Jim in Anchorage Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 66 Million award. Do jury's just think "hey my turn could be next"? Now she can be comfortable
tennesseeboy Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Let's say I approach her and can give her back movement...she would be no longer paralyzed but would have to give up the 66 million? Do you think she would hesitate? I sure wouldn't.
Marv's Neighbor Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Let's say I approach her and can give her back movement...she would be no longer paralyzed but would have to give up the 66 million? Do you think she would hesitate? I sure wouldn't. She likely wouldn't hesitate but she may always wonder if she did the right thing.
The Dean Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Let's say I approach her and can give her back movement...she would be no longer paralyzed but would have to give up the 66 million? Do you think she would hesitate? I sure wouldn't. I think she might agree to your terms, but I think you'd be giving her a raw deal. Are you paying for the doctor bills and legal fees? I don't think they are giving back any of that money.
tennesseeboy Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 I think she might agree to your terms, but I think you'd be giving her a raw deal. Are you paying for the doctor bills and legal fees? I don't think they are giving back any of that money. Ok...the deal is she gets her movement, minus all of the pain and suffering and emotional stress of being paralyzed, lost income, medical bills and the time and aggravation of treatment, lawyers fees....I suspect that would only make the deal more attractive. Frankly I wouldn't take 66 million to be paralyzed.
meazza Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Ok...the deal is she gets her movement, minus all of the pain and suffering and emotional stress of being paralyzed, lost income, medical bills and the time and aggravation of treatment, lawyers fees....I suspect that would only make the deal more attractive. Frankly I wouldn't take 66 million to be paralyzed. Me neither. I'm having a hard time finding the machine she was injured by. I'm guessing it's a leg press?
Chef Jim Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Frankly I wouldn't take 66 million to be paralyzed. Oh hell no. I'd hold out for at least $66.5 mill.
shrader Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Ok...the deal is she gets her movement, minus all of the pain and suffering and emotional stress of being paralyzed, lost income, medical bills and the time and aggravation of treatment, lawyers fees....I suspect that would only make the deal more attractive. Frankly I wouldn't take 66 million to be paralyzed. Maybe a paraplegic, but definitely not a quadriplegic. Oh hell no. I'd hold out for at least $66.5 mill. You do have to feed your family.
BuffaloBud Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Further details in Boston Herald article - Linky "Her attorney, Kevin English, said while doing a shoulder stretch, Barnhard had her hand on top of the leg extension machine, and it fell onto her when she stretched back with her shoulder and arm." Not sure of what "it" fell on her, the shoulder stretch or the leg extension machine.
Chef Jim Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Maybe a paraplegic, but definitely not a quadriplegic. You do have to feed your family. I'm thinking more of that gold plated wheelchair.
Just Jack Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 I know two people that have sued, or are in the process of suing for damages, so in my opinion, the amount awarded here is okay if it truly was a faulty piece of equipment. Quite frankly, having had a gym membership, I don't know how a machine could have tipped over onto her unless someone pushed it.
Recommended Posts