The administration has gone TOO far

[canuck89]

[quote sah67]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]


Sections A and B haven't been as lucky.

[nyc94]

[quote 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.[/quote]

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

[evilnaturedrobot]

[quote canuck89][quote sah67]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]


Sections A and B haven't been as lucky.[/quote]

the usher along teh a/b aisle was great last weekend: actually asked me to warn the guys cursing in the middle of the section because he didn't want to toss anyone.

[BMac]

Agreed, no usher problems this weekend. They didn't even do the "staredown" when I screamed something loud.

[WillR]

[quote 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.[/quote]

If coffee tasted best at a boiling temperature then i would hope all companies that serve coffee would serve it at boiling.  As it is by keeping it on a burner it turns to shit fairly quickly.  However tea should be served as close boiling as possible, and yes i would put it between my legs if i had no better place to put it.  However when i then did something to cause the close to boiling tea to spill on myself I would curse myself for burning myself.  It just seems logical to me that if you are person who has  taken something that was known to have been a boiling liquid recently and then burns yourself with it that you probably have about 99% of the blame.  The other 1% is probably your parents.

[ftyuv]

[quote 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.[/quote]

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a crack at this cause I'm a little bored and a little more interested.

It seems rather unfair to blame one innocent person for the pains of another if both are blameless.  That's my general starting point.  So first of all, if the thief is known (and convicted of course), he should be held fully responsible.  Otherwise, the two parties' insurance companies should pay, if both parties really are innocent victims.

Take my car -- I have a very low end '98 Civic.  Non-power windows, non-power locks.  I've broken into such cars with a coat hanger in 15 minutes before (my own cars, don't worry.  locked the keys in), and I assume it's probably not too hard to hot-wire it or whatever.  I've got decent insurance on it, 100/300, and I lock it when I'm not in it (except when I'm at home;  but at work, for instance, I lock it).  So I think I've taken reasonably responsible precautions.

Now, what happens if somebody spends the 15 minutes to steal it, and ends up crashing and causing more than $100k in damages?  (And I won't even ask if my premiums go up;  sounds like maybe they might, but I think they shouldn't for the same reason that I shouldn't be held liable for the >$100)  Sure, the victim of the accident is an innocent victim, but aren't I just as innocent?  I've taken every reasonable step to prevent someone from stealing my car, but just like someone can't stop a car from hitting his house 100%, I can't stop someone from stealing my car 100%.

In this case, I would propose that some fact finding was done to see if I took reasonable steps to prevent this.  Was I insured?  Is there evidence that my car was broken into (as opposed to me leaving it running while I did some errands)?  Other factors?  Similarly, we should make sure the victim of the crash took his necessary precautions -- is he insured, did he look both ways, etc.  These factors should be weighed, and our two insurance companies should split the bill appropriately, from a default starting point of 50/50.

[Beeeej]

[quote ftyuv][quote 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.[/quote]

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a crack at this cause I'm a little bored and a little more interested.

It seems rather unfair to blame one innocent person for the pains of another if both are blameless.  That's my general starting point.  So first of all, if the thief is known (and convicted of course), he should be held fully responsible.  Otherwise, the two parties' insurance companies should pay, if both parties really are innocent victims.

Take my car -- I have a very low end '98 Civic.  Non-power windows, non-power locks.  I've broken into such cars with a coat hanger in 15 minutes before (my own cars, don't worry.  locked the keys in), and I assume it's probably not too hard to hot-wire it or whatever.  I've got decent insurance on it, 100/300, and I lock it when I'm not in it (except when I'm at home;  but at work, for instance, I lock it).  So I think I've taken reasonably responsible precautions.

Now, what happens if somebody spends the 15 minutes to steal it, and ends up crashing and causing more than $100k in damages?  (And I won't even ask if my premiums go up;  sounds like maybe they might, but I think they shouldn't for the same reason that I shouldn't be held liable for the >$100)  Sure, the victim of the accident is an innocent victim, but aren't I just as innocent?  I've taken every reasonable step to prevent someone from stealing my car, but just like someone can't stop a car from hitting his house 100%, I can't stop someone from stealing my car 100%.

