»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
You're it!!!...so sue me
| The Alley |
|
You're it!!!...so sue me |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two Massachusetts primary schools this week joined a growing list of US schools that have banned the age-old game of tag for fear that children may get hurt and their parents will sue. Elementary schools in the states of Wyoming and Washington have also recently banned tag during recess, in fear that possible injuries could leave the schools legally liable. My question is......if lawyers were to play hide-and-seek, would anyone look for them? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The IRS? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Grinch...you're too funny! But, you're right, too. Michael, This is unbelievable! No more tag? How stupid is that?!! The answer is, of course! And, there are some good ones out there, too; there really are. I don't think you should pick on the profession, Michael...lol, you are tempting fate. *smiles* |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't think I would want to play Cooperative Musical Hoops with them, that's for sure! "This hoop ain't big enough for the two of us!" LOL! Look, growing up at Warder Elementary School in Arvada, Colorado, from my experiences on recess, yes, I got my knees and elbows scraped on plenty of occasions, and kids can get minor injuries every once in a while. But I was cool with it, as I believe a great majority of children are, and I believe those occasional scrapes and bruises are a small price to pay for helping children develop into resilient young adults and appreciate the finer things in life. In fact, I ran this very story on Wednesday at KBOO Community Radio when I produced the news that day, and moreover ran a story last Tuesday regarding a new study by the American Academy of Pediatrics that has concluded that free and unstructured play is healthy for kids, and should be encouraged more in school environments as kids become increasingly overscheduled. You can find a summary of the report at the link below: EMaxHealth: October 9, 2006 I take this decision very seriously and believe we are limiting our children's potential through exaggerative politics such as this. Moving at this rate, we might as well not only ban Annie Annie Over, but all baseball, kickball and dodgeball games from school grounds because the risks are too great that eight-year olds will have their baby teeth knocked out from such piddly. We might as well ban rope-climbing because a student with more sensitive skin can get ropeburn. And we might as well stop more West Virginia elementary schools from getting Dance Dance Revolution arcade machines in helping reverse the high, rising obesity rates state-wide.......all because a nine-year old girl might twist her ankle while dancing.  There is one game I am interested in playing with the lawyers, and that is Capture The Flag!  Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I've got about two and half acres of lawn. I don't invite the neighborhood kids to come play at my house, though, and I honestly couldn't counsel anyone else with a good sized yard to do so either. The problem is not with the schools, or the kids, or even with the lawyers (who, after all, can do nothing but represent their clients). The problem is with anyone who is willing to elevate easy money above personal integrity. I think blaming lawyers for a litigious society is a lot like blaming guns for violence, forgetting that in both instances, someone is back there pulling the trigger. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Dodge Ball is out ( they don't want particular children picked on by those throwing the balls) as are any games of running during the little recess time they have. They can climb on the expensive equipment but can't jump off it. And the playgrounds are no longer grass or dirt but are wood chipped even for those up to the 5th grade. But most of the time schools aren't even allowing enough time for any recess except for the last 15 minutes of the lunchtime. And I agree with Ron...somewhere someone is behind not letting children be children anymore. |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
 ..."Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts..".. In my town alone - Field Day this past spring was devoid of the traditional Tug-of-War finale - an all-time favorite in every grade for as long as I can remember. It seems that the gym teacher thought it was too risky. Next week will also find at least one of the elememtary schools noticeably absent in the traditional Halloween parade. The PTO, however, is welcome to host a non-sanctioned party at the school on that same evening. ...Damn Yankees... |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
What's next? No Little League because someone might get hit with the ball? No Pop Warner football because someone's little precious might get hurt when he has 11 kids drop him because he has the ball? No basketball leagues because there are no protective pads used by the players, and because the game is played on a hard-wood floor... varnish leaves a nasty burn, after all. Having been a foster parent for 15 years or so, and having raised 1 1/2 kids (the other is still not fully raised) of my own, I can tell you one thing for an absolute fact... and it's one of the only absolute facts I can come up with... kids need to be kids, or they will grow up to be kids, and not responsible adults. I got into fights as a kid: it taught me both how to win and how to lose. I played dodgeball as a kid: it taught me how to think ahead, and predict another's actions by watching their eyes and their body movements.. and how to dust myself off and get back into the game. I played baseball as a kid (organized and sandlot): it taught me how to work with a team of various strengths and how to dust myself off and get back in the game after taking one in the back. I played football as a child: it taught me how to overcome obstacles that appeared to be much larger than I (I was only 5'tall, 110" as a 13 year old polaying aginst others who were up to 145.) and how to not give up when I was hurt and tired. As everything is cyclicle, and the pendulum does swing both ways, I cannot wait for it to come back to our childhood. You may burn my flag... only after you wrap yourself in it first. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you really think anyone at all is unduly worried about the kids getting hurt, Ringo? It's not about the kids. It's about you and the other parents still raising the kids. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ I totally agree with what Ron had to say in both of his replies - everything else said about this matter is like leaves on a tree, but the roots are the parents and society as a whole. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Am I the only one here who has to sign release forms for EVERYTHING? Field trip? Sign here and relinquish your rights. Football? Initial this, sign here, AND provide proof of medical insurance. The sad thing is, my kids grew up in that sociological gap where we were so poor we couldn't afford medical insurance, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid--so um, they never participated in a single sport. Might explain why they are little computer geeks though. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The problem is with anyone who is willing to elevate easy money above personal integrity. That's exactly what I said,Ron....the lawyers. How has suing people become such easy money? Why have lawsuits skyrocketed so dramatically over the past couple of decades? You think Mom and Pop just decided to start suing by some divine inspiration? Get into an accident and see how long it takes for your phone to start ringing from lawyers speaking of lawsuits. Lawyers read police reports, hospital reports, any reports that produce the opportunities for lawsuits. They advertise on television..."Injured? You may be eligible to sue for damages! Call the law firm of Dewey, Screwem and Howe right now!!!" Somebody falls of a ladder from being clumsy, there'a a lawyer there to tell them they can sue the ladder company. A woman spills coffee on herself, sue the restaurant. A boy doesn't show up to take a girl to the prom, sue him for pain and suffering. It feeds on itself. Anything is sueable and there are plenty of lawyers available to make it happen. True, there are people who would not sue because they don't believe it's right but for everyone of them there are a hundred who will. There is also a percentage of the population which falls in between. Susie gets hit on the head by a rock propelled by a tire in the school parking lot. A lawyer tells the parents,"Susie is the victime here. It's only right to collect damages." The parents of the driver get sued. The school gets sued for negligence, lack of supervision, impediments on the parking lot. Sue them all. Why not? What is there to lose? Your son gets poked in the eye playing tag? Sue the school for allowing such a barbaric game. One simple way to cut down on the lawsuits would be to make the suers assume the costs if the lawsuits are thrown out......but you won't see that. First of all, the Bar is completely against that. Politicians say that's not good because it would inhibit poeple from filing lawsuits. DUH!!! If the people had to assume the costs, including the expenses of the defendants in time lost and defense bills, you would see a dramatic drop in the frivolous lawsuits that clog the system. You would not see schools worried about playing tag.......don't hold your breath. You won't see it. The lawyers don't have all the blame, though. They share it with a court system that allows them to do it....but that's a whole topic within itself. Easy money, you say? You couldn't be more right. Easy for the accusers and easy for the lawyers.....all with basically no risk. Such a deal..... