I don\’t believe this is the highest award in New York State. I believe Enterprise Rent A Car was involved in a larger one (Road Rage Claim). Also, I believe a paper Leasing company was involved in one that they just provided financing for. The vehicle involved was a Truck, that had a defective mud flap.
I have to admit that a know very little to nothing at all about this case, but did anyone else read this statement in the article.
\”…in an accident caused by a Budget Rent-A-Car in Novemeber of 2000.\”
Do rental cars really cause accidents. I always thought people operating a vehicle caused accidents.
I pray for justice, justice, justice to be done in our courtrooms(within the law, mind you), who can say \’they\’ suffered millions of dollars in pain or whatever, PLEASE.
THIS POOR PEDESTRIAN WASN\’T INJURED BECAUSE OF THE VEHICLE. HE WAS INJURED BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE DRIVER. THE FACT THAT AN APPELATE JUDGE WOULD UPHOLD SUCH A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IN THE LEGALISTIC NEVER ENDING PERSUIT OF THE DEEPEST POCKETS IS NOTHING SHORT OF REVOLTING….
But overturning the verdict would have been asking the judge to take an activist role in ruling against the current law in NY and substituting his judgment for the jury\’s on a subjective issue, i.e. what is the value of pain and suffering to someone rendered a paraplegic.
The value the person put on their own life. How much life insurance did the person own? If the person had $10,000 in death benefit…that would be the amount of the pain and suffering. If you think your life is valuable prove it! Put your money where your mouth is. Now I am not suggesting one person is worth more than any other, but when lawyers stroll into court and suggest their clients pain or life is worth X millions of dollars…based on what? The market value of who(or whom) is being sued?
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE LIFE OF A PARAPALEGIC IS AS VALUABLE AS THE LIFE OF ANYONE ELSE. TO SUGGEST BECAUSE I BECAME CRIPPLED I AM ENTITLED TO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IS ABSOLUTELY SILLY. IF THIS WAS CAUSED BY AN INTENTIONAL ACT, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY. OFFERING MONEY DOES NOT FIX MY BEING CRIPPLED. OFFERING MONEY DOES NOT MAKE ME FEEL BETTER. OFFERING MONEY FROM A LARGE COMPANY ETC. ONLY PUNISHES THE REST OF SOCIETY WHO DO BUSINESS WITH THIS PERSON OR COMPANY. MONEY IS NOT THE ANSWER
My two cents: justice has no place in a courtroom; if justice ever appears, it has to be dragged in, kicking and screaming. This is always about money and finding the one with the deepest pockets. In addition, it always amazes me how valuable a person is AFTER a lawsuit is filed. My father-in-law filed suit for wrongful death of his wife and the attorneys came up with some very creative accounting to put a high value on his loss; while my condolences go to those who loose loved ones and livelihoods prematurely, why don\’t they have assets to protect themselves BEFORE calamity visits them? Insurance is predicated on the principle of indemnity and these judgements exceed that. And then when it becomes apparent that the tortfeasor has limited resources, then the search begins for the deep pockets; and as \”mud\” notes, the rest of society actually pays for this.
the court should have upheld the award and did the right thing here. It costs big bucks to care for a person who was injured in this manner. As far as the pain and suffering is concerned would any of you heartless souls trade places with this person for 8 mill? I doubt any of you would even consider it– so stop your whining.
..the argument that the public is will pay for it is assbackward too. Why shouldn\’t the people in the best position to insure for this type of occurence and the ones who are making money off of it pay for the loss? Sure the rental people will pass on to the renting public the additional costs of inurance but if the court didn\’t uphold the award the GENERAL public would pay directly for care and treatment through medicaid and other public benefits..In sum, why do you folks thing the general public should shoulder the costs incurred by the rental company..that is pure corporate welfare
You just do not have a clue. In days of old(30 years ago), people were actually asked to think. Today people are asked how they \’feel.\’ Who in their right mind would answer your question yes please let me be crippled for $8million or whatever. It is not cold to suggest people take care of themselves, or to actually get remedy from people who harmed them. The person in this suit is just as valuable a person today as they were prior to the accident. Crippled, yes, but alive and able to enjoy life. The harm should be for lost wages and medical expenses ONLY. Now since we are in the insurance business, should this person have had insurance to cover disability income? No he said it can\’t happen to me. If he had disability insurance then lost wages would only amount to 35% of future wages. If the culprit who actually harmed the person paid for medical expenses, person is made whole to extent HUMANLY possible. He cannot be returned to non-crippled status now can he?
To suggest that if I had a rental car company and someone who rents a car from me has an accident and it is my fault now that is cold!!!!
Please use your grey matter under your skull and stop making decisions and judgements based on YOUR FEELINGS. Feelings are not relevant facts to be decided in a court of law, even though lawyers play to them!!!!
Your comment is straight to the point..Why should a rental company be stuck paying for what it\’s renter did? All they did was rent the car to the person. The law (penned in the early 1900s) was originally intended to make sure Dad paid for Junior\’s acts (or employer paid for employee\’s acts) while driving Dad\’s (or Employer\’s) vehicle. Belief being that Dad or Employer would better have the financial where-with-all to pay any damages caused by Junior or the employee. It wasn\’t intended to make Joe Rental Company responsible for renters\’ acts when the only control they have is renting the vehicle. Leasing companies also get stuck too due to this antiquated law..which is why auto leasing has gone in the toilet in NYS. This has led to pseudo-leases which end up being more a rent-to-own situation with a hefty balloon payment at the end. The present interpretation of this law is a joke! It needs to be re-written for it\’s original intent – which made sense.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I don\’t believe this is the highest award in New York State. I believe Enterprise Rent A Car was involved in a larger one (Road Rage Claim). Also, I believe a paper Leasing company was involved in one that they just provided financing for. The vehicle involved was a Truck, that had a defective mud flap.
