I think this is one of the silliest titles I have ever seen.
When you read more you find out that this guy is trying to get money from the government.
This brings up a larger issue of lawyers and suing. It is my opinion that trial lawyers are rotting the country from the inside out. Doctors need malpractice insurance that is so expensive they have to move to states that have caps on these lawsuits or quit. The ones that do stay have to charge so much insurance rates go up and up and up.
People sue McDonald's because they spill coffee on their own lap.
When people sue, they are costing all of us money.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Did you know that malpractice costs make up less than 2% of the cost of medical care in this country?
Did you know that malpractice insurance companies are raising their premiums at the same time there has been no increase in malpractice claim payouts?
Did you know that McDonalds had thousands of complaints about their coffee being too hot and people getting scalded, but they never did anything about it until a consumer protection attorney helped a woman who had only asked for medical expenses sue McDonalds for enough punitive damages to make them do something about their coffee which was kept at an unsafe temperature?
This particular story is a bit kooky, but if you actually read it, it makes sense. The man was driving a city truck. In what presumably was an accident, he hit his own car. His car was damaged by a city vehicle regardless of who was driving the city vehicle. If it wasn't an accident, then it's fraud.
If my car was damaged by a city vehicle, my insurance company would sue the city to recover damages.
The title of the blog is misleading. The man is not suing himself.
And this is not one of those so-called "frivolous lawsuits." If you have done any study of consumer protection law, you will know that this "trial lawyer" crap is just that. It has no basis in fact. It is a manufactured issue so that the corporations won't have to pay for damages caused by their unsafe products.
It's a Republic value, you know. It's called being accountable.
I don't think you are using correct terms when you say an insurance company sues the other person...at least not right away. You file a claim first.
This guy is trying to get money. Frivolous law suits cost everyone millions...
Yes, he's trying to get money...to fix his car! What? He's going to take the $3,600 and live on easy street for the rest of his life?
He DID file a claim against the city and they DENIED it. So he sued.
What would you do?
If that is all he is going to do then that is fine...
Okay, as long as the money comes out of the offending driver's paycheck.
To say that ANYONE owes him anything for a collision he caused with his own property is just dumb. When there's nobody involved except one person, why should anybody else even give a flying hoot? He should learn to be more careful when wielding a large machine capable of inflicting damage. I think he should be immediately fired, not for the accident, but wasting everyone's time and trying to stiff the city for his own screw up.
Oh, and if McDonald's coffee is too hot to drink, you have every right to buy your coffee from someplace else, and tell all your friends not to go there. Lawyers need not apply.
Simple solution to end all frivolous lawsuits... a completely "loser pays" legal system, wherein if a suit is found to be without merit, the plaintiff must reimburse the defendant for 100% of their legal fees, lost income (due to missing work to defend themselves, etc), and compensation for defamation.
YES YES YES...Mike has it...I have said that for years
OK, so you believe that you have been injured by a product produced by Megabucks, Inc. You bought a stepladder that was poorly designed and was prone to tipping over. Let us, if that's possible, stipulate that the ladder is unsafe due to poor design. Can we do that? Or do you not have the right to expect that a product sold at a store is designed in such a way as to be safe?
So you get hurt and you lose six months pay, may lose your house, and not only will Megabucks not pay for your injury and loss, they're still selling the unsafe ladder.
You can sue them. Find a lawyer to take your case.
Megabucks has 500 lawyers and 10 of them are working to show the court that you are a lazy, stupid, opportunist who doesn't know how to use a ladder. They say your lawsuit is frivolous. Ten lawyers, $250 per hour. They'll spend $250,000 the first two months to prove you are a low life.
If they win, you pay the $250,000? That's the way it should work? Who's going to decide YOUR lawsuit is frivolous?
What if you win and your damages are limited to $250,000. Do you think Megabucks is going to stop selling a defective ladder if it only cost them $250,000?
