Pride parade victims of trainy file frivolous lawsuit

[JollyRoger]

Two Army veterans and their wives on Wednesday sued the railroad company whose train hit a truck carrying veterans and their spouses during a parade in Texas.

Four veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan were killed and 16 more people were injured in the Nov. 15 collision. They had been riding on a flatbed truck in the parade organized to honor wounded veterans for their military service and were in the process of crossing the tracks when the crash happened. Officials have said the truck entered the crossing after the warning signals began sounding.

The lawsuit was filed by Richard Sanchez and Todd King and their wives, but one of their attorneys said he expects other veterans to join it. He said the lawsuit was filed with just two couples because steps needed to be taken quickly to preserve evidence.

The lawsuit claims negligence and recklessness on the part of Union Pacific Railroad Inc. and Smith Industries Inc., the company that owned the truck, led to the collision. It was filed in Midland, where the crash happened.

http://news.yahoo.com/veterans-sue-railroad-over-fatal-crash-texas-203401463.html

If the deviancy of parading around in celebration of their taxpayer-funded lifestyle was not bad enough, these parasites are now filing a lawsuit rather than offering to pay to the damages that they caused to the railroad. Disgustcuss.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I agree, the imperialistic U$ army is very disgusting. I think that the train driver hated imperialism almost as much as me, and deliberately attacked these rapists of Third World who boast about their crimes

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Lawsuit culture has helped no one and stalled progression across the modern world

 

[ace99]

Lawsuit culture has helped no one and stalled progression across the modern world

You don't know what you're talking about. The number of lawsuits that actually go to trial is insignificant the majority are settled, dropped, or otherwise handled out of court and to the extent that the US is more adversarial than other countries is because the US lacks a comprehensive bureaucratic social system for compensating people for their harms suffered. Whereas in Europe there may be a government program or fund, or some other system in place to compensate people for their injuries that keeps those incidents out of court, the US by and large lacks any such system, so torts take up the slack of compensating people for their harms, and on the balance between letting harms fall where they may, and creating a wide ranging social system for compensating people for harm it's probably a marginally decent option.

 

[Camikaze]

You don't know what you're talking about. The number of lawsuits that actually go to trial is insignificant the majority are settled, dropped, or otherwise handled out of court and to the extent that the US is more adversarial than other countries is because the US lacks a comprehensive bureaucratic social system for compensating people for their harms suffered. Whereas in Europe there may be a government program or fund, or some other system in place to compensate people for their injuries that keeps those incidents out of court, the US by and large lacks any such system, so torts take up the slack of compensating people for their harms, and on the balance between letting harms fall where they may, and creating a wide ranging social system for compensating people for harm it's probably a marginally decent option.

*Obligatory New Zealand reference*

 

[MobBoss]

They probably have a case against the owner and operator of the truck. Against the railroad: not so much.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

You don't know what you're talking about. The number of lawsuits that actually go to trial is insignificant the majority are settled, dropped, or otherwise handled out of court and to the extent that the US is more adversarial than other countries is because the US lacks a comprehensive bureaucratic social system for compensating people for their harms suffered. Whereas in Europe there may be a government program or fund, or some other system in place to compensate people for their injuries that keeps those incidents out of court, the US by and large lacks any such system, so torts take up the slack of compensating people for their harms, and on the balance between letting harms fall where they may, and creating a wide ranging social system for compensating people for harm it's probably a marginally decent option.

You are ignorant and rude.

My opinion is not based on anything you are banging on about. I do not care about court time, I do not care that other nations may have better welfare. My point is that I am against people being so quick to jump to sue. This is not a phenomenon localised to the US.

 

[Crezth]

My opinion is not based on anything you are banging on about. I do not care about court time, I do not care that other nations may have better welfare. My point is that I am against people being so quick to jump to sue. This is not a phenomenon localised to the US.

Should people not be permitted to seek redress for their grievances?

 

[Deaths Advocate]

They should, but I believe there should be a much higher threshold of "self preservation"


burn yourself on a hot tap?
tripped on a rough floor?
slipped on a wet floor?

That's your own god damned fault. Really annoys me people can claim for their own accidents.

