Jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad's truck

[Dr Grump]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

 

[xotoxi]

If I close my testicles in my laptop while logged onto USMB, and one of my testicles is crushed, can I sue Gunny?

 

[xotoxi]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

Lawyers ALWAYS win.

I get charged $50 for a quick email question, but I can talk with a suicidally depressed patient on the phone for 60 minutes and I get paid absolutely nothing.

 

[xotoxi]

Diana Yuleidy Loza-Jimenez and
her dad Simon Loza Mejia after
the trial:

 

[Anguille]

.

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?

Yep...down here that is the case, although more and more are heading towards the US.

And at the end of the day, the employee wasn't unrelated to her, and that is a relevant fact, too.

With that particular criterion, I could spin it the other way - if the employee had NOT been her father, would she have been in that situation? No. She was in that situation as a direct result of her father's actions....

I think it's a good thing that companies can be held responsible for negligence on the part of their employees. That way they try to ensure the employees are properly trained and that they are not too fatigued or drunk to operate machinery. I'm thinking of airline pilots who work long hours and drink before flying. I feel better flying knowing the airline company will try to reduce the risk of being sued by making sure pilots are in condition to fly a plane.

 

[xotoxi]

.

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?

Yep...down here that is the case, although more and more are heading towards the US.

And at the end of the day, the employee wasn't unrelated to her, and that is a relevant fact, too.

With that particular criterion, I could spin it the other way - if the employee had NOT been her father, would she have been in that situation? No. She was in that situation as a direct result of her father's actions....

I think it's a good thing that companies can be held responsible for negligence on the part of their employees. That way they try to ensure the employees are properly trained and that they are not too fatigued or drunk to operate machinery. I'm thinking of airline pilots who work long hours and drink before flying. I feel better flying knowing the airline company will try to reduce the risk of being sued by making sure pilots are in condition to fly a plane.

But what if your dad was the pilot and he told everyone to remove their seatbelt and then he did a barrel roll to intentionally injure you so that you could collect millions of dollars?

That would be awesome!

 

[jillian]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

you say that like it's a bad thing.....

 

[Dr Grump]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

you say that like it's a bad thing.....

Too many lawyers in the US, and your system is very litigious ...way too litigious IMO...

 

[jillian]

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

you say that like it's a bad thing.....

Too many lawyers in the US, and your system is very litigious ...way too litigious IMO...

but in this case a semi went over the kid. i can't even imagine the physical damage. she deserved to be compensated for it and there isn't any indication she was at all to blame for her injuries.

and the lawyer probably spent up to five years working on the case without compensation...and will likely have to wait another couple of years for the appeals to run out before being paid.

so maybe if he did a good enough job for her he SHOULD win?

just sayin'

 

[Dr Grump]

[
but in this case a semi went over the kid. i can't even imagine the physical damage. she deserved to be compensated for it and there isn't any indication she was at all to blame for her injuries.

and the lawyer probably spent up to five years working on the case without compensation...and will likely have to wait another couple of years for the appeals to run out before being paid.

so maybe if he did a good enough job for her he SHOULD win?

just sayin'

Yep, the semi went over the kid due to the negligence of her father. Sue the father...why should the company pay for the father's stupidity? The company pays the father to work for them, not do stupid things. And if he does stupid things he should have liability insurance...and STILL the fact she was his father is a relevant point IMO...

...nothing you've said negates my point that the US is too litigious of a society IMO...

 

[jillian]

[
but in this case a semi went over the kid. i can't even imagine the physical damage. she deserved to be compensated for it and there isn't any indication she was at all to blame for her injuries.

and the lawyer probably spent up to five years working on the case without compensation...and will likely have to wait another couple of years for the appeals to run out before being paid.

so maybe if he did a good enough job for her he SHOULD win?

just sayin'

Yep, the semi went over the kid due to the negligence of her father. Sue the father...why should the company pay for the father's stupidity? The company pays the father to work for them, not do stupid things. And if he does stupid things he should have liability insurance...and STILL the fact she was his father is a relevant point IMO...