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, on this topic you are wrong in so, so many ways. Just for starters: You say, "One simple way to cut down on the lawsuits would be to make the suers assume the costs if the lawsuits are thrown out......but you won't see that. WRONG. Here in Texas (and this is a state by state issue but exists in several states), there is law that provides for exactly that. Additionally, in many states if not all, there is law which provides for monetary sanctions on any attorney who files a frivolous lawsuit. Next you say, "First of all, the Bar is completely against that. Politicians say that's not good because it would inhibit poeple from filing lawsuits. DUH!!! " What politicians and which Bars, Mike? And then, I quot you, "The lawyers don't have all the blame, though. They share it with a court system that allows them to do it....but that's a whole topic within itself. The law provides the remedy, Mike, not Judges. And as I said, it is already in place here and in many other states thanks to Tort Reform the past 15 years. Not nearly as many lawsuits are being filed these days in Texas. I know that for a fact because of the work I do. I never thought I would have to file a lawsuit myself. However, in 2000, I was rearended by a 80-year-old man on drugs which indicated he should not operate a vehicle. He hit the van behind me while we were stopped at a red light. He was going 55 at the time in a 35 mph zone. He did not apply his brakes at all or try to avoid hitting the van, which in turn, hit me and totaled my new car. I was taken by ambulance to the hospital, x-rayed, told I had sprains and strains and a sprained wrist, bruises, etc. I could not move for about 10 days, I was so stiff. After months of follow up with the doctors to find out why I kept getting worse, one doctor referring me to another to another, it was finally determined that I had something called fibromyalgia and permanent nerve damage in my neck. The nerve damage is the reason I can't sleep at night without my limbs going numb. That was after three surgeries. One of which was replacing my thumb joint. So one of my hands is permanently disabled, making it impossible for me to do certain tasks...like button my pants or blouse or hand someone money at a drive-thru McDonalds, for instance. I can't play guitar, flute or piano anymore at the level I could prior to the accident because of the inability to manipulate my fingers in a coordinated fashion. I can't knead bread...one of my favorite things to do was bake. There are so many things I can't do as a result of that freaking accident. My medical bills were over $30,000. And, the nerve damage is permanent and inoperable. It will never get any better. My point is, that accident was not my fault. I had medical bills that were unpaid. Initially, I tried to settle this with the insurance company of the man who was responsible. I did not want to sue. I asked for reimbursement for the time I missed from work and my medical expenses. That is all I asked for though according to law, I could ask for pain and suffering. I didn't even ask for future medical expenses, which I will have for the rest of my life. The insurance company kept stalling me, telling me they were trying to get my medical records. I gave them authorization for the records months before. Finally, I got records myself and sent them to the insurance company and sent them a demand letter for the meds and lost wages. I told them in the letter I did not want to sue them, I just wanted reimbursement. (My car claim was settled with my own carrier as their offer was $5000 more than what the responsible party's carrier made. Then my carrier had to sue the other carrier for reimbursement.) The 80-year-old man's insurance carrier continued to stall me and finally, as there was only 30 days before the statute ran on the claim, I broke down and asked an attorney to help me. The case settled two years later. It did not go to trial. You tell me why these stupid insurance companies threat claims like mine the way they do and think people are so stupid that they will just lose out if the insurance companies stall them long enough to let the statute of limitations run. This is one of the major reasons why people hire attorneys in automobile injury cases. It is because they can't get anywhere on there own. So, Mike......blame it on the insurance companies!!! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Walk down Fifth towards Olive in L.A., Mike, and see how long it takes for someone to offer to sell you drugs. Or just turn on your television and count how many minutes (seconds?) it take before a commercial entices you with something else we all know is patently unhealthy for you. Lawyers don't have a market on temptation, Mike. quote: The problem, Mike, is that it doesn't inhibit people equally. It certainly won't faze the rich, and even the middle class isn't going to blink over investing a few thousand dollars in hopes of winning six figure settlements (it's just like playing the lottery for them). The only ones who end up being inhibited, the ones who no longer have any legal recourse under such a system, are the poor. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The problem, Mike, is that it doesn't inhibit people equally. It certainly won't faze the rich, and even the middle class isn't going to blink over investing a few thousand dollars in hopes of winning six figure settlements (it's just like playing the lottery for them). The only ones who end up being inhibited, the ones who no longer have any legal recourse under such a system, are the poor. Interesting, Ron. The interview I watched on television asking a senator (sorry,Iliana, it was too long ago to remember the senator's name but I certainly recall the interview) that question, the senator gave an answer exactly identical to yours. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. I don't believe the middle class spends thousands playing the lottery and I don't even believe the rich don't care about throwing away thousands on a possible lost cause. I don't know for fact but I do believe that the rich do not make up a large percentage of those who sue. As far as the poor is concerned, I think that if they are that sure they are right, they will proceed. Those who don't feel that way won't and lawyers who don't feel that they can win the cases will not take them. If you are sued by someone and you are innocent, why then should you absorb the cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you and why should you absorb the time lost from work? Does that seen right to you.....basically the accused being punished for being found innocent? Iliana, I'll try to find out how many states have that law in effect. I'm surprised to hear Texas has it. Maybe Bush did it as governor? ...and no, Iliana, I waste no love on the insurance companies, either. |
||
|
hunnie_girl
since 2006-06-18
Posts 2567Canada |
well now, what happens to the kid that was tagged last? that kid is gonna be it for the rest of his life... and at the 10 or even 20 year school reunion he will still be it and he can't do anything about it imaging having to live with that for the rest of your life... kids should be kids i think and there are a lot more dangerous activities that a kid will engage in than tag... i mean it such a dosile game... i still play tag and i'm in high school!!! haha let the kid inside never die... tag banned? haha i think that is lamer than pathetic and there lies my opinion. hunnie*  A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war and a time for peace ~Ecclesiastes 3:8~ |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, Bush was not responsible for getting tort reform through. Bush just uses it as a talking point and he has gotten some done with Federal caps, addressing class action suits, primarily. Most of Texas tort reform happened under a Democrat although it was a movement sponsored by Republicans. Although Perry's congress got further reform passed which basically limits the noneconomic damages to $250,000. That would be emotional loss, pain and suffering, mental anguish...that kind of thing. There are caps on almost all damages now. Municipalities and Texas government entities have an even smaller cap which is economic and noneconomic, I think either $100,000 or $200,000. Juries may award millions, but when it boils right down to it, the Plaintiff doesn't recover that much...unless the case was filed before tort reform. The big headlines you see in lawsuits are just sensationalism....it just doesn't happen anymore. If the case goes through appeal, the Supreme Court reverses it or cuts the damages awarded by the jury. This is Texas law, I'm talking about. Let me ask you this, Mike. Let's take a realistic scenario. You own a small one-story building which you use for your business. You bought it because of its location and the kind of business traffic you get in that location. You've been very successful there. Now the city you live in comes along and condemns your property under eminent domain. You get the bank or an appraiser to estimate the value of your property and what kind of losses you'll undergo as a result of having to relocate. They come up with a figure of $1 Million. The City's appraisers say the property is only worth $500,000. Tell me in all honesty that you will not hire an attorney to represent your interest and go to Court to protect your investment? According to the Supreme Court's ruling a year or so ago, land can now be acquired/condemned by cities or communities simply on the grounds that the land would be of more financial benefit to the city if it was used in another way. People think they own land....all they really own in most cases is a license to use the land and it can be confiscated anytime there is a better use for it. One of my clients here in Texas told me they had over 400 eminent domain cases and were anticipating more since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. Tell me those attorneys are not needed to represent citizens' rights. Personally, I would hate to see a world with no one to represent the interests of the little guy. I used to think like you, Mike, but I have witnessed far too much not to have changed me unless I had no conscious or just didn't understand intellectually what was happening. Even before my own legal action, I thought I had all I needed to get my claim settled by myself. I had an admission of liability, a police officer's report citing the man who caused the accident, a totaled car with pictures to show it, and medical bills of over $30,000, all of which I provided to the insurance company along with several doctors' reports indicating the severity of my injuries. I signed a statement which the insurance company asked me to sign indicating I could be prosecuted if I was making a false claim. Mike, I was still living in an illusion...that insurance companies would be fair, especially if I didn't ask for any extra. Wow, was I wrong. There is such an attitude of arrogance that permeates the insurance industry (at least here in Texas) that they