Help! I need legal advice re: easements
- Thread starter mdbarb
- Start date
- Views: 150940
L3650,
I understand your frustration. As a former Juvenile Probation Officer I have seen the mockery that is many court room proceedings.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. In a free market society supply will rise to meet demand. As long as there is a demand for lawyers, there will be lawyers -and more lawyers, etc. Do lawyers increase their own business by advertising? Not as much as the media does by advertising the incredibly huge settlements that people receive -- that are awarded to them by, yep you guessed it, Mary and Joe Average sitting in the jury box.
Was it a lawyer who awarded a careless woman millions of dollars for spilling hot McDonald's Coffee on herself? Nope, it was the average person juror. Why does the average person do this? I would guess because they feel big business has plenty of money and it won't hurt them to share. Lawyers suggest settlement amounts. Juries say higher or lower.
In sum, the lawyer only functions as a vehicle for people to express the feeling that they were in some way wronged. It is the average person who has advertised for the lawyers for awarding millions and millions, many times frivolously. Many of the high dollar settlements are all based on contingency fees, which means the longer the case is drawn out the less the hourly wage will be. Granted sometimes the hourly wages are huge.
Most things a lawyer does, the average person could also do, if they were willing to spend hours and hours reading, understanding and applying the law to the facts at hand, then trying to persuade others their interpretation of the law is the most correct. So the public controls the need for lawyers by their desire to not do the work of a lawyer and by constantly going to lawyers.
Law makers are directly responsible for more than just supporting lawyers. I could list hundreds if not thousands of professions that are support by at most and at least helped by legislatures passing laws. Thus, lawyers are only a portion of a larger pie that benefit from the passage of laws.
In this case, I think that it sucks that this poor family has been through 8 or so months of their time and only they know how much money. But I would rather see the battle rage in the court room, then elsewhere. Along with the benefits of a free society we have to put up with people abusing their own freedom at the cost of others.
I think this is a case of a judge (as some are) who is hesitant to make a decision - so its off to mediation.
I'll stop now and politely hand over my soap box.
Clint
I understand your frustration. As a former Juvenile Probation Officer I have seen the mockery that is many court room proceedings.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. In a free market society supply will rise to meet demand. As long as there is a demand for lawyers, there will be lawyers -and more lawyers, etc. Do lawyers increase their own business by advertising? Not as much as the media does by advertising the incredibly huge settlements that people receive -- that are awarded to them by, yep you guessed it, Mary and Joe Average sitting in the jury box.
Was it a lawyer who awarded a careless woman millions of dollars for spilling hot McDonald's Coffee on herself? Nope, it was the average person juror. Why does the average person do this? I would guess because they feel big business has plenty of money and it won't hurt them to share. Lawyers suggest settlement amounts. Juries say higher or lower.
In sum, the lawyer only functions as a vehicle for people to express the feeling that they were in some way wronged. It is the average person who has advertised for the lawyers for awarding millions and millions, many times frivolously. Many of the high dollar settlements are all based on contingency fees, which means the longer the case is drawn out the less the hourly wage will be. Granted sometimes the hourly wages are huge.
Most things a lawyer does, the average person could also do, if they were willing to spend hours and hours reading, understanding and applying the law to the facts at hand, then trying to persuade others their interpretation of the law is the most correct. So the public controls the need for lawyers by their desire to not do the work of a lawyer and by constantly going to lawyers.
Law makers are directly responsible for more than just supporting lawyers. I could list hundreds if not thousands of professions that are support by at most and at least helped by legislatures passing laws. Thus, lawyers are only a portion of a larger pie that benefit from the passage of laws.
In this case, I think that it sucks that this poor family has been through 8 or so months of their time and only they know how much money. But I would rather see the battle rage in the court room, then elsewhere. Along with the benefits of a free society we have to put up with people abusing their own freedom at the cost of others.
I think this is a case of a judge (as some are) who is hesitant to make a decision - so its off to mediation.
I'll stop now and politely hand over my soap box.
Clint
ByuBill
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 273
- Location
- Western N.C. from New Orleans.
- Tractor
- MF 220 - Long 2360- Kioti 3054
<font color=blue>Was it a lawyer who awarded a careless woman millions of dollars for spilling hot McDonald's Coffee on herself?</font color=blue>
Nope, trying to hold a cup of hot coffee between your knees while you pop the top off it,,,,, well form your own opinion. Although, now we have the 'Stella Awards' as a result. Kind of like the Darwin Awards.....
Nope, trying to hold a cup of hot coffee between your knees while you pop the top off it,,,,, well form your own opinion. Although, now we have the 'Stella Awards' as a result. Kind of like the Darwin Awards.....
Wingnut
Veteran Member
<font color=blue>Nope, it was the average person juror</font color=blue>
I wish I could agree with you Clint ... but I can't. Mr. and/or Mrs. Joe Average are not allowed to be on the jury ... the lawyers in those kinds of cases spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that they weed Joe Average out during the interviews. They don't want people on the jury who understand where the corporations get their money from.
