Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

Page 8 of 16  

Indeed. But even you've heard of insurance fraud right? I mean, hey..he's got insurance..lets get him to get into an accident with us then we can sue his ass off! There're people out there that don't care about anything but getting money.
In the end it's just hurting the people that pay for the services. If I get sued for something frivolous and they win and my insurance goes up, I'm sure as hell going to raise the cost of my services.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If I were you I would lock myself in a bathroom and never come out. A friend of mine in the software business was sued for no decent reason at all. Even though the contract said any suit had to be in NC the guy sued him in California and thejudge refused to move it. My friend spent $90k on lawyers defending himself and the guy drops the case the day the trial is supposed to begin. If my friend refused the dismisssal the case would have continued and who knows, maybe the guy would have won. So my friend lost $90k out of his own pocket for no reason whatsoever and he did not have adequate coverage for the risk. That is life. Like I said..... lock yourself in a closet or bathroom and you won't get sued..... probably.

sue
get
sure
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That sounds pretty damn bad. I remember one of my teachers, I can't remember which one it is, said something like "If you haven't been in a lawsuit yet I would really recommend one." If I were that person I'd probably try suing to get the money spent back. Quite a world out there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:00:01 GMT, "Art"

In the UK & many other parts of the world the loser pays legal fee's. Including the loser who "drops" the case after initiating legal action. Perhaps such an approach might be adopted by the US?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Full_Name wrote:

No. Or, as Elvira Kurt says: No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Remember, ideas that come from outside the YSM are stupid, bad, idiotic, wrong, communist, socialist, pinko, and shitty.
Only ideas that come from inside the YSM are worth pursuing. In fact, ideas that come from inside the YSM are blessed by God and Jesus and them.
DS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phillip Schmid wrote:
I've heard of lawsuits where a doctor was sued

And there are "good samaritan" laws in some places that require you to stop and help if you can. A case of literally being damned if you do and damned if you don't. The world has gotten way too complicated (by human stupidity).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

For once, I agree with you on a political matter, Art. But I have heard of 5 or 25 million dollar awards for ridiculous things - I don't think even wrongful death is awarded what some injuries are bringing - and that's off balance. I have to think if I had to put a dollar value on what my family should be awarded if someone accidentally killed me, it would be way less than some of these ridiculous awards.
I think it is a case where, regrettably, society is forced to make a law (i.e., limit potential awards) due to common sense having fallen out the window to a point that everyone is suffering hugely because of it. In an ideal world, such limits would not have to be legislated because common sense judgements would be reasonable. One down-side of the mandated limits would be that a cookie cutter solution will not be just (i.e., fair) in all situations for a particular legal criteria - there may be actual value that will not be allowed to be considered because of the legal restrictions, and that will be unfortunate - but that's true of all laws that should not have been necessary but in fact are because of human stupidity that forced the law to be made to keep society afloat.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'll give you a real idea for tort reform.
Reform 1:
Loser pays winner up to the extent he spent money on the suit. For example, if I spend $20k sueing Chrysler and they spend a million defending themselves and I lose, I owe Chrysler $20k because that is what I spent.
Reform 2:
Winners of punitive damages share them with a trust fund used to reimburse people who are injured by someone who has no money. For example, 2 guys rob you. They go to jail and you would like to sue them to get your money back. Create a trust fund from a percentage of punitive damages awards. So when McDonalds serves too hot coffee again and has to pay $20million in punitive awards, put, say $5 million in a trust fund for victims and the winner in the McDOnald's case only gets $15 million..

who
incompetent
been
difficult
sure
those
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:07:16 GMT, "Art"

I like reform #2. Ontario speeding tickets have a portion devoted to "victims compensation fund" The problem with that fund is administration "costs" and how fund dispersion is implemented. Reform #1 would just result in the litigants fuding numbers ala Enron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

Maybe you were intentionally being silly, but your fallacy there is in thinking that in a reformed tort system anyone should be awarded $10k, much less $20 million, for being served coffee that was "too hot".
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

example,
reimburse
rob
back.
when
punitive
in
Maybe you are being silly. Either that or you missed my serious ideas for tort reform. And if you knew the true facts of the McDonald's case you would know that it was judged by a very conservative Nixon appointee and he thought McDonald's deserved what they got.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

$25 million? Hey - why not $1 billion. Or why not $10 billion. How absurd.
I have complained to hotels that their bath water was way too hot if turned all the way to "Hot" - that someone could get scalded (and possibly sue). $25 million for that? No way. At that rate, I should get maybe $20k for bringing it to their attention.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you know, including the amount involved, is wrong. http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

spent.
guys
money
So
winner
for
that it

McDonald's
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

I just read the entire article at the site you listed above. It didn't change my mind one bit. This was a stupid lawsuit.
You could replace "hot coffee" in that article with almost any consumer product that is dangerous if missused, anything from a circular saw to a chain saw to a lawnmower. I own a chain saw that can cause much more damage in much less time than spilled McDonald's coffee. If I mess up and cut my leg off should Stihl be liable simply because their product has the capacity to cause harm?
This is the stupidest legal theory I've ever seen, but it is, unfortunately, being applied to many products these days. In another 20 years we won't be able to buy a knife that is sharp enough to cut a sandwich, power tools, etc., because the risk to anyone who makes them will simply outweight the business benefit of selling them.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The legal standard for inherently dangerous goods like guns and power saws is different than that for ordinary goods.

you
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

That could change as we evolve more to the "Utopian" society. Some gun mfgrs. have been hit in recent years with some pretty stupid lawsuits considering what guns are intended to do.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

Even having such a concept as inherently dangerous (which implies that there are inherently safe goods), is inherently stupid. Then again, nobody ever accused our legal system of being inherently smart! :-)
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

And he was wrong. The person who put hot coffee between her legs got what she deserved. We shouldn't reward stupidity with cash. It sets a very bad precedent. Look at all of the stupid cases now with respect to Oreos, eating at McDonalds, etc. This only ties up an already burdened court system and means that real issues may have to wait too long to be heard. And it increases the costs for us all. Stupidity should have consequences, and they should be NEGATIVE consequences.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you know, including the amount involved, is wrong. http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

spent.
guys
for
that it

McDonald's
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phillip Schmid wrote:

It's also why landlords are constantly given advice on landlording forums never to rent to a lawyer, law student, or law clerk, and after having been a landlord a few years, I can say that that's good advice. Since they are not a protected class, it's probably legal too.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.