won't even offer to settle death claims where there is clear liability. Their TV ad campaigns (many times involving politicians) over the last 15 years have served to prejudice jurors here in Texas with the exception of a very few counties. On this, I can speak with authority, since this is my job to know. I'm not saying that there are no crooks out there and people who would take advantage of a system. What I am saying is thank God there are some "white knights." It is not a black and white issue as you would argue. Laws favor big business and insurance companies now...that has been happening right in front of our eyes for the past 20 years. It was a planned assault and executed strategically by lobbyists in many, many states and in Washington, D.C. They have more or less succeeded in shorting the little guy and limiting losses. Additionally, the federal laws concerning class action cases...those were not designed to protect me and you...they were designed to protect big business. If manufacturers produced products that were not defective (many times on purpose); if contractors kept their end of the bargain; if insurance companies would just pay a claim when legitimate; if truck drivers weren't overworked or on drugs when they ran down and killed a car full of people; if farmers kept their cows fenced in on their property and they didn't get out in the road and cause someone to crash; if people kept their dogs on chains or in pens so they didn't get out and destroy a herd of sheep or a flock of ostriches or chew the hand off a little 6-year-old; if drugs all had clear warnings on the labels; if bar owners made sure no one ever left drunk; if pipeline inspectors never neglected their jobs and didn't miss a leaking hole which caused an explosion killing two teenagers in a horrendous fire with the dad watching his kids burn alive; if construction companies adhered to safety standards and OSHA regulations; if no one dumped toxic waste into back yards to drain down into your property contaminating your drinking water and causing cancer; if cities or states did not want to acquire property to boost revenue; if people and businesses always paid their bills, rent or mortgages on time; etc., etc., THEN we wouldn't need attorneys. But until that day, I am thankful we have them. Oh, and by the way, the Texas State Bar has rules regarding attorney advertising and solicitation which are very strict. I suspect that is true in Florida, too. There are a few bad apples in the barrel that give attorneys a bad name...there may be some ambulance chasers, but that is unethical practice....why don't you report them to the state bar ethics committee? No one ever approached me after my accident. I had to seek help. In my opinion, federal tort reform is one more attempt by this administration to take power from the states and put it into the federal domain...I always thought Republicans wanted limited federal government and were states' rights advocates (since 1930s), and yet here we are right along with all the other legislation that has gotten through, e.g., No Child Left Behind, to name just one. Geez....if I remember my history, wasn't it states' rights issues that brought on the Civil War? [This message has been edited by iliana (10-22-2006 04:20 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Iliana, you seem to be on a roll there but your examples have no connection to my comments at all. If you were to re-read my thoughts you would know that I am referring to FRIVOLOUS lawsuits being the culprit. I even gave examples of frivolous lawsuits. Your examples do not resemble them at all. No one has said lawyers are not necessary. No one has said there are not true life situations where lawyers are needed. Your comparisons make as much sense as Ron's, telling me how lawyer's trying to induce lawsuits are the same as Tony trying to get you to buy his Frosted Flakes. Hey, at least you worked in an evilness of THIS administration. No thread would be complete without it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ahh, so you want the lawyers to decide the cases now, Mike? quote: I'd love to hear you explain the difference, Mike. Marketing is marketing. quote: But you haven't told us why anyone should accept your particular definition of frivolous, Mike. Indeed, from where I sit, at least one of the examples you provided is questionable. I don't think anyone would argue that frivolous lawsuits should be allowed, Mike. That's why judges dismiss them every day. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Please continue the current Lawyer/Frivolous lawsuit discussion. I'm not going to pile on that one because I've already said everything on the subject before. What I find interesting and salient is this statement: quote: To what do we owe this cultural problem? Could the erosion of loyalty from employers to employees be a part of this? defaulting on pension plans, downsizing, defrauding Wall Street, political graft and the lobby culture, religious leaders fleecing the flock to finance lavish lifestyles, manufacturers who are all too willing to withhold safe technologies from the market (like seat belts) and intentionally market harmful products (like cigarettes), aren't these all representative of being willing to elevate easy money above integrity? Is it new? The only thing I see that is new is that people have lost faith in those who are supposed to lead, and figure, why not take advantage of the only opportunity that I might have -- even if it isn't fully legitimate -- might this be viewed as a way to cut into a stacked deck? Furthermore -- why shouldn't we be all too ready to hold those who are charged with our personal safety, or that of our children, to accountability if they are negligent or willfully harmful -- as in the case of parishioners being sexually abused by clergy. I was playing battle ball in Jr. High School inside a gymnasium. It was just P.E. time and winter and we couldn't go outside. Things got a little bit rough -- I was running to retrieve a ball -- pushed a kid headfirst into the bleachers -- busted his head. There were medical bills. Why shouldn't I, my parents, and the school have been sued? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Excellent point, Reb! I believe you have hit on the root of the problem. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Because when you agree to play battle ball or any other physical game there's a likelihood that you could get hurt. The kid who banged his head and his parents should have understood that. If they are willing to play, or allow their kids to play, they are accepting the risk and it stands to reason that when something goes wrong they should have the integrity to pay the cost out of their own pocket. The alternative gets us right back to the start of this thread, kids parents sues school, school's insurance company increases the premium, school stops kids playing battle ball. Here's a little story of my own, it happens to be true. When my youngest son was a toddler he was due for an annual booster injection, it was the usual cocktail only in this particular year, after a lot of debate in the media about the possible dangers, they'd decided to offer it with or without the measles inoculation. After weighing the risks my wife and I decided that we didn't want our son inoculated for measles, we had to visit the surgery, discuss the decision with our family doctor and the sign a waiver accepting the responsibility. A week later Martin was given his jab, two days after that I got a call from our family doctor saying that he need to see me. When I got to the surgery he explained that Martin had been given the wrong inoculation by accident, he apologised and gave me copies of all the relevant paperwork and suggested I spoke to a legal advisor. My lawyer confirmed that the mistake constituted common assault and that if I did take action at that time I was guaranteed to win and that I'd probably receive substantial damages. Though to his credit he also suggested that I should consider not taking action as the doctor had had the integrity to voluntarily admit the mistake. The lawyer explained that if any consequences came of the mistake we could at the time the consequences became apparent reconsider. Both my wife and I decided that we'd take no action at that time. A lot of people said at the time that we were rewarding a mistake that we should have taken the doctor for every penny he had. They couldn't understand that the doctor had integrity, the lawyer had integrity and that we felt the need to reciprocate. I think that's what Ron was talking about when he said "The problem is with anyone who is willing to elevate easy money above personal integrity." The doctor didn't need to own up to his mistake, the lawyer could have made a killing in fees and we could have made one in damages but we'd all have lost a little something along the way. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Um, how does one enforce this ban? As I recall, we never played tag during school hours, it was only after school. Maybe things have changed, of course, but do schools have the resources today to watch the kids in order to enforce such things? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Your first sentence is the entire problem Grinch. There is no such agreement. Unless you want to fall back upon an implied agreement to send one's children to school rather than face charges. Education is mandatory -- private schools are an option -- but still mandatory -- and home-schooling hadn't been invented at the time. One must, by law, send children to school. And in public or private school in order to pass one must participate in the full school curriculum. Physical Education is part of that curriculum. It was the school's choice to allow the gym coach to let adolescent males pick up hard rubber balls and throw them at each other as hard and as fast as possible. Help us burn off hormones... keep the fights in the cafeteria under control... blow off steam. Physical contact between the players was not part of the game. I was ignoring the rules. The situation was out of control. Who's responsibility was it to control? It was my responsibility to obey the rules and my parent's responsibility to be liable for any actions that I, as a minor, may take. Was it not the school's responsibility to choose activities that would moderate the likelihood of severe physical injury? Wasn't the school supposed to protect a boy half my size from me? Would we even be having this conversation if we were talking about a window? "I'm sorry I didn't mean to hit the baseball through that three-thousand dollar plate glass." Would the response be -- "Oh, well, you didn't mean to so in order to maintain integrity we'll just eat the cost of replacing it."