Lawyers These Days...

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Albert Di Salvo, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,168
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why not sue?

    The kid went to a frat party, got drunk, and attempted to shoot a bottle rocket out of his sphincter. It blew up, startled him, and he fell off the deck at the frat house - a deck that they claim was missing the railings around it.

    I'd sue.

    And when I won, I'd take the money, move away, and change my name, because I'd never be able to look anyone in the face again! :D
     
  3. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't understand what's wrong with this lawsuit. Someone was injured by someone's dumb behavior.

    What's the problem? Are you saying someone should be allowed to sue when stupid behavior hurts them?
     
  4. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lawyers. Sometimes it's just beyond belief. ROFL
     
  5. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe you could explain what the problem is with this lawsuit?

    Why shouldn't a person in the Plaintiff's position sue?
     
  6. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the current version of America suing under circumstances such as these is the normal thing to do. This speaks to the changes America has undergone as a culture. It also speaks to the change in the character of the legal profession.

    In a prior era the events on which the OP is based would have been a source of shame.
     
  7. AshenLady

    AshenLady New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ROTFLMAO

    Bottle rocket; anus. oh, that's rich.
     
  8. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The plaintiff was injured by the negligent acts of the defendant(s). Grossly negligent acts.

    You expect the plaintiff to shoulder the burden for their injuries caused by the other people here? Who caused the injuries?
     
  9. Beevee

    Beevee New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lawyers? Or the law? Isn't it Conservatives who say there is too much interference by government changing things?

    So, there it is. The ability to sue at what could be considered something frivolous and also culpable negligence by the litigant.
     
  10. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wish someone would answer my question using the facts in this case.

    What, exactly, about this case means it "could be considered something frivolous"?
     
  11. Beevee

    Beevee New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, if you don't believe sticking something up one's arse and then firing away, I don't know what else could be considered as frivolous.
     
  12. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are quite right from the perspective of a cog in a wheel. I'm referring to the case as a statement on the American bar and the culture it reflects.

    The explosion in the size of the bar has changed its nature and character. It's reach is everywhere in this era. The zeitgeist of the bar today is as much a cause as a symptom of cultural problems which have changed the nature and character of American society, politics and economy.
     
    Trinnity and (deleted member) like this.
  13. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure, the act was frivolous. I was talking about the lawsuit.
    Why is this case a statement on the Bar?

    Someone was injured. They were injured by the stupidity and negligence of someone else. The fact that the negligent act was silly or might be gruesome to describe is not a reflection on anyone except the idiot who stuck the firework up his ass.

    I mean, one of the seminal cases on tort law, Pfalsgraff v. Long Island RR, was caused by some dope who thought it was a good idea to bring fireworks onto a public commuter train.

    What is the statement about the American Bar? What is the statement about the culture? Be specific. Because with empty non-answers like you just gave, I'm beginning to think you don't even know who is suing who over what in this case.
     
  14. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,168
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I understand where you're coming from on this.

    Back in the old days, anyone who stuck a bottle rocket up their ass, had it blow up, and then fall off a deck as a result, would have been too embarrassed to go to the hospital, much less hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit.

    But, in this increasingly litigious society we live in, everything is fair game.
     
  15. DexterSamuel

    DexterSamuel New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Solving cases like this is the "red herring"...
     
  16. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Just as I suspected, the people calling this lawsuit stupid and frivolous have absolutely no idea who is suing whom and for what in this case.

    Once again showing that lawyer haters are rooted in ignorance.
     
  17. Beevee

    Beevee New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's interesting to note that the plaintiff did not take reasonable care to ensure for his own benefit that the deck was safe, yet he is the complainant because he suffered partially from his own negligence.

    Frivolous, by both parties is right.
     
  18. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Umm... what? How was the plaintiff supposed to do that? And why would that be his responsibility? Are you saying before i enter any place I have a duty to inspect it and make sure there aren't any code violations or hidden dangers? I need to have an engineer or structural inspector following me around at all times who's qualified to do that?

    Again, I don't think anyone posting in this thread knows what is actually going on in this case aside from myself.
     
  19. Beevee

    Beevee New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I saw a deck that looked dangerous, I wouldn't place a foot on it.

    If a lawsuit can take place after the event, then the problem was there to be seen before the event.
     
  20. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except that the average person cannot be expected to know when a deck is dangerous. That's why the law places the duty on the owner of the deck to ensure it's safety through proper maintenance and inspection.
    Not by an average person. Not even by an expert making only a cursory review, in some cases.

    You seem to have a perverse idea of the duty of care we owe to one another whereby you suggest that every person is absolutely responsible for their own safety in every situation, even those out of their control, and must take ridiculous measures to prevent being hurt.

    Let's say you walk onto my deck. It has a large, beefy-looking railing. You rest your hand on the railing and it gives way, causing you to fall 10 feet and crack your skull. Later, it turns out that my beefy-looking railing was only sitting on top of the deck, and was not secured to the base or surface by anything. In today's world of hidden screws and fasteners, you're saying that you would take responsibility for not knowing my railing was improper, and you wouldn't ask me to pay any of your bills or anything?
     

Share This Page