Shit, for 24 million dollars, if I was assured that I would live afterwards, you could run over me with a truck!
yea but Drac.....your already dead.....cant kill you again....hey wait....we can make some money here....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Shit, for 24 million dollars, if I was assured that I would live afterwards, you could run over me with a truck!
point 3 i agree with.....if it was a legitimite accident ok ....but i agree with the Doc....Utter stupidity...
which part?
All of it.
1) It now sets a precedent that, although Allie and Existed are probably joking, for others to do the same
2) The judicial system should be about justice. There is nothing justified about a company having to pay for one of its employees stupidity.
3) In saying the above, unless the employer knew that the father was taking the daughter, then the responsibility lies with the father alone. It is called "taking responsibility for one's actions'. Anything less is just a cop out.
4) The jury should have been told that the victim's father was the truck driver. It is an absolute relevant fact in the case.
well shit here lies another good point.....The man who ran her over may have also been her father but when he ran her over he was on the job and an employer is responsible for the negligence of employees while they are operating company equipment.which part?
All of it.
1) It now sets a precedent that, although Allie and Existed are probably joking, for others to do the same
2) The judicial system should be about justice. There is nothing justified about a company having to pay for one of its employees stupidity.
3) In saying the above, unless the employer knew that the father was taking the daughter, then the responsibility lies with the father alone. It is called "taking responsibility for one's actions'. Anything less is just a cop out.
4) The jury should have been told that the victim's father was the truck driver. It is an absolute relevant fact in the case.
If she had been run over by an employee of the company who was unrelated to her, would you still claim the company was not responsible?
Not knowing where you live, I am unable to compare. I do know that the term, "frivolous lawsuits" is a highly subjective one and I also know that the term is most closely associated with conservatives touting "tort reform" - which is conservative code for freeing Big Business (in this case, the medical industry) from responsibility for its negligence at the expense of the individual.
Now, having said that, I will readily admit that there are indeed such things as frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing lawyers. I will further agree with you, that both are a pox on our society and should be ferreted out and corrected whenever and wherever possible.
However, I do not think that "frivolous lawsuits" are responsible for a significant amount of national, medical costs. I have heard a figure of as little as 2% or less.
I know that trial lawyers, in general, perform valuable and honorable service in the prosecution of civil (and criminal) litigation and I submit that whenever a trial lawyer is paid a fee at the conclusion of a case, it is almost always well earned.
To answer your concluding question, yes, I am an attorney.
Not knowing where you live, I am unable to compare. I do know that the term, "frivolous lawsuits" is a highly subjective one and I also know that the term is most closely associated with conservatives touting "tort reform" - which is conservative code for freeing Big Business (in this case, the medical industry) from responsibility for its negligence at the expense of the individual.
Now, having said that, I will readily admit that there are indeed such things as frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing lawyers. I will further agree with you, that both are a pox on our society and should be ferreted out and corrected whenever and wherever possible.
However, I do not think that "frivolous lawsuits" are responsible for a significant amount of national, medical costs. I have heard a figure of as little as 2% or less.
I know that trial lawyers, in general, perform valuable and honorable service in the prosecution of civil (and criminal) litigation and I submit that whenever a trial lawyer is paid a fee at the conclusion of a case, it is almost always well earned.
To answer your concluding question, yes, I am an attorney.
are you sure you dont work for George Steinbrenner?....
He wasn't awarded the money, his daughter was.Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento BeeAn Oregon girl whose truck-driver father accidentally ran her over with his big rig has won $24.3 million in damages from the Portland company that a Sacramento judge found legally responsible for her injuries.
The personal-injury award handed down by a Superior Court jury last Friday to Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez is the largest in Sacramento County history, according to the local bar association.
In a court-trial decision returned Dec. 14, Judge David W. Abbott said the firm that hired Simon Loza Mejia, Freeway Transport Inc., was liable for the girl's injuries.
Before the damages phase of the trial, the judge ruled from the bench to exclude the jury from knowing it was the girl's father who accidentally drove over her. The plaintiff's lawyers argued it would have unduly prejudiced the panel.
Buccola, a veteran Sacramento trial lawyer who in 1998 won a $9.3 million award for a client that stood until last Friday as the local personal injury record, said Monday the father-daughter relationship was "legally irrelevant."
In a pre-trial brief filed last year, the defense lawyers said Loza-Jimenez was not a member of the general public eligible for protection under interstate transport regulations because her father took her along for the trip without Freeway Transport's knowledge.
Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.
I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?
The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.
Sad story but egadz. The guy misuses the company truck; injures his own daughter; and is awarded $24.3 million.
I think the jury should have been told the entire story. Comments?
the guy wasn't awarded the money. his daughter was. and the jury shouldn't have known the father injured the girl because like you, they wouldn't have compensated her fairly for her injuries.