? After all, it is glass -- shouldn't one expect to bear the risk for it being broken? If a motorist is blowing through stop signs and red lights do we tell the people he injures along the way -- sorry -- you took that risk by getting out of bed this morning. You should bear the responsibility for it. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ And that people can defend their pursuit of MONEY because a game of whatever was being played at a school when someone pushed another sickens me. ~ Let's see ... with that rationale, I am at school walking down a pair of steps and because I didn't see another student or because I tried to avoid bumping to another student, I fell down the steps. Therefore, all steps should be taken out of school. ~ Purely, ridiculous. ~ To comment about the "battle ball" scenario, I'd say this. If one student blantantly pushes another, causing injury, whether it happened during battle ball or while praying in the school's church, the only thing that should happen is that the medical bills, if any, should be paid by the student doing the pushing - the school should not be held liable [insert period here] "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: When has business in this country, especially big business, ever willingly been responsible to anything except market forces, Reb? No, I don't think people have lost faith in business leaders so much as they've lost faith in themselves. Indeed, I suspect that is even epitomized by your own choice of wording. Only opportunity? Stacked deck? quote: I think the real question, Reb, is why should anyone have to be sued? Why can't everyone involved (including the kid's parents, even if they probably won't feel their kid being in the wrong place at the wrong time was his fault) pay their share just because it IS their share? Everyone, I think, wants to blame everyone else for "things," instead of shouldering their own responsibilities. Reb, you talk later about school being mandatory, about $3,000 glass windows, and about getting out of bed in the morning, and I think in each of those instances you're ignoring where the responsibilities are assumed. Sure, school is mandatory, but having kids isn't. People who can afford expensive windows have to choose where they're going to put them and how they're going to protect them. And the people injured didn't just get out of bed in the morning, they also crawled behind the wheel of a car and took it out on a road. I'm not suggesting any of these people are at fault. I'm just saying they aren't faultless. They made choices, too, just like those they are trying to blame for the consequences. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ahh, so you want the lawyers to decide the cases now, Mike? Lawyers always decide cases,Ron. They decide which cases they will take. If they don't think a case is winnable they don't waste their time - and if they don't think it's winnable the odds are that it's not. Lawyers are probably the bet litmus paper validity of lawsuits has. They don't like to leave food on the table. quote:Your comparisons make as much sense as Ron's, telling me how lawyer's trying to induce lawsuits are the same as Tony trying to get you to buy his Frosted Flakes. I'd love to hear you explain the difference, Mike. Simple. Tony ever try to sell you Frosted Flakes through tv ads when you were a kid? Me, too. Lawyers ever try to get you to file lawsuits through tv ads when you were a kid? Me, neither. Also, one is a product. One is trying to create a product. I don't think anyone would argue that frivolous lawsuits should be allowed, Mike. That's why judges dismiss them every day. Are they dismissed before or after the defendants are forced to use legal representation and lose time from work to be there? Could the erosion of loyalty from employers to employees be a part of this? defaulting on pension plans, downsizing, defrauding Wall Street, political graft and the lobby culture, religious leaders fleecing the flock to finance lavish lifestyles, manufacturers who are all too willing to withhold safe technologies from the market (like seat belts) and intentionally market harmful products (like cigarettes), aren't these all representative of being willing to elevate easy money above integrity? No. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What exactly was his responsibility Ron (meaning the bleachered kid). Football player -- me -- him.. not -- the only reason he was in the wrong place was because I made it the wrong place -- I ran full force into the kid and cracked his skull.. sure... I was 13... I made a bad decision in a moment. But, don't we expect kids to have poor judgment? That is, after all, why they wouldn't give me a driver's license at 13. Yep, I'm responsible, my parents were responsible -- but -- didn't the school put me behind the wheel? Here's a great way to avoid a lot of medical lawsuits in such instances though -- Universal no fault health coverage. That only leaves the matter of punitive damages to the courts and the litigants. And, I'm in complete agreement that people have lost faith in themselves. Isn't that what leaders are supposed to do though? Give people faith in themselves? Doesn't the guy who gave his 25 years to the steel mill only see it default on its pension fund and wind up getting paid only pennies from the Federal insurance have a right to be disheartened? With leaders like Welch, Lay, Delay, Bush, Rumsfeld from whence cometh that enterprising spirit? People are told if they build a better mousetrap -- if they work hard play by the rules -- everything comes to them in the end -- but it doesn't. People rarely get what they deserve and when somebody who gets more than they deserve harm others -- is it any wonder people are willing to go after them for even small things? That guy, who lost his pension, may see his only opportunity left in his waning years to be that propane truck that rear-ended him at a red light. Maybe then he can get back what should have been rightfully his -- even if he's getting it from somebody other than the ones who took it from him. Even if his neck doesn't really hurt all that bad. Even if his car did have a collapsed lifter and needed a ring job. He sees leaders who take whatever they can get from wherever they can get it with impunity -- and figures -- hey... where's mine? I'm not advocating it Ron. I'm just trying to explain where it comes from. If the captains of industry have no personal integrity, if the civilian political leaders have no integrity, if the spiritual leaders have no integrity, then from where does it come? The only way to get integrity back is justice. If the integrity is to come from us, the ordinary parents -- the ordinary consumer, the ordinary citizen -- our only place to seek that integrity is the court. Who is supposed to pay for the broken window? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
oh yeah... Mike.. I threw Bush in there just for you  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Were that true, Mike, no one guilty of murder could ever get a fair trial. Of course, what you're really talking about are lawyers that operate on a contingency fee, and they're just a small part of a much larger pool. If all lawyers only got paid for winning cases, rather than trying cases, our whole legal system would fall apart. No, Mike, lawyers don't decide cases. They just decide whether they are likely to be paid. Walk into a lawyer's office with a $50,000 retainer and you, too, can have your day in court, irregardless of merit. Unfortunately, I think what you're advocating would result in ONLY the people with $50,000 to gamble being assured their day in court. quote: I'm not sure what your point is, Mike? Are you lamenting that the American Bar Association is less strict today than when you and I were kids? I'm sure your aware, after all, that the Bar is what regulates where and how much lawyers can advertise. What you're not telling us is why you think lawyers should be held to a higher standard than someone who feeds our kids? quote: Nope. One is a product. One is a service. And, yes, that's a difference that is going to affect marketing, but it's a small difference. A much bigger difference is that one is national and one is generally local, and THAT is much more likely to determine which will be able to afford the most television time. quote: I'm not a lawyer, but personal experience suggests it's after a lawyer is hired but usually before anyone has to appear in court. But what's the alternative, Mike. Do you personally want to decide which cases should be dismissed? If not you, and not the judges, then whom? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Isn't that what leaders are supposed to do though? Give people faith in themselves? Ok,l then, leaders have not given people faith in themselves....and,amazingly, it's only been in the past six years! Because Sam Truck Driver doesn't have faith in himself anymore- Bush did it! Talk about a stretch........ Gee,I wonder where you were in the nineties? Had you been around you could have said, "Isn't that what leaders are supposed to do? Set standards in morality and serve as good examples of how men, husbands, fathers, and business and world leaders are supposed to act? Shouldn't they be someone kids should look up to along with adults? Instead we had a man who showed that morality took a back seat to profit. A man who caused decent people to say, "So what if he's a liar and an adulterer? The economy is good!!!" We had a leader who looked at the American people in the eye through the tv screen and lied through his teeth and then lied to congress and we said, 'oh, well, it was a personal matter....no big deal." Where was your finger-pointing and words of condemnation then? LOL! You have the cojones to refer to current Republicans as core reasons why people have a lack of faith after eight years of a man who displayed that trust, honor, loyalty, honesty and dignity were disposable items and that the bottom line was all that really counted in the world? You think kids and people didn't pick up on that? This topic is one of the by-products of Slick Willie's legacy but if it makes you feel better to completely ignore the actions of a president who made a complete mockery of the office and the dignity it is supposed to represent and go after Bush instead......have a ball. