LAWSUITS BEAT WORKING FOR A LIVING

NewsWithViews.com | April 10, 2004 | Larry Pratt

[Joe Brower]

[xrp]

Anyone wonder why neighbors don't have get togethers like they used to? Everyone is too afraid of being sued if the neighbor stubs his/her toe on the patio.

[jjm2111]

Bump for later.

[2banana]

Lisa Pelland needs to counter sue Mrs. Medina for gross negligence among other grounds...

[Fierce Allegiance]

Ever wonder why there are fewer & fewer coaches for little girls softball leagues? -lawyers! I volunteer, but very carefully and with trepidation.

[Shryke]

Is there anywhere I can confirm this article? Google and this source don't provide any info. Thanks.

[MrB]

Not Fair!

The brick stacking gentleman (Medina) probably couldn't understand English and didn't understand that this women wasn't lookin' for his special kind of lovin'.

[TC Rider]

Anyone wonder why neighbors don't have get togethers like they used to? Everyone is too afraid of being sued if the neighbor stubs his/her toe on the patio.

We have a friend, who after months of agonizing over a lump in her breast, finally went to the doctor. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer. A scan found cancer in her lungs, brain and elsewhere in her body. Two doctors gave her 6 months to live.

It's now 2 years later, the cancer is in remission. She's lived to see her daughter graduate from college.

All of her hair fell out after the chemo. Now she wants to sue her radiologist because some of her hair has not grown back after the treatments he gave her to rid her brain of cancer.

[FoxInSocks]

This makes me think of the Geckle case in Maryland.

ANNAPOLIS - Matthew and Dominic Geckle were just defending the family cement business in Owings Mill when they fatally shot an intruder in March 2001, the third night in a row that someone had broken in.

But the family of the victim, Jonathan Steinbach, is arguing in court that the man's 4-year-old child was traumatized by his father's death, caused when the businessmen entrapped him in violation of police warnings. The business owners, they argue, should pay $13 million in compensation.

Amedori: Violently Defending Business Should Exempt Businessmen From Liability

[FoxInSocks]

There's a reprint of an April 2002 Albuquerque Journal article here.

[TC Rider]

..should pay $13 million in compensation.

Fair compensation? The defendents would produce a rock of crack the size of tennis ball, then burn it in front of the family, while simultaneously destroying the 'victims' home and all of its contents.

[Mamzelle]

Something I saw on a lawyer advertisement got me thinking about a way to fight back against the parasite class.

Advertisement--a lawyer group claims that a certain anti-psychotic drug is responsible for all these awful and dreadful side effects. The TV ad is well-produced, and looks a lot like an ad for a horror movie--this drug kills people! --they insist--

Part of the ad... "Don't stop taking any medication without first consulting your doctor"

Do you think that some people will stop taking this med immediately, and have some psychotic incident--like killing themselves or somebody else? Of course this will happen

In which case, you could sure go after those very lawyers who created the ad that caused the tort...not only that, but it could go class action...

[Hank Rearden]

Makes me wonder when the Republicrats are going to actually do something about tort reform and smacking down the ambulance chasers. You know - one of the many promises they've conveniently forgotten.

I'm sure they'll jawbone about it once again, just before the election, in a desperate grab for money and votes. Then it'll be forgotten once again.

[B4Ranch]

SF 2003-382 (CV)
Dena Medina, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jay Patrick Medina,
Deceased vs. Barbara Santistevan, et al.
Plaintiff in Intervention's Motion for Summary Judgment
Stephen Simone and Alisa Wigley/Ripley Harwood/James Gilman/Corbin Hildebrandt/James
Beam/Robert Diaz
Time Allotted: 1 Hour
http://www.firstdistrictcourt.com/2sch.htm#top
(Dena Medina)

http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&q=Santa+Fe++%22Lisa+Pelland+%22&btnG=Search
(Multiple references to this article)

[Mikey]

Shoot the SOB. Stick 'em in the ground and plant tomatoes.

[Euro-American Scum]

Instead of an office Lotto pool, we can look forward to the office class action suit. Just pick someone to sue and have at it.

[Glenn]

Now she wants to sue her radiologist because some of her hair has not grown back

Amazing. Just amazing.

[Dante3]

Author Joseph Wambough has described the present day lawsuit insanity as "legalized extortion." Its damage to our country goes beyond its heavy financial toll.

It damages a sense of justice, responsibility, and logic. Those lacking ethics who blames innocent people or enterprises for their own failing are provided with lucrative rewards.

[ought-six]

First off, the insurance company is not trying to get out of defending the homeowner and Pelland via some "legalistic loophole." Such irresponsible comments just further confuse the average American about just what insurance is and what it does, and also serves to support the trial lawyers' mantra that all evil in the world is the result of the insurance industry (the only reason trial lawyers vilify the insurance industry is because they, the trial lawyers, are excited about their -- again, the trial lawyers -- opportunity for virtually unrestricted plunder). What the insurance company did in the instant case is defend the homeowner and Pelland under what is known as a "reservation of rights." A reservation of rights states that the insurance company reserves its rights relative to various policy conditions and exclusions, in this instance, I'm sure, based upon the very standard policy exclusion for intentional acts (liability coverage applies to "occurrences," which are defined as accidents). If evidence comes out that the shooting was neither accidental nor justified, then there would be no coverage under the insurance policy. Remember, the burden of proof differs between a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) and a civil case, such as a law suit (preponderance of the evidence). Ms. Pelland was likely not charged with a crime because the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her actions were not only not necessary, but rose to the level of a crime. However, a plaintiff in a civil case such as a wrongful death claim need not meet such a tough burden of proof; indeed, all they would have to prove is that Ms. Pelland's actions, more likely than not, were the cause of the perp's death, and that said death was caused by Ms. Pelland's negligence (in other words, she did not do what a reasonably prudent person would have done under similar circumstances). However, if the jury decided that the perp's death was expected or intended by Ms. Pelland, there would be no coverage under the insurance policy.