 

[ace99]

Yeah, those are all misconceptions of cases that the media has blown out of proportion. The McDonald's "hot coffee" case has achieved mythical status, when in reality the coffee was sufficiently hot to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization requiring skin graft because the machine was malfunctioning and the coffee was heated past McDonald's own guidelines. She didn't sue them because she spilled coffee on herself, she sued them because she was burned to the point of serious injury because of their negligence.

 

[JollyRoger]

They should, but I believe there should be a much higher threshold of "self preservation"


burn yourself on a hot tap?
tripped on a rough floor?
slipped on a wet floor?

That's your own god damned fault. Really annoys me people can claim for their own accidents.

Each of those cases involve potential culpability of another party.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get in the way of trains. The train is pretty much stuck with where it is and how fast it is going. People should be aware of this. The train can neither turn, nor stop in the distance where the driver is able to see a problem ahead.

To me, and I have not seen this addressed in the news, the only things that would make the railroad liable is if there was no crossing signal or if it was not working.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Yeah, those are all misconceptions of cases that the media has blown out of proportion. The McDonald's "hot coffee" case has achieved mythical status, when in reality the coffee was sufficiently hot to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization requiring skin graft because the machine was malfunctioning and the coffee was heated past McDonald's own guidelines. She didn't sue them because she spilled coffee on herself, she sued them because she was burned to the point of serious injury because of their negligence.

You are pulling a pretty extreme example. I am of course in support of her case. You are also mistaken in the details. There was no malfunction, the coffee macine was designed to heat it that hot, the reason was to mean the customer's coffee stayed warmer longer. It was a stupid idea, but one that wasn't caught until an accident.

I am meaning that above most taps, there now has be to a warning that hot taps are hot!

Each of those cases involve potential culpability of another party.

Which I think is a nonsense. I know it is step 1 in health and safety (if you see a risk, it is your responsibility to deal with it). At the same time, the bar for what is accepted as a case should be set a lot higher.

Whiplash "victims" can take a hike too!

 

[peter grimes]

Yeah, those are all misconceptions of cases that the media has blown out of proportion. The McDonald's "hot coffee" case has achieved mythical status, when in reality the coffee was sufficiently hot to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization requiring skin graft because the machine was malfunctioning and the coffee was heated past McDonald's own guidelines. She didn't sue them because she spilled coffee on herself, she sued them because she was burned to the point of serious injury because of their negligence.

Yeah, I remember growing up thinking that the Hot Coffee case was emblematic of frivolous lawsuits. Then I heard the actual events and was floored. I was duped by the very corporate shenanigans these lawsuits are aimed at stopping.

As an attorney friend of mine put it once - there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit. There are numerous checks and balances built into the system to that the courts' time is not wasted.

 

[JollyRoger]

Which I think is a nonsense. I know it is step 1 in health and safety (if you see a risk, it is your responsibility to deal with it). At the same time, the bar for what is accepted as a case should be set a lot higher.

Whiplash "victims" can take a hike too!

The bar is:

Did you have a duty?
Did you breach that duty?
Were their damages?
Was your breach of duty at least a partial cause of the damages?

Plus all the hoops that tort "reformers" put there to jump through.

That bar is high enough, if not too high (when some of the hoops are considered). You seem to want to excuse people and entities from theor own breaches of duty.

 

[ace99]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get in the way of trains. The train is pretty much stuck with where it is and how fast it is going. People should be aware of this. The train can neither turn, nor stop in the distance where the driver is able to see a problem ahead.

To me, and I have not seen this addressed in the news, the only things that would make the railroad liable is if there was no crossing signal or if it was not working.

The courts used to think like that, but grew more sophisticated in their analysis.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

When I read 'infamous hot coffee' incident, my mind went to some really bad GTA porn. Did they get sued over that?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Should have said "McDonald's coffee" case, Cutlass.

Anyway, this case seems pretty clear-cut, isn't it? If what the officials say are true, then they have no case against the railroad.

And Jolly, "trainy" is really stretching it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Should have said "McDonald's coffee" case, Cutlass.

Oh, no. Not that quite legitimate lawsuit being used as an example of a frivolous one yet again.

 

[Catharsis]

As an attorney friend of mine put it once - there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit.

An attorney friend of mine once said, "There i$ no $uch thing a$ a frivolou$ law$$$uit."