I have to admit that a know very little to nothing at all about this case, but did anyone else read this statement in the article.
\”…in an accident caused by a Budget Rent-A-Car in Novemeber of 2000.\”
Do rental cars really cause accidents. I always thought people operating a vehicle caused accidents.
I pray for justice, justice, justice to be done in our courtrooms(within the law, mind you), who can say \’they\’ suffered millions of dollars in pain or whatever, PLEASE.
THIS POOR PEDESTRIAN WASN\’T INJURED BECAUSE OF THE VEHICLE. HE WAS INJURED BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE DRIVER. THE FACT THAT AN APPELATE JUDGE WOULD UPHOLD SUCH A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IN THE LEGALISTIC NEVER ENDING PERSUIT OF THE DEEPEST POCKETS IS NOTHING SHORT OF REVOLTING….
But overturning the verdict would have been asking the judge to take an activist role in ruling against the current law in NY and substituting his judgment for the jury\’s on a subjective issue, i.e. what is the value of pain and suffering to someone rendered a paraplegic.
The value the person put on their own life. How much life insurance did the person own? If the person had $10,000 in death benefit…that would be the amount of the pain and suffering. If you think your life is valuable prove it! Put your money where your mouth is. Now I am not suggesting one person is worth more than any other, but when lawyers stroll into court and suggest their clients pain or life is worth X millions of dollars…based on what? The market value of who(or whom) is being sued?
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE LIFE OF A PARAPALEGIC IS AS VALUABLE AS THE LIFE OF ANYONE ELSE. TO SUGGEST BECAUSE I BECAME CRIPPLED I AM ENTITLED TO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IS ABSOLUTELY SILLY. IF THIS WAS CAUSED BY AN INTENTIONAL ACT, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY. OFFERING MONEY DOES NOT FIX MY BEING CRIPPLED. OFFERING MONEY DOES NOT MAKE ME FEEL BETTER. OFFERING MONEY FROM A LARGE COMPANY ETC. ONLY PUNISHES THE REST OF SOCIETY WHO DO BUSINESS WITH THIS PERSON OR COMPANY. MONEY IS NOT THE ANSWER
My two cents: justice has no place in a courtroom; if justice ever appears, it has to be dragged in, kicking and screaming. This is always about money and finding the one with the deepest pockets. In addition, it always amazes me how valuable a person is AFTER a lawsuit is filed. My father-in-law filed suit for wrongful death of his wife and the attorneys came up with some very creative accounting to put a high value on his loss; while my condolences go to those who loose loved ones and livelihoods prematurely, why don\’t they have assets to protect themselves BEFORE calamity visits them? Insurance is predicated on the principle of indemnity and these judgements exceed that. And then when it becomes apparent that the tortfeasor has limited resources, then the search begins for the deep pockets; and as \”mud\” notes, the rest of society actually pays for this.
the court should have upheld the award and did the right thing here. It costs big bucks to care for a person who was injured in this manner. As far as the pain and suffering is concerned would any of you heartless souls trade places with this person for 8 mill? I doubt any of you would even consider it– so stop your whining.
..the argument that the public is will pay for it is assbackward too. Why shouldn\’t the people in the best position to insure for this type of occurence and the ones who are making money off of it pay for the loss? Sure the rental people will pass on to the renting public the additional costs of inurance but if the court didn\’t uphold the award the GENERAL public would pay directly for care and treatment through medicaid and other public benefits..In sum, why do you folks thing the general public should shoulder the costs incurred by the rental company..that is pure corporate welfare
You just do not have a clue. In days of old(30 years ago), people were actually asked to think. Today people are asked how they \’feel.\’ Who in their right mind would answer your question yes please let me be crippled for $8million or whatever. It is not cold to suggest people take care of themselves, or to actually get remedy from people who harmed them. The person in this suit is just as valuable a person today as they were prior to the accident. Crippled, yes, but alive and able to enjoy life. The harm should be for lost wages and medical expenses ONLY. Now since we are in the insurance business, should this person have had insurance to cover disability income? No he said it can\’t happen to me. If he had disability insurance then lost wages would only amount to 35% of future wages. If the culprit who actually harmed the person paid for medical expenses, person is made whole to extent HUMANLY possible. He cannot be returned to non-crippled status now can he?
To suggest that if I had a rental car company and someone who rents a car from me has an accident and it is my fault now that is cold!!!!
Please use your grey matter under your skull and stop making decisions and judgements based on YOUR FEELINGS. Feelings are not relevant facts to be decided in a court of law, even though lawyers play to them!!!!
Forget the amount or the law.
What did the rental car company have to do with the occurrence? Nothing.
This crap must end.
Your comment is straight to the point..Why should a rental company be stuck paying for what it\’s renter did? All they did was rent the car to the person. The law (penned in the early 1900s) was originally intended to make sure Dad paid for Junior\’s acts (or employer paid for employee\’s acts) while driving Dad\’s (or Employer\’s) vehicle. Belief being that Dad or Employer would better have the financial where-with-all to pay any damages caused by Junior or the employee. It wasn\’t intended to make Joe Rental Company responsible for renters\’ acts when the only control they have is renting the vehicle. Leasing companies also get stuck too due to this antiquated law..which is why auto leasing has gone in the toilet in NYS. This has led to pseudo-leases which end up being more a rent-to-own situation with a hefty balloon payment at the end. The present interpretation of this law is a joke! It needs to be re-written for it\’s original intent – which made sense.