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What you're not telling us is why you think lawyers should be held to a higher standard than someone who feeds our kids? Well, call me a non-realist, Ron, but I actually DO feel that lawyers should be held to a higher standard. They are representatives of the legal profession...a supposedly honorable institution. I also feel that policemen should be held to a higher standard for the same reason. But what's the alternative, Mike. Do you personally want to decide which cases should be dismissed? If not you, and not the judges, then whom? There's the question, Ron. I don't have an answer. It would be good if personal integrity were to enter into the picture but there is little hope of that when there is money to be made, it seems. Still, I DO think that when it comes to a point that kids are not even allowed to play tag at recess for fear of the school being sued, it's gone too far and somebody needs to come up with SOME answer. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: And I wonder where you were in the seventies Mike? The sixties? My condemnation of Clinton and Gingrich occured elswhere because there was no here and you didn't know me. And I have no amnesia about any of it. But we have to have some perspective here don't we? On the one hand we have a man who lied about sex and another man who lied about sex. Some Congressional leaders who cashed in some stamps and kited a few checks. On the other hand, in the sixties and seventies we had Nixon. If Nixon had the power our current Congress just gave to Bush he could have actually been tossing all of those people on his enemies list into an undisclosed prison. You've really missed your favorite whipping boy though Mike -- it's the press's fault. It's Woodward and Deepthroat -- and darn if it isn't Woodward again. If the press just hadn't told us the TRUTH we'd be up to our eyeballs in faith. Yes.. darn that freedom of the press. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"And, I'm in complete agreement that people have lost faith in themselves. Isn't that what leaders are supposed to do though? Give people faith in themselves?" ~ Absolutely not. If a person is looking for a political leader to provide for them faith, then they missed the train to common sense, self-esteem, and self-worth. "Doesn't the guy who gave his 25 years to the steel mill only see it default on its pension fund and wind up getting paid only pennies from the Federal insurance have a right to be disheartened?" ~ And whose fault is that? The Republicans in office today? Of course not. If I need to explain it you, then it is not worth explaining. "With leaders like Welch, Lay, Delay, Bush, Rumsfeld from whence cometh that enterprising spirit?" ~ Maybe your biased political opinions have blinded you, completely? That is not uncommon when it comes to politics. What you are saying now could be said for any political party during any decade or "time of power." "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." [This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (10-23-2006 01:20 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
~ Your biased political opinions have blinded you, completely. What you are saying now could be said for any political party during any decade or "time of power." Of course, JCP....but it's so much more sporting to lay it at the Bush doorstep, apparently. Nice side-step, reb. Just think....if Bush had displayed all of the moral deprivation Clinton did, you would have the best of both worlds and REALLY go wild. Yes, we've had Nixon,Kennedy's women....and let's not forget Jefferson and his slaves but if you want to go back to the display of "Morals and honesty are overrated - take what you can get" philosophy of our current generation you only have to back one President....the one who, along with his loving wife, stole furniture and artifacts from the White House when he moved out in one last great display of integrity to the point where the Secret Service had to go get them and bring them back. Bush? He's a piker. Billy was the true master. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
It didn't start with Dunbya. It didn't start with Billy. It didn't even start with Carter's crazy brother or Spiro Agnew's corruption or the Gary Hart scandal. It started when babyboomers began to realize that the only way to get ahead was to lie, cheat, steal, stab your friends in the back, do whatever it takes to win. Just don't get caught! It started with foreign buyouts of American bedrock manufacturing corporations and foreign trade agreements and the kind of pressure that has put on management to keep stockholders happy. It started with watching our heros assasinated. Then watching our President resign in disgrace and another one lie about the Contra Affair. It started with watching our savings & loans fold (along with the help of a Bush brother, I might add, who was only slapped on the hand for his part as his daddy was 'way up there' and if you think we missed that, Mike, you're wrong). Then the man whose son steals from our savings & loans somehow manages to keep the whole thing quiet through his candidacy for president and wins....and takes up a war where masses of our military service poeple were experimented on and exposed to depleted uranian. Billy comes in office and everyone gets their hopes up that maybe he really will be a change and what happens? Another demoralizing moment. And yes, Mike, I agree that was the last layer to the cake which had been baking layer by layer for as long as I can remember. But the icing, well that would be the current state of our nation under GWB and all that has been pointed out many times before on these threads. What happened to our society? We watched the people with power win and the people with no power lose. We equated money = power. We related getting ahead involves who you know and not what you know and money buys friends. I say, if we can't blame it on big business, the justice system, or politicans...let's blame it on television, Mike. (lol) Ron really does have a point about commercials. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Iliana, I blame it on Ozzie and Harriet. They set standards impossible to match  (for those not familiar with Ozzie and Harriet, send me a SASE and I'll tell you all about them) |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Naw, Mike, I think "Dallas" is more like it.  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Presidents and their Administration come and go, but politics stay long after. Something to remember is who was in power legislatively during all that time. Yeah, the Republicans have held the reigns for the most part for 10 years. But who had them for the prior 40? Keep in mind that the sitting President doesn't make law, nor the sitting Governor, but the federal and state Congress who's primary goal it seems is to keep getting reelected, not serving the nation or state. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Jo, you did a really good job so far. There is another dimension to the conversation though that has to do with those mushroom cloud filmstrips -- anybody want to have a go at it? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Reb, I think you should address that. & thanks. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Y'all have digressed miles off topic here, LOL! Love, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
So, how do you enforce a tag law? |
||
|
inot2B Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205Arkansas |
Why does every discussion with Balladeer always go back to POLITICS? I'm so tired of political parties being blamed for everything. I don't care which party one belongs to, children should be allowed to play and run, without the school being sued if one is hurt. As long as they provide proper supervision and alert parents as soon as an accident happens then let the parent get doctor treatment or whatever needs to be provided. If a parent finds out that an adult was not supervising their child and their child was hurt and they were not notified in a proper amount of time, then they can decided what should be done. Either through their school superentendent or legal means if the school does not act on the complaint. Balladeer you ask and important question, and it is up to an individual if they need to find a lawyer. Then it is up to the courts to decide who is right or wrong. Yes we are hurting our children out of fear of being sued, but I can't blame a political party for it. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Go back and actually check the thread. I think you'll find the first mention of politics (partisan, at least) was comment #12, Iliana. Then #16, Iliana again. Then #27, Local Rebel and #28 although it appears tongue-in-cheek. Balladeer first brought up the ugly P word in #30 in response. After that, the whole thread has simply degenerated to mud slinging. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Not a Poet, I beg to differ with you. Mike brought politics into play in entry #11 when he started talking about penalizing plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits, and then again when he tried to give Bush credit for tort reform in Texas in #14. My responses were directed to his questions and erroneous information. You cannot separate law from politics, NAP. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Mike brought it into play in post #1 when he made this thread about lawyers and not about school children. This thread doesn't exist in a vacuum -- but one in a long succession of discussions on the courts, juries, tort reform -- Republican issues -- and the Trial Lawyers Assosiation that trends Democratic and were big backers of Billary. Of course, I'm always ready to give him an excuse to turn on the crocodile tears in defense of poor little GW. Jo... no time and just plain don't feel like it right now -- but here's some background for starters -- not great -- but interesting http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/Arens.html quote: |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Plain and simple, folks... I actually DO blame the politicians of the country, as well as the lawyers, as well as the parents, as well as myself. We all sit around and complain that the world is shot, that the politicians are crazy and crooked, that we should let the kids play, that this is wrong, that the other is wrong... and when someone runs up and screams that we are being unfair because of one reason or another that the (mainly) liberal side of the isle champions, even though we disagree with it, we all turn a blind eye because there is nothing we can do. The politicians do nothing, which emboldens the selfish geniuses with a severe lack of motivation to work for their living to sue a fast food restaurant for allowing them to take the lid off a blazingly hot cup of coffee and stick it between their legs while they are driving over a speed bump. Because they are given more money than they will ever make in their entire lazy, non-motivated lives, someone else gets the idea that because he got drunk and slipped in behind the wheel of his car to go get another bottle, that the liquor company is responsaible to the tune of mega-millions because he is paralyzed from driving drunk at a high rate of speed into a tree, and the home owner is responsible for mega millions more because the tree was on his own property near the road where he could hit it. Certain politicians attempt to enact legislation limiting the availability of garbage lawsuits, and their "caring" opponants make sure everyone knows they are mean-spirited, and only want to take what the little guy is rightfully owed, and that politician falls over onto his back, rolls up into a ball, and cries, "Please, Sir, don't hurt me." This, then, allows supposedly intelligent adults with negligible parental skills (and no desire to develop them) to see the possibility of dollar signs. They, in turn, call a lawyer because they are too lazy to work for their money and their children's future. Their children are at a schoolyard playing, and because the teachers are attempting to watch 200 kids at once, they don't stop little Johnny from running full speed into a tether ball pole while playing tag, they decide that the school is liable for more money than the kids will ever make in his life because he broke his arm. And the country rolls itself into a ball and allows themselves to be pushed into a corner, because they refuse to allow the politicians to enact legislation to stop this. Meanwhile, someone else decides they are tired of working for their keep, and they... Until we decide to stand up for ourselves, and our judicial system, our insurance premiums will continue to skyrocket, and we will continue to complain that a welfare mother with 14 kids is getting 100 million dollars because a teacher standing across a schoolyeard sllowed a soft, red, four-square ball to hit her kid on the backside, and caused him to skin his knees. You may burn my flag... only after you wrap yourself in it first. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"The success of the economic system seems assured; but now this very success is implicated by many conservatives in the creation of a culture that is increasingly, pathologically focused on getting and spending. Furthermore, it is argued, our spending is directed at the gratification of our most childish appetites, at the coarsest and least elevating forms of commercial product. To characterize this as an aesthetic complaint is not to diminish it." Yep....there you go, Reb. That's the part I left out. Thanks. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You have got to be joking, reb. I said nothing about the current government to begin this thread and your inference that I did is about as farfetched as the majority of your replies. Even in your final comment injecting the "crocodile tears"and the "poor little G.W. you show you can't help yourself. Iliana, if you want to claim that my tongue-in-cheek "maybe Bush did it as governor" was a flag prompting you to start the flogging of the Bush asdminstration for the lawsuit problems, go for it. You fail to mention that my comment came after you said "In my opinion, federal tort reform is one more attempt by this administration to take power from the states". This administration...this administration...this administration. Undoubtedly, you would have found some way regardless. Inot2b is right. Every thread about every subject somehow seems to get hijacked to become a political issue aimed at the current administration. Ron had asked me if I ever got tired of making accusations of Bush bashing. LOL! How can I when it always presents itself, regardless of the topic? I'd like to hear him ask reb and Iliana if they ever get tired of throwing Bush into every thread. Yes, Pete, the problem does ultimatly lie with the federal government because, after all, they are where the buck stops. My problem is not with that claim. My problem is that, to some, it seems to have either all began with THIS administration or THIS administration should shoulder the blame. It's every administration in the past half-century, at least, and yet there are those here who are not satisfied unless they can find someway to lay it on Bush's doorstep out of pure personal bias. The DOW went over 12000 from a point of 7500 after 9/11. They give Bush any acknowledgement of that? Of course not. Unemployment at a new low.....anything there? No way. But let Mr. Jones sue the school system for lack of supervision because billy Bully punched his son's nose and it's all because mr, Jones has a feeling of worthlessness because Bush policies have theratened his pension and this administration wants to take away state's rights. Enough already??? To his credit, Ron is about the only one who tried to argue (or present his views) on the actual topic without using it as a tool to make it a "current administration" issue. That was actually what this thread was supposed to be about. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, sometimes I wonder if you really read what I type here. I ended the long rant with this: What happened to our society? We watched the people with power win and the people with no power lose. We equated money = power. We related getting ahead involves who you know and not what you know and money buys friends. I say, if we can't blame it on big business, the justice system, or politicans...let's blame it on television, Mike. (lol) Ron really does have a point about commercials. I did not not name names there except for "we." True, prior to that I got a couple of digs in there on Bush. But I also got some in on Carter, Regan, Nixon, Clinton, etc. I put the problem on us and how we have assimilated to how people get ahead these days -- why there is a mindset of greed among many people -- a mindset of take what you can when you can. I built up to that by saying I wasn't blaming it on any one person. I blamed it on a number of things and then Reb added the effect of capitalism. I believe the author he quoted has a point about the effects it has had. We have become a society impatient to get want we want. I'm talking about "we" as a nation, not you and I individually. When it boils right down to it, it doesn't matter who or what brought this about (heck, maybe it was part of the "duck and cover" syndrome). What matters is that we babyboomers are responsible for the Now and are responsible for what our children have been taught. I think this was something else Reb was pointing out in his example of clobbering that kid in school. And I am thrilled about the 12000+ market. If you want to talk about the state of our economy, let's go back to another thread and we'll go over that again. The stock market does not reflect everything, Mike...only the Haves' version of reality. Unbelievable....Mike! You brought up how Plaintiffs should have to pay for lawsuits (you did not mention the word frivolous at first), and then I talk about federal tort reform which is one of the major platforms of, yes, THIS ADMINISTRATION (sorry, couldn't resist) which was in response to what you had to say about reforming....lol. And, yet, you still say I started it. You crack me up, Mike, I'll give you that. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I've scoured this thread and can't find a single post for evidence that anyone said "it all began with THIS administration". But I agree that it is a responsibility of the entirety of government and business and spiritual leaders throughout the past half-century -- which includes the current administration -- just the latest straw on the backs of cynics left and right and in the middle Mike. What I find farfetched is that anyone still makes a pretense at defending the guy. quote: That will be far from my final comment -- but the fact that of all the latest woes facing Republicans and the Bush Administration in particular have no threads started (from what I can see by anyone) with my name attached as author indicates that I indeed can and do 'help myself'. quote: Where on earth did I make it a current administration issue? What I said was; quote: To which -- you said no -- and I can't fathom how those aren't representative of elevating easy money above integrity -- perhaps we have different ideas of integrity. Mine is consistency between action and core values -- not that everyone's core values have to be the same -- but -- if someone's core value is that alcohol and homosexuality is of the devil then to be caught drunk and engaged in homosexual activity is a lapse in integrity. If someone believes in the rights to personal property and to be secure in it then it is a lapse in integrity to take someone else's property with a gun or a pen. I don't really find party loyalty to be an act of integrity though -- especially when parties seem to change core values as readily as women's hem lines change. But, you started this thread talking about local government actions as a trend across the U.S. -- a trend that is indicative of and a result of our litigious society -- for which -- you blame lawyers -- that's a tort reform complaint Mike -- and a current government issue. Or did you just mean to talk about Shakespeare? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Where on earth did I make it a current administration issue? Well, let's see.... Doesn't the guy who gave his 25 years to the steel mill only see it default on its pension fund and wind up getting paid only pennies from the Federal insurance have a right to be disheartened? With leaders like Welch, Lay, Delay, Bush, Rumsfeld from whence cometh that enterprising spirit? ..and yes, reb, I was quoting Shakespeare and you know the line |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well I think you're right Mike. Since my thesis was about leadership it was clearly a mistake to use the current administration as an example.  