Does Joe Average believe that Ford contributed to a teens death when the teen was not belted in, in a Bronco that was being driven by an inebriated driver, driving too fast with bald tires and flipping the piece of junk? Somehow, I think Joe Average will. most times, feel the driver should be drawn and quartered and the passenger was an idiot. And that Ford DIDN'T contribute to the death.
In these trials with the huge awards ... lets talk about the breast implants ... the lawyer brings in as much junk science as is possible, in order to impress and overwhelm the jury; brings in as many pictures of scars as possible to build the sympathy factor up; and tries to get as many other deep pocket corps involved while demonizing "faceless" corporations. They bring in as many paid "experts" as the courts will allow. I always find it just so amusing, in all this posturing, that they never blame the doctor that did the operation.
Nope ... the juries are hand picked by the lawyers that want those big awards.
I see that one of the high profile pols that's against the presidents malpractice insurance award caps is John Edwards, who made a fortune out of litigating those type of cases.
I wish I could agree with you Clint ... but I can't. Mr. and/or Mrs. Joe Average are not allowed to be on the jury ... the lawyers in those kinds of cases spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that they weed Joe Average out during the interviews. They don't want people on the jury who understand where the corporations get their money from.
Does Joe Average believe that Ford contributed to a teens death when the teen was not belted in, in a Bronco that was being driven by an inebriated driver, driving too fast with bald tires and flipping the piece of junk? Somehow, I think Joe Average will. most times, feel the driver should be drawn and quartered and the passenger was an idiot. And that Ford DIDN'T contribute to the death.
In these trials with the huge awards ... lets talk about the breast implants ... the lawyer brings in as much junk science as is possible, in order to impress and overwhelm the jury; brings in as many pictures of scars as possible to build the sympathy factor up; and tries to get as many other deep pocket corps involved while demonizing "faceless" corporations. They bring in as many paid "experts" as the courts will allow. I always find it just so amusing, in all this posturing, that they never blame the doctor that did the operation.
Nope ... the juries are hand picked by the lawyers that want those big awards.
I see that one of the high profile pols that's against the presidents malpractice insurance award caps is John Edwards, who made a fortune out of litigating those type of cases.
WVBill
Veteran Member
Wingnut:
I agree with you about lawyers and juries - but then I think a case that would appear to lead the other direction.
One is the case of Chevrolet trucks and their "side-saddle" fuel tank design. <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=504&scid=94> Link here </A>
I became engrossed in this case a couple of years ago when Court TV was still "Court" TV. They broadcast the entire proceedings of a case and I watched almost every minute. The case was in South Carolina, I think, where a young man was killed when his Chevy truck was T-boned by a driver who ran a red light.
The evidence showed that the young man survived the crash and was killed by the fire.
Further evidence (internal Chevrolet documents)showed that Chevrolet knew of the explosion danger of the fuel tank design and had carefully calculated their dollar exposure to lawsuits v.s. the cost of re-design and re-tooling before making a conscious business decision.
The jury found for the plaintif and the award against Chevrolet was extremely high.
I agree with you about lawyers and juries - but then I think a case that would appear to lead the other direction.
One is the case of Chevrolet trucks and their "side-saddle" fuel tank design. <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=504&scid=94> Link here </A>
I became engrossed in this case a couple of years ago when Court TV was still "Court" TV. They broadcast the entire proceedings of a case and I watched almost every minute. The case was in South Carolina, I think, where a young man was killed when his Chevy truck was T-boned by a driver who ran a red light.
The evidence showed that the young man survived the crash and was killed by the fire.
Further evidence (internal Chevrolet documents)showed that Chevrolet knew of the explosion danger of the fuel tank design and had carefully calculated their dollar exposure to lawsuits v.s. the cost of re-design and re-tooling before making a conscious business decision.
The jury found for the plaintif and the award against Chevrolet was extremely high.
Wingnut
Veteran Member
So, using the same logic, anyone that has an injury accident in a GM vehicle should be able to sue them for not building a completely safe vehicle? I don't think my windshield will survive a 5 pound chunk of ice being dropped from an overpass ... is that the car-makers fault. They made a business decision to keep the windshield light. Are they complicit with that 15 yr old kid?
I'm sorry, that case doesn't change my view, it reinforces it.
Was the cause of the accident anything to do with GM's engineering? Business decisions are exactly that. I find an exact corollary in the current hullabaloo about Crown Vics and how they blow up if a car rams them from behind at the speed of light. Hmmm ... are there ANY cars that are built to withstand such circumstances. Every car design decision has to weigh the costs vs. the dangers vs. the public's desires. Air bags ring a bell?
I think if a jury of "average people" were empaneled, there would be no "punitive damages". Punitive damages are exactly that ... the jury getting to take revenge against big bad corporations. Who pays? John Q. Public ... since the cost will be added to al lthe vehicles made in the future. The "villain" is not punished ... no engineers are sent to jail ... lawyers just walk with a huge chunk of change.
I'm sorry, that case doesn't change my view, it reinforces it.
