Posted on 12/09/2005 10:01:11 PM PST by upchuck
Flush......
Unbelievable. I know he must be hurting over the loss of his wife but how can he possibly hold Wal-Mart responsible?
Not Wally World's fault. They caught the two Sons a B_tches. It is their fault. Quit trying to find money just to "ease your mind" about her death.
Shakespeare was right.....
The suit against the jail makes sense, the suit against WalMart does not. There's nothing reasonable a WalMart outlet could have done to prevent something like that. That one's basically like getting hit by lightning.
Simple, greed. He can't sue the prison from which the abductors escaped because it is a public entity. Public entities have virtual immunity by way of statutory limitations for wrongdoing, a mere hundred thousand dollars or so. There are no such limitation on private business. The sky is the limit. So who do you think the lawyer advises the plaintiff to sue. The near empty coffer or the treasure chest. It's absolutely amazing that business continues to thrive in this country and that public incompetent employees go unpunished.
Just one more reason that I lease space at the mall.
Your post is right on target. It is plain and simple extortion by lawsuit. Greedy lawyers have learned that any thing that happens they can somehow trace to a faulty product, negligence, or poor training. They pick juries who are likely to "punish" rich businesses and "reward" the poor individual.
They don't realize how much freedom we lose in products and services not being offered, stupid zero tolerance policies, and all sorts of other inanities designed to CYA against lawsuits.
Yes, this is a very good example.
Lawyers who bring these kinds of suites should be punished.
They should pay the expenses of the party they are suing as well. It is way past time the law was changed.
I don't fault the husband, I fault the lawyer.
Lawyers
I thought everything was Bush's fault.
For once something isn't George W. Bush's fault!
How about instead of punishing lawyers, elect/appoint good judges who can actually judge a ridiculous lawsuit(such as this, for example) for what it is?
"Banning" lawsuits opens pandora's box. Having good judges is the best way to handle ridiculous lawsuits.
Punish unethical lawyers.
Or give the general population a bag limit.
While we are talking about professions, publish the rates of success/ethics of not only lawyers, but also doctors, scientists and engineers.
All of the above can call up my entire life history, before deciding to let me hire them to serve my needs.
Can you explain why I am unable to research them to the same extent?
Original abduction thread (~3000 posts)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/789797/posts
"Punish unethical lawyers."
Yes, of course. It sounds good in theory and is heart warming, but how is it possible to find what is ethical and what is unethical, especially in civil lawsuits? Who decides it?
My point is that instead of "banning" lawsuits, have judges who see all the evidence and cases and make decision. Appropriate decisions(job of judges) render ridiculous lawsuits futile.
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.