But I always enjoy the part of the thread where the thread becomes the discussion instead of the arguments because it must mean I've won! |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Ohboy, the local Bush Bashers get really vocal when caught red-handed don't they Mike, I know you can defend yourself better than I can cover for you but I just wanted to point out who first went political on this thread. They just can't seem to restrain themselves.But to get back to the topic: "99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name." I don't know who originally said that but I did say it to a dear friend who happens to be a lawyer a few months ago. Her response, after several seconds: "Damn, that's right." I read an article several years ago, I don't remember the source or original subject now. Burried in it was an interesting statistic. At that time in Japan, there was 1 lawyer for every 10,000 people. In the UK there was 1 for every 4,000. In the US, there was 1 for every 400. That should give a pretty good idea of one of the major problems with our legal system. I also have a personal experience to relate. I own a small and rare (in the country) 1948 British car. Spare parts are extremely hard to find. There is a large club in England catering to these cars. The club has contracted with several manufacturers to reproduce many of the parts that wear out. Unfortunately, their liability insurance prohibits them from selling any of those part to anyone who might export them to North America. That includes Canada too. The reason? You guessed it. Americans are just too damn prone to sue over anything that they don't like. Now I can almost understand items like poorly manufactured tierods or brake and steering parts but they can't even sell me stuff like door weather stripping or a replacement fuel gauge. Having spent a few years in the legal industry, I know there are many lawyers out there who have very good income. I also know there are many with the highest ethical standards. But there are also many who will do almost anything to "make a buck." The reason? Again, we have entirely too many for their own good. Actually, I have several personal friends who are lawyers. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I lost interest in this thread when it went partisan, but I just can't let this go unchallenged.  It's called supply and demand, Pete, and I honestly think you're looking at the wrong end of the teeter-totter. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Possibly to some extent. I still believe, however, that the main problem is on the supply side. It's much like any other lucrative field. People think they see a way to get rich and jump on it. Pretty soon there are way too many doing it. Next thing is those not at the top of the field have to "do the dirty work" in order to survive. Of course it is true that they would simply be starved out if the public weren't greedy enough to go for someone else's money when an opportunity is offered. My experience in the legal field was designing, installing and managing the computer systems for a major law firm. One of the senior partners at the firm commented once that we were probably looking at a pretty lean couple of years coming up. I questioned that since the economy seemed pretty good and the forcasts were all positive. His answer was "When the economy is good, people can make money by earning it. When it slows, it's just easier to sue someone who already has it. We make money when people sue." That was one of those lawyers for whom I still have a great deal of respect. This was a highly successful firm so we didn't have to chase ambulances or take those cases of women pouring hot coffee on their crotches. But there are plenty others who will and do. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Why should anyone ever 'restrain themselves' Pete? There's no getting caught to it -- we're either doing it or not. If I was going to start Bush bashing I could have brought up any number of the latest scandals to dog the people on Penn Ave. And, the next time I feel like Bush bashing -- I'll just go right ahead and do it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree completely, Ron. It IS supply and demand. The lawyers create the demand and then they supply a sufficient amount of lawyers to handle it. Such a deal.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Before Coca Cola was invented there was no demand for it. Even after there was such a thing the demand was limited. But when a Pepsi comes along and the two start to compete and advertise and raise awareness -- demand for both products increases. When I used to sell to jobbers they'd all tell me the same thing -- 'I don't want to be the only guy with this in his book'. I don't think it's productive to focus too much attention on which side, supply or demand, is 'responsible'. We know that the majority of cases that pass muster into an actual trial (or even settlement) do so because there is MERIT. Ron's point earlier is correct -- if everyone would just do what they are supposed to do -- no one would ever have to sue. But, insurance companies reject claims out of hat as a matter of standard operating procedure -- if you file a disability claim against Social Security -- you're going to have to get a lawyer and sue the Federal Government before it's all over. Demand is originally created by one party injuring another party. Yes. Lawyers, and the inaccurate portrayal of cases in the media -- have created additional AWARENESS of 'deep pockets'. A hightened awareness certainly leads to more litigation -- but most of it is going to be legitimate. Certainly there are criminals who are going to try to scam every institution -- they don't need lawyers to do that though -- it just so happens they are available. But, if this statement is correct; quote: and the demand for litigation continues to rise then there must be SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE ECONOMY. With which -- I refer you back to my original premise. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Not A Poet -- I've been in the legal field since 1980 and I used to say when people asked me why I took that job and left a prominent steel company (before I would have been laid off as I could see that coming), "Well, when times are good, there are lawsuits, and when times are bad, there are lawsuits." As long as there is a justice system, there will be lawsuits and attorneys, their staff, and a service industry fulfilling their needs. I suppose we could go back to Solomon's ways of offering to cut the baby in half when two people argued over it, but I would fear that with some people's cold hearts, we might just end up with a severed body. If the schools Mike refers to want to end recess or playing tag, that is their choice. But it seems to me that their choice is based out of fear. If they have adequate staff or supervision and playground rules in place, then they shouldn't be afraid of lawsuits because the claimant would have to prove negligence on the part of the school. My guess is that they don't have what they need and that is why they've made their decision. To go along with Reb's statement, lack of adequate staff is also a reflection of the economy. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Then they shouldn't be afraid of lawsuits because the claimant would have to prove negligence on the part of the school. My guess is that they don't have what they need and that is why they've made their decision. Wrong again, Iliana. Whether they are found guilty or not, the schools would still be paying. That's the problem. The threat of a lawsuit being filed is enough to cause major problems for a school, business, or whatever. That idyllic world of "If I'm right there's no problem" doesn't exist. Companies, even knowing that they are right, will sometimes settle lawsuits to avoid the costs of going to trial. Sadly, the schools are right in their decision..... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Who's wrong, Mike? Schools carry property insurance. A claimant would file a claim. It is up to the insurance company to pay the claim or not. If it is a valid claim, then they should pay it. The problem is, once again that insurance companies deny claims as a matter of standard course these days. That's the problem. People then get angry because there is no justice. That's when they hire attorneys. If the school is not at fault, there should not be a worry. If the school knew about a hazard on the grounds and didn't do anything to prevent injury, then the claim should be paid. This is pre-litigation. If my child skinned their knee, then it is no big deal. If my child broke their leg because she/he was running while playing tag and fell in a big open hole with no warning markers, then it is the fault of the school and their insurance company should pay for the medical bills. There used to be insurance offered in school for just this kind of thing. I think my parents used to pay something like $25 or $50 per year for it. Whatever happened to that? We pay insurance for everything. For instance, automobile liability insurance is required in many states. Insurance carriers have a multi-billion dollar industry just in liability insurance and yet their practice nowaday is to deny claims. The only claims I see settle pre-lawsuit these days are death, paraplegia, and multiple broken bones and pemanent disability claims. And those cases won't settle if there is even a slim chance the insurance company's attorneys can sway a jury into thinking the responsible party wasn't really responsible--it was just one of those things....accidents happen....and believe it or not, that flies sometimes. By gum, I've even seen cases where the guilty party was an ex-con, drunk and on drugs go to trial and only render the Plaintiff, who sustained back injuries which required surgery, a couple of thousand dollars. Seems to me, it would have made more sense to save the cost of litigation/trial for the insurance company just to go ahead and be nice and pay the guy's medical expenses if the drunk drug addict caused the accident. But the insurance companies have spent millions of dollars convincing the general public/jury poll that all lawsuits are frivolous and that's what makes our rates go up. Check out the net profits of Allstate and State Farm for the last couple of years. You will see they are at an all-time high. Cost of litigation, my eye! While you're at it, contact various state insurance