone from GEICO. I got a couple of letters from them and that was it. The 2nd letter said it had been dismissed and the claim was closed. Pretty easy. Then a few months later I got some inquiries from the Worker's Compensation Board that I answered in a letter and that was followed with a letter advising that the claim had been denied for WC as well. Never talked to the neighbor about it at all... not one word to me about what was going on. Guess they were embarrassed about suing me. 25 years ago well that explains it. Today, he would have obtained a lawyer who would take his case taking 25 to 35% of whatever is won. If not winning your neighbor would not have to pay anything. Its a no loose for the litigant. So any fall today expect a lawsuit. Zap, I just wanted to say that I'm not following this conversation at all. But keep up the discourse and effort towards your 5th star! [:D]

Zap -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 3:27:19 PM)
Always wondered how clear my rants come across. Are you learning anything?[:D]

Zorch -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 4:19:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Zap quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote: ORIGINAL: Zap Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time. Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico. This was 25 years ago and back in Indiana! I actually never had to appear in court and never gave a formal deposition other than a recorded phone call with someone from GEICO. I got a couple of letters from them and that was it. The 2nd letter said it had been dismissed and the claim was closed. Pretty easy. Then a few months later I got some inquiries from the Worker's Compensation Board that I answered in a letter and that was followed with a letter advising that the claim had been denied for WC as well. Never talked to the neighbor about it at all... not one word to me about what was going on. Guess they were embarrassed about suing me. 25 years ago well that explains it. Today, he would have obtained a lawyer who would take his case taking 25 to 35% of whatever is won. If not winning your neighbor would not have to pay anything. Its a no loose for the litigant. So any fall today expect a lawsuit. Zap, I just wanted to say that I'm not following this conversation at all. But keep up the discourse and effort towards your 5th star! [:D] Don't you care about MY 5th star? <sob>

Chickenboy -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 4:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zap Are you learning anything?[:D] Aye. Namely, that after so many months of whining about not having your 5th star, you STILL don't have your 5th star. [:'(]

Chickenboy -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 4:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Zap quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote: ORIGINAL: Zap Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time. Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico. This was 25 years ago and back in Indiana! I actually never had to appear in court and never gave a formal deposition other than a recorded phone call with someone from GEICO. I got a couple of letters from them and that was it. The 2nd letter said it had been dismissed and the claim was closed. Pretty easy. Then a few months later I got some inquiries from the Worker's Compensation Board that I answered in a letter and that was followed with a letter advising that the claim had been denied for WC as well. Never talked to the neighbor about it at all... not one word to me about what was going on. Guess they were embarrassed about suing me. 25 years ago well that explains it. Today, he would have obtained a lawyer who would take his case taking 25 to 35% of whatever is won. If not winning your neighbor would not have to pay anything. Its a no loose for the litigant. So any fall today expect a lawsuit. Zap, I just wanted to say that I'm not following this conversation at all. But keep up the discourse and effort towards your 5th star! [:D] Don't you care about MY 5th star? <sob> Zorch, old bean- Of course we care about your 5th star, mate! But if Zap's effort has been underwhelming, yours has been...well....pathetic. Start your own page begging for filler like Zap or Warspite1 did, for pity sake! Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind, mate.

warspite1 -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 5:38:54 PM)
Filler?

warspite1 -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 5:39:06 PM)
What a

warspite1 -> RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457 (10/16/2015 5:39:16 PM)
flamin'

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875