Mike, do actually read any of this stuff? The man did not cause a collision with his own property. There is no evidence that the accident was his fault in any way. Could have been something wrong with the city truck. Breaks might have been defective. He may even have been at fault, but there is no evidence that he intentionally hit the car.
I don't know how it works in your state, but in my state the OWNER of a vehicle which causes damage to another vehicle pays for damages regardless of who is driving that vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was the city.
Lame on McDonalds. How would somebody buying coffee for the first time at McDonalds have any idea that the coffee is too hot? They would have to scald their lap first and then tell themselves, well I better go to the doctor and never buy coffee here again?
You people rant about these supposed lawsuit scams without having any sense about what reality is. You have bought into this Republic scam that anybody who sues a corporation is a low-life opportunist and that there is never any merit to a consumer lawsuit.
You want people to be responsible and accountable, but you don't want corporations to be responsible and accountable?
I hope there's no asbestos in your attic. I hope the gas tank of your car doesn't explode. I hope your child isn't harmed in a poorly designed pool.
Hurt by a poorly designed pool? lay off the crack, man.
Nobody that I know of has ever suggested that all lawsuits are frivolous and unjustified. No, my widely accepted contention is that frivolous suits comprise to great a portion of legal action in this country, and are dragging our economy and our way of life down into the mud.
Asbestos (aka The biggest opportunist fraud that isn’t a government program ever to sweep the nation): Ex Post Facto punishments are specifically banned by our constitution. Why should lawsuits be any different? To be valid, I'd say the asbestos product in question would have had to be manufactured and installed in one of two ways: After it was made illegal, upon which it should be replaced, not sued over. Or after it was known to be harmful but not yet illegal, AND without notification to the consumer of it's content and/or harmful properties.
How often do you use Bleach in your laundry? What can that do to you if you breathe enough of it? Are you going to sue someone for selling it to you?
The coffee: A responsible person doesn't squeeze a styrofoam cup full of anything, much less boiling coffee between their legs, and accepts the inherent risk involved of spillage.
The ladder: If I don't know how to safely operate a ladder, I shouldn't be using one. Maybe that's a poor example.
Let's use a real-life example: Some months ago, Dell recalled some power bricks that came bundled with their laptop computers because of a manufacturer defect that cause them to overheat and catch fire. This is a good example of responsibility.
Now let's say that one of said power supplies had started a fire, resulting in the loss of a person's house. In comes the insurance company because the responsible home and computer owner has done his homework and purchased insurance from a reputable honest company to protect his expensive investment.
Wow, wasn't that easy? No lawyers involved!
If a company makes a product with a design flaw causing a properly maintained product to fail within it's advertised limits causing injury, of course they're at fault. They said this ladder would hold 250 pounds, and even though it was correctly used and properly cared for, it dropped a 100 pound guy. That's lawsuit material.
Where it becomes frivolous is when it turns a class action lawsuit that says anyone who ever bought one of these ladders, whether or not it failed is entitled to unspecified damages and a new free ladder.
Are you following so far?
Now back to the truck incident:
"No evidence that the accident was his fault in any way"????
Now, if the collision really was the result of improperly maintained brakes, or something beyond the control of the operator, then yes, the city would be liable. If the driver was doing something so as to render the vehicle unsafe, then he is liable, not the city. If a superior instructed him to operate the vehicle in an unsafe manner, or if the established protocols and procedures governing his operation of said vehicle are inherently unsafe...then perhaps the city could be liable. But common sense still comes into play.
Barring mechanical failure of the truck, and assuming his car was parked at the time, is there ANY POSSIBLE way he isn't responsible? Either he wasn't paying attention to where he was going, the car was in the wrong place (but he still should have been aware of where his truck was going to be, so it's still his problem), didn't know the physical limits of his truck, wasn't qualified to operate it, or did it intentionally... For which part of this do I, the taxpayer owe him any money?
How about this? He gets to keep his job because it was an accident (we're assuming it was an accident for now), and the city loans him the money to fix his car?
Sounds like a great solution to me.
once again, well done...and correct
Post a Comment