Minneapolis Bridge ‘Victims’ On Board for the Sickest Lottery Imaginable

North Star Writers Group ^ | November 12, 2007 | David Karki

[Invisigoth]

It's been three months since the I-35W bridge collapse, and shovels are about to be put into the ground to begin construction of the replacement. And as sure as the Minnesota winter is cold, victims and their lawyers are lining up with their hands out, demanding compensation. Meanwhile, politicians are tripping over each other to see who can shovel the most of someone else's money at these people, the better to claim the mantle of “compassion” and then browbeat anyone who objects with angry cries of how one could be so “cruel” to these poor souls. It's enough to make one vomit.

[shankbear]

Hammer...meet nail

[BenLurkin]

"I'm not sure which is worse – that spectacle so lacking in dignity, or the fact that virtually no one there is even going to question much less object to government blindly rewarding people whose only “accomplishment” was simply to have happened to be unlucky enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Harsh. Very harsh. But this fellow certainly does know how to turn a phrase.

[traditional1]

"Where does this end? Logically, it doesn’t. If all it takes to drag us into de facto socialism is an endless parade of victims, whose status as such makes us unwilling to challenge the false statements and phony premises made ostensibly on their behalf, then demagogic politicians will eagerly provide those political human shields in perpetuity. And the line of volunteers for that role and the money that presumably comes with it will ever be long. SCHIP, 9/11 widows, school referendums, bridge collapses – the specific issue matters not. The common thread is always emotional wailing over the vast suffering sure to follow if more of your money cannot be spent and accusations of selfish cruelty intended to intimidate those who dare object to it. "

From the article, spot-on, is the fact that LAWYERS have waltzed us down this path, preying on the taxpayers' deep pockets, and with the windfalls of "class action lawsuits" (i.e, Microsoft, Big Tobacco, AT&T breakup, etc., etc.), we've been warning-labeled to oblivion in the name of "safety", and paying billions to those who do stupid things, or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.

Pouring billions into the pockets of Lawyers for "victims" of fate Katrina, 9/11, smoking, flooding, etc. has not eliminated accidents or natural disasters.

[dschapin]

I completely disagee with this article. The government was negligent and its negligence caused the harm to the victims, therefore, under standard tort law it is liable for any harm that the victims suffered as a result. The only wrinkle is that governments often times exempt themselves from being sued in the same way that you or I could be sued. So, the victims are pushing to have the government change the laws so that they can get the same compensation that they could get if the bridge was privately owned.

One more critique of this article. It is not correct to compare what happened here to a hurricane or other natural disaster - those are acts of God which cannot be prevented. Whearas what happened here here was a simple act of negligence that could easily have been prevented. The government failed to properly maintain a bridge - instead it wasted its taxes on other frivolous projects - it then continued to allow people to use this bridge without providing any warning that the bridge was unsafe. So, when the bridge finally fell and people were injured the government is clearly responsible for their injuries.

[Red Badger]

I’m a victim of Global Warming! where’s my check?.................

[Red Badger]

VICTIM (Rich Girl)
With apologies to: Hall & Oates

You’re a VICTIM, and you’ve gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
It’s a bitch girl but it’s gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
Say money but it won’t get you too far,
Get you too far

And don’t you know, don’t you know
That it’s wrong to take what is given you
So far gone, on your own
You can get along if you try to be strong
But you’ll never be strong
‘Cause

You’re a VICTIM, and you’ve gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
It’s a bitch girl and it’s gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
Say money but it won’t get you too far,
Get you too far

High and dry, out of the rain
It’s so easy to hurt others when you can’t feel pain
And don’t you know that a love can’t grow
‘Cause there’s too much to give, ‘cause you’d rather live
For the thrill of it all, oh

You’re a VICTIM, and you’ve gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
It’s a bitch girl and it’s gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
Say money but it won’t get you too far,
Say money but it won’t get you too far,
Say money but it won’t get you too far,
Get you too far

And you say
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
You can rely on the GOVERNMENT’S money
You’re a VICTIM, a VICTIM
Oh, you’re a rich VICTIM yeah
Say money but it won’t get you too far,
Oh, get ya too far

[traditional1]

"I’m a victim of Global Warming! where’s my check?................."