In this case, I would propose that some fact finding was done to see if I took reasonable steps to prevent this.  Was I insured?  Is there evidence that my car was broken into (as opposed to me leaving it running while I did some errands)?  Other factors?  Similarly, we should make sure the victim of the crash took his necessary precautions -- is he insured, did he look both ways, etc.  These factors should be weighed, and our two insurance companies should split the bill appropriately, from a default starting point of 50/50.[/quote]

That's an interesting set of theories, with some holes I might come back and poke at later, but I'll start with the two biggest:

(1) The victim who got hit wasn't driving a car, he was a pedestrian.  His automobile insurance company is absolutely not going to pay for half of his damages (i.e., medical expenses).  His health insurer might pay for them up-front, but will want to subrogate that expense by finding someone else to reimburse them, since it certainly wasn't their fault or the fault of their policy holder.  Without that reimbursement, you still have someone who shouldn't have to pay for what happened paying for what happened.

(2) Our hypothetical car thief probably has about five bucks, and no insurance of any kind.  Just like with any lawsuit, you can have a verdict and a judgment, but if the defendant has no assets, a judgment doesn't mean much.

So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again.  Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?

[ftyuv]

[quote Beeeej][quote ftyuv][quote 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.[/quote]

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a crack at this cause I'm a little bored and a little more interested.

It seems rather unfair to blame one innocent person for the pains of another if both are blameless.  That's my general starting point.  So first of all, if the thief is known (and convicted of course), he should be held fully responsible.  Otherwise, the two parties' insurance companies should pay, if both parties really are innocent victims.

Take my car -- I have a very low end '98 Civic.  Non-power windows, non-power locks.  I've broken into such cars with a coat hanger in 15 minutes before (my own cars, don't worry.  locked the keys in), and I assume it's probably not too hard to hot-wire it or whatever.  I've got decent insurance on it, 100/300, and I lock it when I'm not in it (except when I'm at home;  but at work, for instance, I lock it).  So I think I've taken reasonably responsible precautions.

Now, what happens if somebody spends the 15 minutes to steal it, and ends up crashing and causing more than $100k in damages?  (And I won't even ask if my premiums go up;  sounds like maybe they might, but I think they shouldn't for the same reason that I shouldn't be held liable for the >$100)  Sure, the victim of the accident is an innocent victim, but aren't I just as innocent?  I've taken every reasonable step to prevent someone from stealing my car, but just like someone can't stop a car from hitting his house 100%, I can't stop someone from stealing my car 100%.

In this case, I would propose that some fact finding was done to see if I took reasonable steps to prevent this.  Was I insured?  Is there evidence that my car was broken into (as opposed to me leaving it running while I did some errands)?  Other factors?  Similarly, we should make sure the victim of the crash took his necessary precautions -- is he insured, did he look both ways, etc.  These factors should be weighed, and our two insurance companies should split the bill appropriately, from a default starting point of 50/50.[/quote]

That's an interesting set of theories, with some holes I might come back and poke at later, but I'll start with the two biggest:

(1) The victim who got hit wasn't driving a car, he was a pedestrian.  His automobile insurance company is absolutely not going to pay for half of his damages (i.e., medical expenses).  His health insurer might pay for them up-front, but will want to subrogate that expense by finding someone else to reimburse them, since it certainly wasn't their fault or the fault of their policy holder.  Without that reimbursement, you still have someone who shouldn't have to pay for what happened paying for what happened.

(2) Our hypothetical car thief probably has about five bucks, and no insurance of any kind.  Just like with any lawsuit, you can have a verdict and a judgment, but if the defendant has no assets, a judgment doesn't mean much.

So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again.  Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?[/quote]

Regarding #1, let me clarify that I didn't mean the victim's auto insurance necessarily, but rather the appropriate insurance -- auto if his car was hit, health if it was him, home, etc.  And yeah, I'm sure that insurance company would love to get someone else to pay them, but if the thief is not known and convicted, I'd tell them, "sorry, you're in the business of paying for unforeseen and unavoidable damages, you're going to have to take this hit."

Regarding #2, well, what happens in general when a person with no money causes damages?  I don't pretend to know the answer to that, but I don't see why the same can't apply here.  If the answer generally is "the victim doesn't get paid," then unfortunately that's the answer I'm going to go with (for now) in this issue too.

So for now I'm going to stick with my original idea, though I'm sure there's other holes to pick at and maybe I'm just 100% off.  As for why it's more fair, I would say that I just don't see how it's fair to make one innocent victim (the car owner) responsible, through no fault of his own, for the ills of another innocent victim (who got hit or had something of his hit).

If you don't mind Big Government and really want that innocent victim to get paid, have the government write him a check as sort of a last-ditch, catch-all insurance (again, assuming he did took reasonable steps to insure himself).  The rationale then would be that if we're going to have somebody innocent pay for the victim's damages, why not spread it to *all* innocent taxpayers instead of just this one, whose car just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?  I don't see the justice in making one guy the sucker instead of another.

