Georgia man’s death during threesome nets his family $3M in trial

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jun 04, 2012 3:22 PM GMT
    Georgia man’s death during threesome nets his family $3M in trial


    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-man-death-threesome-nets-family-3m-trial-article-1.1087339
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:11 PM GMT
    And they laughed at me when I said limited, carefully-considered tort reform should be part and parcel of health care reform.

    These costs get passed off to those of us who take responsibility for our health.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:18 PM GMT
    The problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:24 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:29 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.


    I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.

    Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:40 PM GMT
    With what information is in the article, I agree with the decision of the jury.

    Several years ago, I took part in a clinical study which included an EKG. The Lead Investigator sat me down and asked how I was feeling. "Great! Why?", I said. Then, she showed me the EKG and said that I should be feeling something akin to a myocardial infarction.

    I was advised to go to my primary care physician for a referral to a cardiologist and to avoid any strenuous physical activity in the mean time. I went to the cardiologist and after a stress test with nuclear perfusion cardiogram my "ST" elevation was determined to be part of my normal rhythm.

    In any case, I was advised of the risk...and heeded the advise.

    Mr. 3-way was not advised, and so he could not make that adjustment to his lifestyle. The cardiologist is licensed to know better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 7:43 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.


    I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.

    Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.


    JP's response above is the key.

    Frivolous lawsuits should be dismissed by the judge as our system intends.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 04, 2012 9:45 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidStudies have shown that tort reform doesn't make one scrap of difference to health care costs. Texas, which has had it for a decade or more, was the basis of the study.

    So-called tort reform isn't about capping costs; it never was. It is about closing the courtroom doors for people who increasingly have no recourse against large reckless organizations. This is part of the much larger battle to disempower ordinary people, of a piece with smashing unions. Once people can't bargain collectively and can't sue for damages in any meaningful way (dollar caps on malpractice suits often don't even cover the claimant's medical expenses, let alone lost income) there's no way to protest and no way for an average person to get even.

    Which is the entire Republican playbook in a short paragraph.



    APPLAUSE
    APPLAUSE
    APPLAUSE
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 04, 2012 9:49 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.


    I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.

    Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.




    No, the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit was not frivolous.
    McDonald's had been sued again and again and again, over people being scalded by their too hot coffee, yet they refused to do anything about the too hot coffee.
    So, at last, a jury handed down an award large enough to get McDonald's attention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 10:16 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.


    I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.

    Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.




    No, the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit was not frivolous.
    McDonald's had been sued again and again and again, over people being scalded by their too hot coffee, yet they refused to do anything about the too hot coffee.
    So, at last, a jury handed down an award large enough to get McDonald's attention.


    I had never realized just how badly that poor woman was injured by the coffee. A lot of people think it was her fault that she was driving while fixing her coffee, etc. All untrue and she had severed, 3rd degree burns all over her crotch and thighs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 10:47 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.


    I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.

    Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.




    No, the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit was not frivolous.
    McDonald's had been sued again and again and again, over people being scalded by their too hot coffee, yet they refused to do anything about the too hot coffee.
    So, at last, a jury handed down an award large enough to get McDonald's attention.


    Nobody said the lawsuit was frivolous, which was my precise point. Those types of lawsuits ought to be reserved for extreme cases like those, not any injury at all perceived or imagined.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 10:54 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Webster666 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.


    Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."

    Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.


    I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.

    Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.


    I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.

    Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.




    No, the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit was not frivolous.
    McDonald's had been sued again and again and again, over people being scalded by their too hot coffee, yet they refused to do anything about the too hot coffee.
    So, at last, a jury handed down an award large enough to get McDonald's attention.


    Nobody said the lawsuit was frivolous, which was my precise point. Those types of lawsuits ought to be reserved for extreme cases like those, not any injury at all perceived or imagined.


    So if the harm isn't extreme, the company gets off scott free?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 7:04 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]metta8 said[/cite]Georgia man’s death during threesome nets his family $3M in trial

    Good things come in threes, they say.

    Come and knock on our door...