benderbender Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 They have 57.8 million reasons to sue.also I like to add its about the money. I agree
jaybee Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 I really don't drink, so I sign up for the Designated Driver program each game, simply because I get a free soda/pop out of it. Darn scammer !
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Money can't bring back your child, but it can sure ease the pain. People are demanding honor in an honorless world... You gotta be joking. Did people/miss the memo that it is all about looking after one's self interest. Now, I don't agree... But I understand it is what it is. Why are people so angry about this? He was the opposing team's fan and most likely got the boot quicker than if he was a drunken Bills fan. Why is that so hard to fathom? He was most likely NOT treated the same as the home idiots. I seen people get tossed for doing nothing wrong except for wearing the wrong colors while being caught in the wrong place @ the wrong time. Sure, this kid was drunk... Did they say what he did to get tossed? BFLO is one one of the most hostile environments for visiting fans, especially Phins fans! Anyway... In the original thread about this, wasn't there a poster that commented about a distraught Miami fan late that night, not too far from a where this kid was found. Maybe there is no connection, but there is more to this story... IMO. Edited June 24, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois
Jauronimo Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I might file suit against the local news for their irresponsible use of the word creek. Creeks are moving bodies of fresh water. What the young man drowned in was a ditch that collects urine, spilled beer, garbage and other parking lot run off. I don't know what you call that exactly, but its not a creek.
Doc Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Money can't bring back your child, but it can sure ease the pain. People are demanding honor in an honorless world... You gotta be joking. Did people/miss the memo that it is all about looking after one's self interest. Now, I don't agree... But I understand it is what it is. Why are people so angry about this? He was the opposing team's fan and most likely got the boot quicker than if he was a drunken Bills fan. Why is that so hard to fathom? He was most likely NOT treated the same as the home idiots. I seen people get tossed for doing nothing wrong except for wearing the wrong colors while being caught in the wrong place @ the wrong time. Sure, this kid was drunk... Did they say what he did to get tossed? BFLO is one one of the most hostile environments for visiting fans, especially Phins fans! Anyway... In the original thread about this, wasn't there a poster that commented about a distraught Miami fan late that night, not too far from a where this kid was found. Maybe there is no connection, but there is more to this story... IMO. Just because money can ease the pain of losing a child, it doesn't mean you should file a frivolous lawsuit, or that a lawyer should take the case. But that's the problem with society: no personal accountability/responsibility. It's always someone else's fault/responsibility.
Mr. WEO Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Just because money can ease the pain of losing a child, it doesn't mean you should file a frivolous lawsuit, or that a lawyer should take the case. But that's the problem with society: no personal accountability/responsibility. It's always someone else's fault/responsibility. Money is the ONLY reason to file a frivolous lawsuit. And no lawyer can be expected to turn down a case he/she feels can win or settle for money.
CodeMonkey Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Money is the ONLY reason to file a frivolous lawsuit. And no lawyer can be expected to turn down a case he/she feels can win or settle for money. Based on my limited experience it was probably the lawyer that went to the family and not the other way around.
Jauronimo Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Money is the ONLY reason to file a frivolous lawsuit, and no lawyer can reasonably be expected to behave ethically. Agreed.
Gugny Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I might file suit against the local news for their irresponsible use of the word creek. Creeks are moving bodies of fresh water. What the young man drowned in was a ditch that collects urine, spilled beer, garbage and other parking lot run off. I don't know what you call that exactly, but its not a creek. If the water is moving, it's a creek, rhyming with leak. What the young man drowned in is a creek, rhyming with lick.
Doc Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Money is the ONLY reason to file a frivolous lawsuit. And no lawyer can be expected to turn down a case he/she feels can win or settle for money. I know. And that's the problem.
Mr. WEO Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I know. And that's the problem. The only solution is a "loser pays" system.
Doc Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 The only solution is a "loser pays" system. I've been saying that for years. Won't happen though, for obvious reasons.
CodeMonkey Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) The only solution is a "loser pays" system. The only solution is actually that the lawyers do not get paid a percentage of the settlement and get just a flat, reasonable, fee (and only if they win the case). Edited June 24, 2013 by CodeMonkey
KD in CA Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I've been saying that for years. Won't happen though, for obvious reasons. Yes....the fact that lawyers give politicians huge $$.
HurlyBurly51 Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Just because money can ease the pain of losing a child, it doesn't mean you should file a frivolous lawsuit, or that a lawyer should take the case. But that's the problem with society: no personal accountability/responsibility. It's always someone else's fault/responsibility. Yep. Totally agree. And making a money grab in the name of your dead son is sick. Especially when they will say it's not about the money. When you hear that it's not about the money, it's about the money.
Doc Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 The only solution is actually that the lawyers do not get paid a percentage of the settlement and get just a flat, reasonable, fee (and only if they win the case). That isn't as big of a deterrent as making the loser pay. And that should include the lawyer.
Mr. WEO Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 The only solution is actually that the lawyers do not get paid a percentage of the settlement and get just a flat, reasonable, fee (and only if they win the case). This wouldn't work. It would limit access to some degree (lawyers won't want to front hundreds of billable hours just to get their usual and customary rate years later) and wouldn't address the problem as well as loser pays. Loser pays will alter the behavior of the plaintiff's bar by forcing them to take cases with a significant chance of winning a jury verdict. Defendents (or their insurers) would be far less likely to settle before trial also. Their would be much less "fishing" by low level ambulance chaser types if they were on the hook when a silly case like this inevitably goes against them. It would remove the frivolity.
Recommended Posts