The administration has gone TOO far

[Beeeej]

[quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.[/quote]

The fact that I agree with this, and I work for an insurance defense firm, should tell you something.  The largest medical malpractice insurers lost a bundle when the stock market "corrected" itself in 2000, and they need to make up the money somehow - and the only ways they can do it are 1) nickel and dime the law firms defending cases for them, and 2) jack up their premiums.  Doctors and legislators are fed the standard "out of control, litigious society" party line, and enough of them believe it.

Texas passed some much-lauded, ground-breaking "tort reform" in 2003, limiting awards for non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to $250,000.  That makes sense, right?  Nobody should get a windfall for suffering, as long as their economic damages (e.g., medical bills, future medical bills, lost wages) are covered?  Of course it makes sense, until you remember that plaintiff's attorneys work on contingency, and pay the costs of the lawsuit out of their own pockets, hopefully to be reimbursed by part of the award.

So now they know that at most, they'll get $83,333 from non-economic damages, which means they have to have the highest possible economic damages to make it worthwhile to take a case and spend money fighting it.  What has ended up happening is that the medical malpractice plaintiff's bar in Texas is only taking cases from plaintiffs who had high salaries prior to their injuries.  So one of the main net effects of tort reform in Texas:  Poor and lower middle-class victims of medical malpractice can't find lawyers to take their cases.

One of the biggest med mal insurers in Texas filed for a 19% rate increase in 2004 - the year after this "tort reform" was passed.

[KeithK]

[quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.[/quote]Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine.  Case closed.  Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

[sah67]

Just a thought...how did the ushers go too "far"?  It seems as if most of your complaints lie in the realm of (fire) Andy and the Athletics office.  You didn't mention if you knew exactly why the person your friend sold his/her tickets to got kicked out, but maybe the ushers had a perfectly valid reason?  Perhaps (fire) Andy went too far, or the Athletics office...but why the ushers?

Still a little irked by some of the complaints/generalizations about usher behavior this year...I have not had one issue or problem with them this year, and personally have not seen any behavior by any ushers in the C/D/F areas that struck me as anything but kind, courteous, or helpful.

[Tub(a)]

[quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]
Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.[/quote]

For example, the famous McDonald's case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Quick summary:

McD's kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than other restaurants so they could make less and serve it longer (more financial gain and "better taste"). Coffee burns dramatically faster at higher temperatures than lower. McDonald's knew this and despite hundreds of complaints did nothing to change the temperature. While the original jury did award a huge punitive amount, it was reduced on appeal and eventually the two parties entered into a settlement.

McDonald's rejected a settlement offer of 20,000 dollars before the trial, that was all the plaintiff wanted to cover her medical charges.

[KeithK]

[quote Tub(a)][quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]
Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.[/quote]

For example, the famous McDonald's case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Quick summary:

McD's kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than other restaurants so they could make less and serve it longer (more financial gain). Coffee burns dramatically faster at higher temperatures than lower. McDonald's knew this and despite hundreds of complaints did nothing to change because it would result in less money. While the original jury did award a huge punitive amount, it was reduced on appeal and eventually the two parties entered into a settlement.

McDonald's rejected a settlement offer of 20,000 dollars before the trial, that was all the plaintiff wanted to cover her medical charges.[/quote]The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's.  She was the one who spilled the coffee.  But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

[mttgrmm]

yeah.... kinda....

[Tub(a)]

[quote KeithK]The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's.  She was the one who spilled the coffee.  But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).[/quote]

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.

[ugarte]

[quote KeithK][quote Tub(a)][quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]
Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.[/quote]

For example, the famous McDonald's case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Quick summary:

McD's kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than other restaurants so they could make less and serve it longer (more financial gain). Coffee burns dramatically faster at higher temperatures than lower. McDonald's knew this and despite hundreds of complaints did nothing to change because it would result in less money. While the original jury did award a huge punitive amount, it was reduced on appeal and eventually the two parties entered into a settlement.

McDonald's rejected a settlement offer of 20,000 dollars before the trial, that was all the plaintiff wanted to cover her medical charges.[/quote]The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's.  She was the one who spilled the coffee.  But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).[/quote]As Tub(a) points out, "The" responsibility is spread out among a number of actors.

[ugarte]

[quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.[/quote]Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine.  Case closed.  Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.[/quote]Black and white sure makes things a lot easier. Good thing we don't let the crazies have guns!

[Beeeej]

[quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.[/quote]Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine.  Case closed.  Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.[/quote]

"Flat out wrong."  Okay, then suggest a different system.  Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?

[nyc94]

[quote Tub(a)][quote KeithK]The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's.  She was the one who spilled the coffee.  But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).[/quote]

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.[/quote]

[q]Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[/q]

What percentage of people would put a foam cup between their knees, even if it was "normal" hot coffee temperature?

[ugarte]

[quote Beeeej][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.[/quote]Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine.  Case closed.  Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.[/quote]

"Flat out wrong."  Okay, then suggest a different system.  Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?[/quote]And if "tough shit on that guy" is your answer, you have to explain why he gets the short end of the stick and the car owner doesn't.

[RichH]

[quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote KeithK][quote ugarte][quote mttgrmm]however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.[/quote]You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.
[/quote]Are you serious?  If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)[/quote]Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.[/quote]Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine.  Case closed.  Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.[/quote]Black and white sure makes things a lot easier. Good thing we don't let the crazies have guns![/quote]

*sigh*  It's going to be a loooong break, isn't it?  ::panic::

[las224]

[quote sah67]Just a thought...how did the ushers go too "far"?  It seems as if most of your complaints lie in the realm of (fire) Andy and the Athletics office.  You didn't mention if you knew exactly why the person your friend sold his/her tickets to got kicked out, but maybe the ushers had a perfectly valid reason?  Perhaps (fire) Andy went too far, or the Athletics office...but why the ushers?

Still a little irked by some of the complaints/generalizations about usher behavior this year...I have not had one issue or problem with them this year, and personally have not seen any behavior by any ushers in the C/D/F areas that struck me as anything but kind, courteous, or helpful.[/quote]

Sorry, I did mean the administration. Wrote this quickly and with the ushers in the public eye, writing that came to mind faster than Andy/athletics/etc.

[Tub(a)]

[quote nyc94][quote Tub(a)][quote KeithK]The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's.  She was the one who spilled the coffee.  But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).[/quote]

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.[/quote]

[q]Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[/q]

oWhat percentage of people would put a foam cup between their knees, even if it was "normal" hot coffee temperature?[/quote]

What percentage of corporations would serve coffee they knew would burn their customers in a matter of seconds? All of these play into who gets what share of the responsibility.