Agree said it, \” It wasn\’t an \”Act of God.\” It was negligience.\” Agree\’s bias is right out there. Doesn\’t the possibility of an accident occur to you? Must someone always be negligent? An old lady spills coffee on herself and it is the fault of the person who made the coffee.
Come on – get real! You are the type who will always find someone else to blame for anything that happens. Many scenarios can be made about what happened. A wake from another boat, everyone going to one side of the boat to see something pointed out by the operator, \”old\” standards of how much the average person weighs. Now who is to blame? The bottom-feeding lawyers are getting their cut of any settlement – and they care not who gets sued, just as long as they win.
It is an unfortunate tragedy that the boat overturned and lives were lost, but the lwayers are jumping in there suing everyone in site. Why not sue the survivors for participating in the apparent overloading of the boat. Didn\’t they know there were too many people on the boat already?
The boat met the legal standards of the Coast Guard and New York – standards that are now being changed but that were met by the boatowner at the time of the accident. If two such entities tell you your boat can carry 50 people, you will believe the \”experts\”.
It was unfortunate, but it was an accident. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to safety – you do the best you can with the information you have.
It is indeed just that, an accident. It is a shame to me that, in today\’s society, you can sue for anything. Anything at all. And in most cases, you can win. I just don\’t get it. It is my opinion that the lawyers representing these selfish acts of greed should be disbarred for taking advantage of the misfortune of another. You have just lost a loved one and the only thing you can think of is sueing for money. UNBELIEVABLE.
Can the attorney sue the wind or the molecules of water? How about the maker of the fuel that powered the boat? Maybe the manufacturer of the cloth that was in the canopy. How about the wave that knocked over the boat?
If the lawyers for the plaintiffs can prove negligence on the part of the parties that are being sued, does that mean the survivors are still \”greedy\”.
If your mother or grandmother was killed due to improper operation of the boat, would you just shrug your shoulders and say \”oh, it was an accident, too bad, so sad?\”
Sometimes it is not about money. The families of the victims could have many motives besides greed. Maybe they want to know exactly how and why their loved ones died. Maybe they want to prevent someone else from dying the same way.
Why do you automatically assume they are \”greedy\”? You might feel very differently about this matter if you were in the a similar situation.
I agree with logical. How can you reasonably expect the survivors and the victims\’ families NOT to sue? One or more parties to this accident were negligient. Ipso facto.
Every party to this incident says they are not to blame… how can they all be right? It wasn\’t an \”Act of God.\” It was negligience.
Coxwain, how do you know one or more of the parties were not negligent? Just because they said so? Are you that naive? Of course everyone is going to deny responsibility. If you weren\’t there, you have no idea what happened. As I said previously, you or some others posting here, would feel very different if your loved one was lost. Don\’t be so quick to judge others until you have been in their shoes.
The article showed that \”after investigation\” they found no negligence. So why are we still talking about negligence?
I wish our legal system would change. The lawyers are the only ones who win. Even groundless suits get money to make them go away. How about everyone is allowed to sue the lawyers for groundless suits? I like that. Maybe they wouldn;t be so quick to run to court.
Hey, we forgot the food industry who made the people over the 140lb average weight that the Coast Guard was basing its capacity on. Maybe they should have been sued too.
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.
Agree said it, \” It wasn\’t an \”Act of God.\” It was negligience.\” Agree\’s bias is right out there. Doesn\’t the possibility of an accident occur to you? Must someone always be negligent? An old lady spills coffee on herself and it is the fault of the person who made the coffee.
Come on – get real! You are the type who will always find someone else to blame for anything that happens. Many scenarios can be made about what happened. A wake from another boat, everyone going to one side of the boat to see something pointed out by the operator, \”old\” standards of how much the average person weighs. Now who is to blame? The bottom-feeding lawyers are getting their cut of any settlement – and they care not who gets sued, just as long as they win.
It is an unfortunate tragedy that the boat overturned and lives were lost, but the lwayers are jumping in there suing everyone in site. Why not sue the survivors for participating in the apparent overloading of the boat. Didn\’t they know there were too many people on the boat already?
The boat met the legal standards of the Coast Guard and New York – standards that are now being changed but that were met by the boatowner at the time of the accident. If two such entities tell you your boat can carry 50 people, you will believe the \”experts\”.
It was unfortunate, but it was an accident. Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to safety – you do the best you can with the information you have.
it could be that the passengers crowded to one side to see something. i have seen that almost happen when fishing.
It is indeed just that, an accident. It is a shame to me that, in today\’s society, you can sue for anything. Anything at all. And in most cases, you can win. I just don\’t get it. It is my opinion that the lawyers representing these selfish acts of greed should be disbarred for taking advantage of the misfortune of another. You have just lost a loved one and the only thing you can think of is sueing for money. UNBELIEVABLE.
Can the attorney sue the wind or the molecules of water? How about the maker of the fuel that powered the boat? Maybe the manufacturer of the cloth that was in the canopy. How about the wave that knocked over the boat?
Greedy greedy greedy
If the lawyers for the plaintiffs can prove negligence on the part of the parties that are being sued, does that mean the survivors are still \”greedy\”.
If your mother or grandmother was killed due to improper operation of the boat, would you just shrug your shoulders and say \”oh, it was an accident, too bad, so sad?\”
Sometimes it is not about money. The families of the victims could have many motives besides greed. Maybe they want to know exactly how and why their loved ones died. Maybe they want to prevent someone else from dying the same way.
Why do you automatically assume they are \”greedy\”? You might feel very differently about this matter if you were in the a similar situation.
I agree with logical. How can you reasonably expect the survivors and the victims\’ families NOT to sue? One or more parties to this accident were negligient. Ipso facto.
Every party to this incident says they are not to blame… how can they all be right? It wasn\’t an \”Act of God.\” It was negligience.
Coxwain, how do you know one or more of the parties were not negligent? Just because they said so? Are you that naive? Of course everyone is going to deny responsibility. If you weren\’t there, you have no idea what happened. As I said previously, you or some others posting here, would feel very different if your loved one was lost. Don\’t be so quick to judge others until you have been in their shoes.
The article showed that \”after investigation\” they found no negligence. So why are we still talking about negligence?
I wish our legal system would change. The lawyers are the only ones who win. Even groundless suits get money to make them go away. How about everyone is allowed to sue the lawyers for groundless suits? I like that. Maybe they wouldn;t be so quick to run to court.
Hey, we forgot the food industry who made the people over the 140lb average weight that the Coast Guard was basing its capacity on. Maybe they should have been sued too.