Posted on 03/16/2006 9:55:43 AM PST by mlc9852
If my spouse (or even myself!!!) causes me "pain and suffering" due to negligence or malice, should I be able to sue my spouse (or myself) and be awarded damages (to be paid by our insurance company, of course!)
So much for adults honoring valid contracts...
I think you know my answer...
The story indicated the award to father was based on a breach of contract claim. Consequential damages such as pain and suffering are rarely recoverable in a contract action. Those are generally tort claim damages.
so let me get this straight:
* a college student provided the egg
* a 64 yo man provided the sperm
* and a 31 yo woman gave birth
???
it's a strange, strange world.
Something like this should NOT be contracted!
How stupid these people are to even consider this arrangement!
I had twins and can't imagine anyone (in their right mind) wanting triplets! Especially at their ages. I cannot believe this stuff is legal! I find the whole tawdry mess disgraceful!
Can someone please explain who is on 1st here. Who did what to whom, who gets to keep what, who is paying for whom, and who has to pay back whom. I know "I don't know is on third" but who is on 1st and 2nd.
Suing yourself? What a concept! If I caused myself 'pain and suffering' (that hammer on the thumb really hurt) does that mean I could collect a gazillion dollars?
/ sarcasm off
Sure - just write yourself an IOU for it!(Well, it works when the government spends the current-accounts surplus of the Social Security payroll tax revenue, and puts an IOU in the Social Security Trust "Fund" for it . . . )
There was a story here recently along those lines. Guy driving a city truck hit his own car, then sued the city for the damages. They didn't buy it so he had his wife sue -- for more!
The USA has gone mad!! How depressing. The end of western civilation as we know it.
I agree. You know the old saying, "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I think that applies in this case.
It's legal because America is still a more-or-less free country. That which is not specifically forbidden is implicitly permitted. As opposed to a tyranny, in which that which is not mandatory is forbidden ... whether this practice should (as a practical matter) be forbidden is a fit subject for debate. But until the States get around to banning it, it's legal.
That said, I find it morally repugnant.
I agree. This judge made the right decision however there should have been some kind of award for the pain and suffering of being double crossed and scammed in this way.
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.