This is just plain ridiculous.....

I found this article on the Fox news channel
Foxnews.com


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138751,00.html

As long as the American public -- the juries -- continue to issue verdicts in favor of plaintiffs such as these, legal extortion such as this will continue.

One reason that President Bush and R's want to enact tort reform to correct some of these abuses legislatively.

At the risk of offending members with views counter their own, I must inject something here.

This case does not -- I repeat -- does not point out a need for tort reform as some would have you believe.

Lawsuits are merely a form of communication. Everyone is entitled -- long established under common law -- to state their views and claims about how they feel they have been wronged by another party.

Courts have always had the mechanism in place to evaluate such claims up front -- ruling on them as having enough merit to be moved forward in the process or not. Claims without merit are summarily dismissed.

Be very careful about how you would have this changed. Someday, you too might have a claim that others would feel you shouldn't have a right to make. Do you want to legislate that right away?

As I see it, it's large corporate interests that are most in favor of limiting individual rights in this area. They would have you believe that all of our insurance rates would be reduced by such actions. I'm skeptical about that, and I think you should be too.

I wonder if she'll also be suing Jack Daniel's for not warning her that alcohol consumption reduces your ability to get out of the way of moving trains. Of course, this could also be the McDonald's coffee lady. The only thing worse than this blatant abuse of our justice system is the assinine judge or jury who allowed this award.

Tort reform primarilyconsists of elimnation of punitive damages, not the elimination of a right to seek redress. Let plaintiffs recover only their actual damages. If 'punishment' of a negligent party is necessary, that should be a government function with taxpayers reaping the benefits of any fine, not a 'private attorney general' seeking to 'punish' an entity and then pocketing the 'fine.'

Most of the big verdits one hears of fall into the punitive damages category. Let the government prosecutor do that, not create a windfall for a plaintiff far above the harm the plaintiff suffered.

Does this mean that we can sue Norfolk Southern for aesthetic pollution for having nothing but ugly black locomotives ? This color wreaks havoc with my light meter and results in lousy contrast and poor pictures. Perhaps NS should be required to post photo warnings right next to the No Tresspassing signs. For punitive damages we can require them to paint their locomotives in predecessor colors or if they insist on staying black go back to steam locomotives. If this sounds odd it seems to me no stranger than being surprised at a train travelling on train tracks.

kevikens wrote:If this sounds odd it seems to me no stranger than being surprised at a train travelling on train tracks.

I have to disagree. I mean, who would expect... a train to be on the train tracks? Sounds like a rock-solid case to me!

I amazes me how so many people think that railroad equipment only extends as far as the rail itself.

[quote="Ken W2KB"]As long as the American public -- the juries -- continue to issue verdicts in favor of plaintiffs such as these, legal extortion such as this will continue.

One reason that President Bush and R's want to enact tort reform to correct some of these abuses legislatively.[/quote]


Ken,

You are buying into the R's line. Tort reform is about making sure big corporations can do as they please to you and I.

This NS case has nothing to do with tort reform. This case can be taken care of by an injection of sanity.

Bush's reform is a tragic plan, and like most all his policies, is aimed to help the corporations and screw the little guy.

America is a great place these days if you aren't poor, middle-class, sick, a veteran, in combat, need a flu shot...

Thanks again, Red States!

JH

What surprises me in these cases is that, to win, the plaintiff must assert that she is dumb as a bag of hammers, thus making it the obligation of NS to "parent" her by warning her that indeed, trains do run on its tracks.

Somebody should wrap this lady in bubblewrap before she hurts herself again.

-Urban

Greetings from Red State resident!
Notch 8 to tort reform!

... in Eastern PA about 20 years ago when a drunk driver went around a line of traffic, passed flashing lights and a brakeman with lantern and under a rail car. He survived and sued the railroad!

[quote="Espeelark"]Greetings from Red State resident!
Notch 8 to tort reform![/quote]


Espee,

All I can say, it is a good thing all my favorite railroads are in blue states.

When we spin y'all red states off, I can still go railfanning in my favorite spots... even Rochelle and Cajon!



JH

PS: And we get to keep the name "United States of America" since it's the blue states that founded this place, and continue to send out so much tax help to the mooching red states. I'd love to see - for even a week - how the rest of the country would fare without the cash flow from the northeast and California. But that's for another board.

And yes, we'll put really, really high tarriffs on anything the Red USA needs.

>>>... in Eastern PA about 20 years ago when a drunk driver went around a line of traffic, passed flashing lights and a brakeman with lantern and under a rail car. He survived and sued the railroad!<<<

But did he win the suit?

...isn't everything...the cost of defending, court costs, lost time from job. It all adds up so that even if he loses, so do you! OR, THE REAL ANSWER: I don't remember!