This site has become a captive of the Green Party. In the end, you’ll have to sue God for having created you. Problem is you are living out your compensation, and you just might find that in the end there is a place for you as justice for your anti-neigborly Knit-picking.
This site has become a captive of the Green Party. In the end, you’ll have to sue God for having created you. Problem is you are living out your compensation, and you just might find that in the end there is a place for you as justice for your anti-neigborly Knit-picking.
This site has become a captive of the Green Party. In the end, you’ll have to sue God for having created you. Problem is you are living out your compensation, and you just might find that in the end there is a place for you as justice for your anti-neigborly Knit-picking.
Just like your buddy Michael Moore wouldn’t have you vote for Bush? Let’s live in reality. Tom Laquercia quotes Shakespear as if it’s scripture, making a case from a 400 year old novel. Supersize me points to another piece of propoganda, and swears off McDonalds.
Upton Sinclair hit hot dogs and chicken, and Nader the Corvair. This is only a succession of opportunists using the same vein of pessimism to generate fear in the public, and to line their pockets with insurance proceeds. Lawyers, everyone of them.
How can one find fault with an attorney doing what he was hired to do. Lets be realistic, both plantiff and defence attorneys increase income from any kind of suit. The fault occurred when the court determined anyone who is injured has a right to compensaiton. Thus the establishment of restatement of torts. However, when the court became over burdened, they allowed class actions suites. Since judges come from attorneys, these cases are referred to as “job security”for both lawyers and judges. It makes no difference what law is passed or how it is written any lawyer can convence any judge of a hole which will allow the case to continue, then we need a defense attorney. The real sad part is we, as consumers, always pay both attorney’s fee bills and unjustly reward the plantiff which in most cases was injured by his stupidity.
There was a terrible accident up the road from my house. Single car with horrible injuries. You may wish to investigate since the driver was impaired. I looked for a warning on the telephone polethat was hit but could not find one. I might suggest that there should have been the following. “Drunk Drivers should not run into this pole as excessive speeds”.
Yes, Lance, but did the pole collapse as it was designed to? Was it set far enough back from the roadway in violation of highway rules and regs? Was there a sharp curve or turn in the road? If so, did the roadway require superelevation (banking) instead of the usual crown found on a straight and level roadway? Did the roadway require a guiderail? Did a design committee design the road? If so, why and under what principles? Was there a defect in the vehicle? Was there a phantom vehicle that left the scene?
These are just some of the questions that should be asked in a single car accident besides the first blush assumption that the accident was caused soley by the carelessness of the driver.
That vehicle you saw just might have been a smoking gun…..
But I didn’t, Lance. I merely suggested that there could be other causes that at first blush don’t meet the eye. Of course, if the driver was in fact drunk, all or most of the responisibility falls on him/her. But what if there were other causes that contributed to the horrible accident or converted what would have been a fender bender into a trajedy for the driver and passers by?
Even assuming that the driver was drunk, questions need to be asked. For example, what about who sold him the alcohol (the Dram Shop law)? My earlier examples touched but on a few possible highway defects that might have impacted (no pun intended) on the event. Could highway safety devices have reduced the injury and damage? I’ve been involved in cases involving a pole planted too close to the roadway or insufficient number of curve signs and know of others involving a dangerous curb. But no one would know unless you examined the smoking gun and its surroundings. Doctors inquire of a patient’s condition and usually have to rule out other possible caused of disease before making a diagnosi. So, surely you recognize that there can be more than one cause of an occurrence and its consequences. Every day, people take credit for successes, real or imagined, in life and business and that seems to be acceptable. But what of the fault or defect? It’s not only not done but it’s avoided. And why? Because victory has many fathers, but defeat (Read: fault) is an orphan. An inquiry should always be made before someone puts up signs mocking the drunk driver. Theoretically, he/she might have been able to return home to his family in one piece after drying out in a jail cell instead of returning to them in a box. That vehicle you saw was just a smoking gun.
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.
