Posted on 09/03/2007 8:34:20 AM PDT by rhema
6:2
“If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the Lord by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him,
6:3
or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do—
6:4
when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found,
6:5
or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering.
where was the humorous part?
The only reason congress authorized huge payments to 9/11 families was so that they would not sue the airlines. The bill was passed because of pressure from the airlines. IIRC the payments were based on the future lifetime earnings of the person who died.
The tax payers paid off with regard to potential life-time earnings, but, as I understand, there were considerable more, private and non-private funds, added to the mix providing totally unreasonable payments, not only to the surviving immediate family, but also extended families.
Like I said, the immediate, dependent family suffering such loss needed some sort of compensation - but from the tax-payer, for other than immediate under-the-roof dependents - well that’s where I do have questions.
The tax payers paid off with regard to potential life-time earnings, but, as I understand, there were considerable more, private and non-private funds, added to the mix providing totally unreasonable payments, not only to the surviving immediate family, but also extended families.
Like I said, the immediate, dependent family suffering such loss needed some sort of compensation - but from the tax-payer, for other than immediate under-the-roof dependents - well that’s where I do have questions.
The tax payers paid off with regard to potential life-time earnings, but, as I understand, there were considerable more, private and non-private funds, added to the mix providing totally unreasonable payments, not only to the surviving immediate family, but also extended families.
Like I said, the immediate, dependent family suffering such loss needed some sort of compensation - but from the tax-payer, for other than immediate under-the-roof dependents - well that’s where I do have questions.
Please help me understand the notion that one should not be responsible for one's own negligence? I mean that seriously. I see that thinking in many of the threads on this kind of subject.
There are valid reasons why the Law Firm would seek on order such as this. One, there might not be a cause of action at all. Just because the bridge fell does not automatically mean someone was negligent. If the can determine that it was not foreseeable, then they can advise their client to accept it as an unfortunate accident and take the settlement offer.
Two, I don't know what the statute of limitations in MN is, but I do know that NTSB investigations can take a long time to reach conclusions. If the SOL is one year to bring a suit, and the results are announced 13 months later, finding that the State had notice that a dangerous collapse was likely yet did nothing, shouldn't the injured have recourse against the State?
I could go one, but it would be pointless.
sorry about the multiple entries, I thought the screen locked up and the first one had not gone. I’m still an infant with these machines.
It would be an interesting research project to investigate if the partners of this firm contributed to any presidential candidates.
There were so many lawyers walking through the airport that they were forced to put sand on the floor so folks wouldn’t slip on the grease.
I wonder if that pompous prick has channeled any dead babies lately?
Please help me understand the notion that one should not purchase life insurance to care for your familiy in the event you are in an accident which may or may not be caused by someone else?
There are valid reasons why the Law Firm would seek on order such as this.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If the SOL is one year to bring a suit, and the results are announced 13 months later, finding that the State had notice that a dangerous collapse was likely yet did nothing, shouldn't the injured have recourse against the State?
The statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment is at least three years from the date of the discovery of the fraud.
AFAIK, this law firm does not even have a client yet. They are looking for liabilty and when they find it they will go fishing for clients.
Most likely to those who do not get a lawyer, the property liability carrier for whoever is the owner of the bridge (the state or federal government) will offer a fair settlement offer regardless of any finding of negligence.
I just can't stand these ambulance chasing law firms.
I could go one, but it would be pointless.
Then don't.
Several years ago a friend was telling of an accident in which he was an uninjured victim but several personal injuries were involved. When he arrived home to call his insurance company, there were three messages from one local and two out-of-state law firms to call them immediately.
What’s that tell you??
Several years ago a friend was telling of an accident in which he was an uninjured victim but several personal injuries were involved. When he arrived home to call his insurance company, there were three messages from one local and two out-of-state law firms to call them immediately.
What’s that tell you??
Let me get this straight: If you have a 10 year old child playing in your front yard, and a three time convicted drunk driver, again driving drunk, runs over your kid and turns him into a vegetable for life, it is YOUR responsibility to have insured against that risk? You live in a strange world where people should be free from liability for their acts.
What’s that tell you?”
That there are scummy lawyers coming out of the woodwork.Years ago I was involved in a minor traffic accident.Guy hit me from behind while I was waiting for a light to go green.No injury to either one of us.Next day at work one of our clients who is a personal injury attorny comes up to me and says,”I have a doctor for you to see right away,he’ll fit you with a neck brace and I’ll get you at least 50k.”I told him thanks but no thanks,I’ll wait until I’m REALLY hurt before sueing anybody.
A three time convicted drunk driver will not have ANY insurance and will likely have no assets.
So the answer is yes!. If you wish to get compensated for such an accident then you should have insurance for that situation.
I thought you said it was "pointless" to go on.
You live in a strange world where people should be free from liability for their acts.
Hardly. But I live in California where at least 30% of the drivers are uninsured and 30% of the contractors are probably unisured or underinsured. So if I am going to make sure that my family is taken care of in the event of someone else's negligence, then I am going to have to make sure I have adequate insurance to cover any such unfortunate event.
I take it from your responses that you think that other people should be responsible for caring for your family in the event that they do something stupid and kill you. But what if they have limited insurance or no insurance at all? What if the policy limit is $15,000. Is that going to feed your family for the next 20 years?
One, we should all be more respectful. There could be a future John Edwards in that law firm underwater research group, and if somebody is taking names on who is posting what, well just be careful.
Two, being an American, I am naturally suspicious of government, so having a second set of eyes observing what could have gone wrong to cause this is not always a bad deal. Especially if this avoids a cover-up from some bureaucrat anxious to look good, or at least not look bad.
Three, oh, there ain't no three. I just feel bad about thinking that maybe trial lawyers actually add value to society. Maybe I need to go watch some Head-On commercials to get my sense of values back.
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.