LOL

I suspect there will be SOME compensation forth-coming when the Dem's hold Congress AND the White House, then appointing the Nobel-Prize-Winning Expert to head a "repartations for Global Warming" Task Force....

[blam]

"So, when the bridge finally fell and people were injured the government is clearly responsible for their injuries."

Put the politicians in jail then...don't give away other peoples money.

[stylin19a]

it will only be sick when Jesse arrives demanding his fair share for his people.

[traditional1]

"The government was negligent"

The government is ALWAYS negligent; that's it's nature.

How about the bridge inspector himself? How about the planner who okayed the roadwork and knew of the danger?

We NEVER hold INDIVIDUALS responsible, because their pockets aren't deep enough...follow the money and that is ALWAYS the bottom line.

The TAXPAYERS will be fleeced, not the negligent individuals that made the negligent decisions.

Lawyers should be limited to individual defendants, NOT wholesale assault on the "Government" (i.e., the TAXPAYERS).

For all the high blood pressure, stress, and inconvienience of the tax burden, your argument goes to NEGLIGENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT in not seeing how TAXES are causing un-told numbers of deaths, health issues, etc. due to the BURDEN their negligent taxing is causing Americans.

Is there no end to the fleecing?

If you hit your thumb with a hammer, is it YOUR fault, or is it the Governments fault for lack of regulation?

Gimme a break.

[dschapin]

We are not talking about a lack of a government regulation here but the negligent maintenence of government owned and operated bridge. If the bridge was privately owned and operated individuals could sue the company that owned the bridge and not just the employee who was negligent in inspecting the bridge. There is a legal principle called Respondeat Superior which allows people to sue businesses, governments, etc for the negligent actions of their employees which are committed in the course of their employment. Also, civil suits are not designed to punish the negligent party but rather to compensate the injured party. So, allowing people who have suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages in medical bills and the like to sue on government inspector would not be nearly adequate to compensate them.

[subterfuge]

Just say you’re a law-yer and get it overwith.

It’s natural for you to be on the side of evil.

[traditional1]

"allowing people who have suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages in medical bills and the like to sue on government inspector would not be nearly adequate to compensate them"

In regards to the Legal principles (established BY lawyers FOR lawyers), the fact remains that an uninsured motorist being the negligent party, for example, leaves no means of recovery (unless specific insurance has been purchased for such an event).

Providing the Respondeat Superior principle allows Lawyers to go after deep pockets, period.

Personal responsibility is absent in the Law today, as the old "RPM" standard (reasonably prudent man) has been relegated to the ash heap of history, to provide access to deep pockets and more "qualified victims" to be represented, lacking any common sense on the part of the individual. From the hot coffee in the lap schtick, to the lifestyle choices absolutions, someone ALWAYS sues to gain the Lawyers' access to a gold mine....

The remainder of the scam is to sue for, let's say, $10M, find the plaintiff 50% negligent (their own stupidity), and STILL the plaintiff collects $5M of the settlement.....

I don't condone KNOWINGLY putting lives at risk with impunity, but an INDIVIDUAL who made the decision should be the one who is penalized, NOT just whatever deep-pockets can be found to benefit someone's lawyer.

Lawyers' fees should be limited to actual cost, NOT windfall percentages that encourage the sky's-the-limit lotto winnings....

[BenLurkin]

Oh boy — an old fashioned witch hunt!

[jdub]

Trying to argue with the ignorant who gladly swallow the tales spun by the insurance industry is pointless. I was going to respond to them, but I read your well written, well reasoned responses first, so anything I could add would be redundant.

A former defense attorney on a thread like this concluded that it is jealousy and covetousness that leads people to resent that people are compensated for the harms they suffered. I agree.

[Smokin' Joe]

STILL the plaintiff collects $5M of the settlement.....

Not after the lawyers are done feeding, they won't. What are contigency rates now, anyway? 40%? More?

[dschapin]

I am not a lawyer yet - but I am a law student. So, you are close enough.

[machogirl]

seems to be 40%, and then all costs come from the plaintiff’s pile, so in many cases, the lawyers end up with more than the plaintiff

[dschapin]

Thanks for the kind words - I will admit that I had a negative view of personal injury lawsuits untill I took a torts class my 1L year and was able to hear the other side of the argument.