Was the cause of the accident anything to do with GM's engineering? Business decisions are exactly that. I find an exact corollary in the current hullabaloo about Crown Vics and how they blow up if a car rams them from behind at the speed of light. Hmmm ... are there ANY cars that are built to withstand such circumstances. Every car design decision has to weigh the costs vs. the dangers vs. the public's desires. Air bags ring a bell?
I think if a jury of "average people" were empaneled, there would be no "punitive damages". Punitive damages are exactly that ... the jury getting to take revenge against big bad corporations. Who pays? John Q. Public ... since the cost will be added to al lthe vehicles made in the future. The "villain" is not punished ... no engineers are sent to jail ... lawyers just walk with a huge chunk of change.
WVBill
Veteran Member
I'm thinking out loud - trying to work out in my mind how I feel about this - not trying to be argumentative so bear with me.
<font color=blue>"5 pound chunk of ice being dropped from an overpass ... is that the car-makers fault. They made a business decision to keep the windshield light. Are they complicit with that 15 yr old kid?</font color=blue>
No, they are not at all complicit. 15yr olds dropping 5 pound chunks of ice are not something it is reasonable to expect Chevrolet to predict and therefore engineer for. The reasonable predicted frequency of the kid dropping the ice is zero.
On the other hand, accidents in which the vehicle is struck in the vicinity of the gas tank have occured and occur with a predictable frequency.
The predictable frequency of an event is a factor in the calculations to make the business decision about how much safety factor to build in to a vehicle.
The lawyers for the plaintif in the case I referred to made two arguments to the jury (I'm paraphrasing the whole proceeding here):
1) "Look how calous and despicable it was for Chevrolet to reduce human lives to business decision equations."
and
2) "Look at the dollar value they used for a "life" in the equation."
Thinking about it now, it seems to me that it is a fair and reasonable thing to do - make that calculation, make that business decision. I can't think of any other way to run a business that designs consumer goods. It would be even more egregious if they did no engineering analysis at all - and designing a vehicle that has zero risk is impossible.
So, having made this business decision, is it fair to expect Chevrolet to "abide" by that decision to the point that when what they predicted would happen does happen, they should pay their calculated amount without litigation?
If so, should we accept the dollar value Chevrolet used in their equation as the definitive dollar value of a life?
<font color=blue>"5 pound chunk of ice being dropped from an overpass ... is that the car-makers fault. They made a business decision to keep the windshield light. Are they complicit with that 15 yr old kid?</font color=blue>
No, they are not at all complicit. 15yr olds dropping 5 pound chunks of ice are not something it is reasonable to expect Chevrolet to predict and therefore engineer for. The reasonable predicted frequency of the kid dropping the ice is zero.
On the other hand, accidents in which the vehicle is struck in the vicinity of the gas tank have occured and occur with a predictable frequency.
The predictable frequency of an event is a factor in the calculations to make the business decision about how much safety factor to build in to a vehicle.
The lawyers for the plaintif in the case I referred to made two arguments to the jury (I'm paraphrasing the whole proceeding here):
1) "Look how calous and despicable it was for Chevrolet to reduce human lives to business decision equations."
and
2) "Look at the dollar value they used for a "life" in the equation."
Thinking about it now, it seems to me that it is a fair and reasonable thing to do - make that calculation, make that business decision. I can't think of any other way to run a business that designs consumer goods. It would be even more egregious if they did no engineering analysis at all - and designing a vehicle that has zero risk is impossible.
So, having made this business decision, is it fair to expect Chevrolet to "abide" by that decision to the point that when what they predicted would happen does happen, they should pay their calculated amount without litigation?
If so, should we accept the dollar value Chevrolet used in their equation as the definitive dollar value of a life?
Chuck52
Veteran Member
How the heck did this thread get hijacked? I still want to hear how the original thing came out.
Chuck
Chuck
Anonymous Poster
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 29,678
Further evidence (internal Chevrolet documents)showed that Chevrolet knew of the explosion danger
My problem with this is that it wasn't just GM that thought it was alright to keep the design. Obviously, this vehicle met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture (1973-1989). That's 16 years that the government thought GM's design was ok, even after there were cases of fuel tank explosions.
I lean towards the rationale of Wingnut, but somebody dropped the ball here on this one. Was GM 100% at fault? Probably not, but they, along with the DOT have the duty to protect the public if they find a defective product. I don't think they should be punished for things they don't know about or couldn't forsee, but if they know, they should fix it, and the Federal standard should be changed, period, end of story. One life is too many to lose. A cost/ benefit analysis should never, ever be applied when it comes to human life and a consumer product.
My problem with this is that it wasn't just GM that thought it was alright to keep the design. Obviously, this vehicle met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture (1973-1989). That's 16 years that the government thought GM's design was ok, even after there were cases of fuel tank explosions.
I lean towards the rationale of Wingnut, but somebody dropped the ball here on this one. Was GM 100% at fault? Probably not, but they, along with the DOT have the duty to protect the public if they find a defective product. I don't think they should be punished for things they don't know about or couldn't forsee, but if they know, they should fix it, and the Federal standard should be changed, period, end of story. One life is too many to lose. A cost/ benefit analysis should never, ever be applied when it comes to human life and a consumer product.
