That sounds good, but thinking about it, quite often the one who loses is actually the one in the right because of a lazy, incompetent or less skilled lawyer is all they can afford. 
Posted on 02/06/2004 5:27:38 AM PST by Born Conservative
The case revolved around an incident at the Shrine Circus in Wilkes-Barre in 1999. By DAVID WEISS dweiss@leader.net
WILKES-BARRE - A Luzerne County jury on Thursday ruled an Irem Temple Shrine Circus security guard did not assault animal-rights protester Lisa Walker in 1999. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for less than an hour in rendering the 10-2 verdict in favor of the Irem Temple and the guard, Michael Lupinski. A unanimous verdict is not needed in civil cases.
She filed a lawsuit against the two after an incident April 9, 1999, at the circus inside the 109th Field Artillery Armory in Wilkes-Barre.
Walker, 43, of Clarks Summit in Lackawanna County, said she was lawfully protesting the circus when she approached the ticket booth and asked to speak with a circus official. As she did, Lupinski ran at her, tackled her, and put her in a choke hold as he dragged her across the armory's muddy lawn, she said.
Walker's attorney, Myles McAliney, said the attack was caused by Irem Temple failing to train security properly to deal with protesters. Walker said she suffered severe and permanent pain and injuries.
But Lupinski, a high school student who volunteered to work security at the circus, never tackled, choked, dragged or struck Walker during the confrontation, argued attorney Christopher Reeser, who represented Irem Temple and Lupinski.
Lupinski, then 17, simply held Walker's right arm and escorted her from the ticket booth after she twice ignored his requests to leave, he testified.
During the escort, Walker purposely fell to the muddy ground, attempting to complicate Lupinski's escort, Lupinski said. Lupinski helped her up, only to have Walker purposely fall again, he said.
The jury heard three days of testimony in the trial before Court of Common Pleas Judge Hugh Mundy.
The verdict showed the circus has been run perfectly throughout its performances, said circus officials Gordon Dussinger and Clifford Jones.
"We never thought we did anything wrong," Dussinger said.
That sounds good, but thinking about it, quite often the one who loses is actually the one in the right because of a lazy, incompetent or less skilled lawyer is all they can afford.
Say I am a disreputable businessman who negligently puts the public in danger. I'm Krusty the Clown, selling Shred-De-O's to children, with real jagged metal cereal bits. If some legitimately injured person wants to file suit, I can expose them to tremendous losses simply by hiring a lot of high-priced legal talent to defend myself. If I can spend $50,000 on lawyers, and expose the plaintiff to that kind of a loss, I can discourage an awful lot of legitimate claims.
Another thought on this is that it is not at all uncharacteristic for protesters to fall to the ground. During my radical leftist days as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley (I know, I know...), we taught protesters to "go limp" when they were being arrested, because it takes two police officers (we didn't call them that, of course) five minutes to put a limp protester into the Paddy Wagon, whereas cooperative protesters can be cuffed and loaded into the wagon two or three a minute. And since all you are doing is lying around not cooperating, you can't be charged with assaulting an officer or anything like that. We weren't even charged with resisting arrest because we offered no active resistance.
It is a very effective technique. One I am sure that PeTA teaches to it's protesters as well.
Not to be picking holes in your coat, but a disreputable businessman would deliberately, not negligently, put the public in danger with his product. Why so I can't imagine, since it is a very bad business plan to kill all your customers.
...If some legitimately injured person wants to file suit, I can expose them to tremendous losses simply by hiring a lot of high-priced legal talent to defend myself.
If said businessman really did make a product that injured and/or killed those who use it you probably wouldn't be in business long enough to make any kind of war-chest you would need to cover legal costs.
Because if the Feds, your insurer, your lenders, etc. did pull the pull on you PDQ, the fact that your company has ZERO sales of your produce -- for who would buy it once it became know that your product scars/kills those who use it? -- would do the trick.
If I can spend $50,000 on lawyers, and expose the plaintiff to that kind of a loss, I can discourage an awful lot of legitimate claims.
In Cloud Cuckoo Land maybe, but not in the here-and-now. Besides, $50K on lawyers? That's it??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.