...nothing you've said negates my point that the US is too litigious of a society IMO...

ummmm...once again .... the law requires that the employer be held liable for the actions of its employee. it's the employers insurance. the father wouldn't have insurance on the vehicle...same as if i lent you my car. if you hit someone, i'd be sued too b/c i gave permission for you to drive it.

and yes, we're too litigious. but not in this particular case. it was a proper claim.

 

[AllieBaba]

Do you already have a volunteer lined up to run over you, Jillian? I'd hate anyone to be left out...

 

[Dr Grump]

ummmm...once again .... the law requires that the employer be held liable for the actions of its employee. it's the employers insurance. the father wouldn't have insurance on the vehicle...same as if i lent you my car. if you hit someone, i'd be sued too b/c i gave permission for you to drive it.

and yes, we're too litigious. but not in this particular case. it was a proper claim.

Don't you uummm me! ;o(

I never said it wasn't the law. I'm saying it's a stupid law. It should be the father's insurance. If I was driving your car and hit someone down here, yes it would be your insurance, but that would be for the repair of the car. You would get ACCC in NZ and in some cases my own insurance would cover me.

Absolutely you're too litigious and this is a perfect example of it.

 

[jillian]

ummmm...once again .... the law requires that the employer be held liable for the actions of its employee. it's the employers insurance. the father wouldn't have insurance on the vehicle...same as if i lent you my car. if you hit someone, i'd be sued too b/c i gave permission for you to drive it.

and yes, we're too litigious. but not in this particular case. it was a proper claim.

Don't you uummm me! ;o(

I never said it wasn't the law. I'm saying it's a stupid law. It should be the father's insurance. If I was driving your car and hit someone down here, yes it would be your insurance, but that would be for the repair of the car. You would get ACCC in NZ and in some cases my own insurance would cover me.

Absolutely you're too litigious and this is a perfect example of it.

No. You can consider yourself 'ummmm'd".

the father would not have had the right to insure the rig as he was not the owner of the vehicle. Nor could he afford to insure a rig. Companies insure their vehicles as fleets and pay reduced rates for it.

A suit is only frivolous if there are no damages for which the person sued was responsible.

 

[Terry]

The girl was hurt badly and will require constant care, which the employer is responsible for. But the amount just seems outrageous. I believe if the jury knew it was the dad, she would have gotten half that.

And yes Ang, the 14 YEAR OLD daughter got the money. And who's in charge of it? We know nothing of this man's character except that he violated his own company's policy and is a bad driver. Hopefully, the money is in trust.

One way for the city to get a big one time tax increase too. Hard for them to get that much from the company just filing taxes huh.

 

[George Costanza]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

How so? You seem to be implying that "the lawyers" play no part in liability litigation, other than to be around at the end and collect their "huge fees."

Hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[George Costanza]

A suit is only frivolous if there are no damages for which the person sued was responsible.

Or if there is no liability on the part of the person sued.

(Are you a lawyer or do you play one on television? You seem to have some above average knowledge of things legal . . . )

 

[Dr Grump]

The company should sue her dad for $24.3 million for improper and dangerous use of company equipment.

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

How so? You seem to be implying that "the lawyers" play no part in liability litigation, other than to be around at the end and collect their "huge fees."

Hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.

No, I am implying that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits stateside compared to where I live, and some of those suits are driven by lawyers who are aptly described as ambulance chasers..

...and yes Jillian is a lawyer....are you?

 

[George Costanza]

Love it.

Although, once again, the lawyer's win....

How so? You seem to be implying that "the lawyers" play no part in liability litigation, other than to be around at the end and collect their "huge fees."

Hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.

No, I am implying that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits stateside compared to where I live, and some of those suits are driven by lawyers who are aptly described as ambulance chasers..

...and yes Jillian is a lawyer....are you?

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

ok ....so you are saying Jill that the jury would have concentrated on the stupidity of the dad,and felt he deserved Jack shit, and not the plight of the girl,who was the injured party...right?...