commissions and attorneys general, and check out the number of insurance code violations that have been found by insurance companies in the last several years. But that doesn't even phase companies like State Farm or Allstate. Allstate, for instance, has a giant computer god, called Colossus. When adjusters get a claim, they plug in the injury, the age of the claimant and any personal information they have on the claimant, and see what Colossus tells them. For soft-tissue injury cases, Colossus usually tells them with its facts and figures that the case is winnable, especially if the claimant is over a certain age, if a lawsuit were filed and not to offer any settlement or maybe just the initial ER bills and one doctor's visit, or the absolute low-ball figure. Google Colossus and Allstate and see what you find. It will probably make you very happy, but it has made an awful lot of people very, very angry. The courts are processing cases (going to trial) here in Texas (the typical fender bender type) in about a year after a lawsuit is filed. Sometimes, it takes up to 18 months for some nerve damage and back/neck/shoulder injuries to fully manifest. Insurance companies know this and have set the environment here through lobbying for particular legislation that has crippled claimants in even knowing the extent of their injuries sometimes. There is so much more to this topic that could be discussed but it is not pertinent to your thread. Suffice it to say, I'm going back to blaming the galldang insurance companies for our litigous society. But Ron and Reb are right, too -- if everyone would just do the right thing, there would be much less litigation. People, most people, sue when they are mad. What makes them mad? Getting the runaround and injustice. Why, I used to work for a medical malpractice defense attorney who would give seminars to many doctors about how to avoid litigation. One of the biggest things he addressed was their communication skills and bedside manner. Having been through a lawsuit myself, I can tell you, it is no fun; it's a major disrupting hassle; your whole life is put on display; you're made to feel like the guilty party instead of the victim. Filing a lawsuit in my book is the absolute last resort. [This message has been edited by iliana (10-27-2006 05:57 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If the school is not at fault, there should not be a worry. . . Having been through a lawsuit myself, I can tell you, it is no fun; it's a major disrupting hassle; your whole life is put on display; you're made to feel like the guilty party instead of the victim. Interesting opposing points of view....from the same person If Billy Bully wants to punch Randy Dandy in the mouth and free up a tooth or two because Sally Sweetie(Billy's girlfriend) smiled at him, no school would be able to prevent it. What would the lawsuit say? Lack of supervision by the school. Faulty security.....minor monitoring. The Blackboard Jungle all over again. That shouldn't bother the schools, though, because they are in the right....right? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, my two different stances have to do with one being a claim and the other being a lawsuit. I reiterate: the school should not have a worry if they are not negligent. Billy Bully should be suspended for bad behavior. If the school has insurance, the insurance company might be asked to pay for dental repair for the injured child, but that might be a doubtful claim. I would think the more likely claim would be filed by the child's parents as a civil assault claim against Billy Bully's parents as his guardians. If the school's insurance company is asked to make a payment and refuses, then and only then, does the school need to worry. In my case, I tried my best to avoid litigation and the insurance companiy left me with no alternative. I had doctors and hospitals threatening to sue me for medical bills. But I was just a little "guy" and so was the sweet elderly gentlemen who totaled my car and caused me grief. He begged his insurance company to settle the claim but they basically hung him out to dry. Had my case gone to trial, it would have probably exceeded his policy limits by a couple hundred thousand dollars or more which would have come out of his own pocket. Of course, if that had happened, he could have turned around and sued his own insurance company for mishandling the claim and violating insurance codes, breaching their contract and breaching their fiduciary duty to him. I suspect insurance carriers would not be so fast to ignore a school district if need be. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If the school's insurance company is asked to make a payment and refuses, then and only then, does the school need to worry. That's my point. Why does the school ever have to worry? There is no school or no system in any school that can stop one kid from popping another kid in the nose. They are kids....some of them do things like that. Why should the school be expected to pay? Why should your above statement come into play? Why does the school need to worry? It makes no sense..... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, you know the answer to that. There is always someone out there who will threaten to sue. That doesn't mean they will be able to though. They have to have legitimate grounds to sue. No attorney I know would take such a case as you describe unless there was a history of supervisory negligence and such a gross neglect that it is something that needs to be fixed. Lawsuits sometimes serve to get a situation fixed. Take Fen-Phen for example. A bad product; poison really. And people would have continued taking it and dying or having strokes and heart attacks had attorneys not proven that the pharmaceutical companies knowingly manufactured and marketed a dangerous product -- now it is no longer on the market. A school district being sued is not something most attorneys want to do because they are on the losing side of a jury to begin with being those same jurors are paying for the cost of the litigation ultimately through their property taxes. It would take some extreme circumstances for this to be an attractive case for a plaintiff's attorney I think. The way you put it, every tom, dick and harry is going to sue the school anytime they get a splinter in their finger. I have more faith in people than that, Mike. Hey, and I thought you were the guy who saw the world as a cup half full not half empty. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There was a ladder company on 60 Minutes. The ladder manufacturers had 17 - SEVENTEEN!! - stickers on their ladders with warnings about common sense items everyone should know. The lawsuits against them averaged over 100 per year and the cost of defending themselves was driving them into bankruptcy. The final straw was a farmer who put the ladder up against the wall of his barn resting on snow and ice. The ladder slipped and the man broke a leg. The court awarded him $300,000.00. Don't tell me you don't see ridiculous tags and warnings on products. The Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, M-LAW, whose main mission is to reveal how lawsuits and anxiety over lawsuits have created a need for overly obvious warnings on products, offers these: A toilet brush with a tag that says "Do not use for personal hygiene" A scooter with the warning "This product moves when used." An electric blender used for chopping and dicing that reminds users to " "Never remove food or other items from the blades while the product is operating." a three-inch bag of air used for packaging that read "Do not use this product as a toy, pillow, or flotation device." Warning on a cartridge for a laser printer: Do not eat toner. Why do you think these ridiculous warnings exist? Fear of lawsuits from those people you have so much faith in...... and the lawyers eager to represent them. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ever read "The Marching Morons," Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
With Efim Hawkins and a world whose average intelligence is 45? Nope |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mike, it's interesting that the pied piper you bring into this discussion is named "Bob Jones"...how ironic. I tried searching out his credentials, which is usually not difficult to do on most authors; however, there is virtually nothing. About the only thing I found besides his personal friendship with the former Republican Governor John Mathias Engler* was that he has been a guest speaker for NAM (National Association of Manufacturers). Now to me, that sounds like he has an agenda for politics and big business. I find it quite curious that I can't find much out about his background. Also, you will find the so-called "grassroots" organization of M-LAW (his group) has a Board of Directors comprised of business owners. Doesn't sound grassroots to me at all. Sounds like just what they did here in Texas. Additionally, with regard to these lawsuits and warning labels which may have come about as a result of lawsuits that you mentioned, there is insufficient detail to determine what happened on appeal or how old these cases even are. For all I know, they could be 20 years old. Or, they could just be a bunch of malarkey. *Interestingly, M-LAW's founder and promoter Bob Dorigo Jones' good friend, former Governor Engler, who served from 1991 to 2003, married his second wife, Michelle, who was a LAWYER, in 1990. "She was named to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) board in 2001 by President George W. Bush and re-appointed in 2002. Engler has spent most of his adult life in government. He was serving in the Michigan House when he enrolled at Thomas M. Cooley LAW School, and graduated with a J.D. in 1981, having served as a Michigan State Senator since 1979. He was elected Senate Majority Leader in 1985 and served there until elected governor in 1990." (exerpts from Wikipedia with emphasis added) Of particular note here are the words LAWYER and FREDDIE MAC, not to mention REPUBLICAN, see Freddie Mac Scandal. In case you don't see my point, Mike, the man you quote as an authority on lawsuits, who has a specific agenda of tort reform, has close personal friends who are LAWYERS -- thing is, they are just Republican lawyers....lol. You figure it out; I'm tired of trying to show you the reality. But it is always fun debating you.  [This message has been edited by iliana (10-27-2006 06:41 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