This site has become a captive of the Green Party. In the end, you’ll have to sue God for having created you. Problem is you are living out your compensation, and you just might find that in the end there is a place for you as justice for your anti-neigborly Knit-picking.
This site has become a captive of the Green Party. In the end, you’ll have to sue God for having created you. Problem is you are living out your compensation, and you just might find that in the end there is a place for you as justice for your anti-neigborly Knit-picking.
This site has become a captive of the Green Party. In the end, you’ll have to sue God for having created you. Problem is you are living out your compensation, and you just might find that in the end there is a place for you as justice for your anti-neigborly Knit-picking.
Just like your buddy Michael Moore wouldn’t have you vote for Bush? Let’s live in reality. Tom Laquercia quotes Shakespear as if it’s scripture, making a case from a 400 year old novel. Supersize me points to another piece of propoganda, and swears off McDonalds.
Upton Sinclair hit hot dogs and chicken, and Nader the Corvair. This is only a succession of opportunists using the same vein of pessimism to generate fear in the public, and to line their pockets with insurance proceeds. Lawyers, everyone of them.
How can one find fault with an attorney doing what he was hired to do. Lets be realistic, both plantiff and defence attorneys increase income from any kind of suit. The fault occurred when the court determined anyone who is injured has a right to compensaiton. Thus the establishment of restatement of torts. However, when the court became over burdened, they allowed class actions suites. Since judges come from attorneys, these cases are referred to as “job security”for both lawyers and judges. It makes no difference what law is passed or how it is written any lawyer can convence any judge of a hole which will allow the case to continue, then we need a defense attorney. The real sad part is we, as consumers, always pay both attorney’s fee bills and unjustly reward the plantiff which in most cases was injured by his stupidity.
Florida Product Analyst,
There was a terrible accident up the road from my house. Single car with horrible injuries. You may wish to investigate since the driver was impaired. I looked for a warning on the telephone polethat was hit but could not find one. I might suggest that there should have been the following. “Drunk Drivers should not run into this pole as excessive speeds”.
Yes, Lance, but did the pole collapse as it was designed to? Was it set far enough back from the roadway in violation of highway rules and regs? Was there a sharp curve or turn in the road? If so, did the roadway require superelevation (banking) instead of the usual crown found on a straight and level roadway? Did the roadway require a guiderail? Did a design committee design the road? If so, why and under what principles? Was there a defect in the vehicle? Was there a phantom vehicle that left the scene?
These are just some of the questions that should be asked in a single car accident besides the first blush assumption that the accident was caused soley by the carelessness of the driver.
That vehicle you saw just might have been a smoking gun…..
Thanks Tom, you have just proven that you can take absolutly any accident and put the blame on someone else.
But I didn’t, Lance. I merely suggested that there could be other causes that at first blush don’t meet the eye. Of course, if the driver was in fact drunk, all or most of the responisibility falls on him/her. But what if there were other causes that contributed to the horrible accident or converted what would have been a fender bender into a trajedy for the driver and passers by?
Even assuming that the driver was drunk, questions need to be asked. For example, what about who sold him the alcohol (the Dram Shop law)? My earlier examples touched but on a few possible highway defects that might have impacted (no pun intended) on the event. Could highway safety devices have reduced the injury and damage? I’ve been involved in cases involving a pole planted too close to the roadway or insufficient number of curve signs and know of others involving a dangerous curb. But no one would know unless you examined the smoking gun and its surroundings. Doctors inquire of a patient’s condition and usually have to rule out other possible caused of disease before making a diagnosi. So, surely you recognize that there can be more than one cause of an occurrence and its consequences. Every day, people take credit for successes, real or imagined, in life and business and that seems to be acceptable. But what of the fault or defect? It’s not only not done but it’s avoided. And why? Because victory has many fathers, but defeat (Read: fault) is an orphan. An inquiry should always be made before someone puts up signs mocking the drunk driver. Theoretically, he/she might have been able to return home to his family in one piece after drying out in a jail cell instead of returning to them in a box. That vehicle you saw was just a smoking gun.
And the lawyer always must have the last word.