Also keep in mind that the person whose car was stolen has his own, albeit probably more minor problems -- his car just got crashed.  I assume the common response to his damages (and the one I'd go by personally is) "if he insured his car for damages, his insurance company pays.  If he didn't, that sucks for him."  Mind you, I'm saying that's what it should be even though my car is uninsured for damages.  Just as the guy whose house broke my car -- through no fault of his own -- shouldn't to pay for the car, I think I whose car broke his house -- through no fault of my own -- shouldn't have to pay for the house.

[nyc94]

[quote Beeeej]So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again.  Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?[/quote]

Honda for building the car and the government for building a substandard road?  It's fairer because they have deeper pockets?  Sorry, it's late.

[DeltaOne81]

I checked on a financial board that I frequent. I got this response:

Your liability coverage pays for losses for which you are legally liable. Therefore, if someone steals your car and does damage to someone else, you are not legally liable, so no claim would be paid under your liability coverage. (Your insurance carrier would defend you if you happened to be sued as a result of this accident).

MEK
(insurance claims person).

That was what I was hoping, but couldn't say for sure. If you check your auto insurance policy, it says that it covers people driving your car with your permission (may vary by state, I suppose, but I'd be kinda surprised).


So who pays? The victim's insurance... assuming they carry uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance, which they darn well should. Its very cheap (because the occurrence is rare). It costs me a total of $55/year for 100/300 on both of those parts - and thats in Mass with some of the highest rates in the nation.

Now that only covers bodily injury, so what covers the car? Well, collision, unfortunately. Which does mean you have to pay a deductible (although some states may waive it in certain conditions, which may cover this). If you don't carry collision, they you are knowingly taking a chance that an accident will make the car not worth repairing, or very expensive


Finally, if you don't cover un/underinsured, or you're not in your car, then the answer is your health insurance, which still could mean you'll owe a nice chunk of change in co-pays/co-insurance. So yet another reason its important to carry good coverages all around.

[nyc94]

[quote 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.[/quote]

Despite the rate increases are the insurers making really great profits?  It would seem that if they were then better capitalized companies would enter the market.  Or are the regulatory issues too much of a barrier in which case wouldn't the government be partially to blame for reducing competition?

[KeithK]

[quote Beeeej]So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again.  Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?[/quote]Agsin, my answer is the thief if at all possible, for both medical expenses of the injured person and damges to the vehicle.  If the thief cannot be made to pay then the injured person has to pay his own medical costs and the car owner has to pay for the vehicle. If either party has relevant insurance policies (health or auto) they can collect from their insurance companies.  As ftyuv said, it's not fair to require the car owner, who is an inocent party, to have to pay for actions of another.  I

Sometimes in life shit happens and you have to deal with it.  Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either. I understand why there's an entire industry dedicated to doing so - there's lots of money in it. But that doesn't make it right.  In this case hopefully Delta's quote is correct and the owner would not be legally liable.

BTW, I am not saying that injury lawsuits are always wrong. Wehn another party is actually to blame one should be able collect damages.  I just think our legal system seems too eager to assign such responsibility often ignoring personal responsibility.

[Rosey]

[quote KeithK]Sometimes in life shit happens and you have to deal with it.[/quote]
As I always say when this subject comes up: "The whole reason I have insurance is to pay me for damages when something happens, regardless of who's at fault."

At that point, my responsibility ends, and the insurance company can do whatever it likes (sue the responsible party, sue the owner of the car, sue God, repo possessions of the responsible party, etc.) to recuperate the money it paid me.  Frankly, I don't care; that's their problem, and it's what I pay them premiums for.

Cheers,
Kyle

[nyc94]

[quote krose][quote KeithK]Sometimes in life shit happens and you have to deal with it.[/quote]
As I always say when this subject comes up: "The whole reason I have insurance is to pay me for damages when something happens, regardless of who's at fault."

At that point, my responsibility ends, and the insurance company can do whatever it likes (sue the responsible party, sue the owner of the car, sue God, repo possessions of the responsible party, etc.) to recuperate the money it paid me.  Frankly, I don't care; that's their problem, and it's what I pay them premiums for.[/quote]

How about a game of Who Do You Sue?

BlackBerry tapping causes car-crunching chain reaction on I-5
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003463811_blackberry06m.html

[Robb]

[quote KeithK]Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either.[/quote]

Couldn't have said it better - absolutely right.  The thief is responsible; if he can't pay, then the chain ends there.