Sometimes People Suck

#51
#51
volinbham said:
Well your not invited to the Vol Nation cookout I planned. I'm afraid there's a one in a million chance a crazed squirrel might attack you and cause some emotional scarring - thus leading you to sue me for the harm you encountered. To bad, it's going to be quite the shindig :neener2:
Click to expand...
If you invite me I'll bring my avatar to keep him away.... :haha_oh:
 
#53
#53
volinbham said:
Well your not invited to the Vol Nation cookout I planned. I'm afraid there's a one in a million chance a crazed squirrel might attack you and cause some emotional scarring - thus leading you to sue me for the harm you encountered. To bad, it's going to be quite the shindig :neener2:
Click to expand...

hmanvolfan said:
If you invite me I'll bring my avatar to keep him away.... :haha_oh:
Click to expand...

Great.......

My favorite Republican pundit and my favorite stoned
squirrel teaming up for Democratic cook out.(me)Oh wait
I'm not there because I wasn't invited.


Well at least have a beer.
....And some Hickory nuts.:huggy:
 
#54
#54
cotton said:
It is a little surprising to me that no one seems to think a bunch of people who boarded an airplane that ended up in the river should have an actionable claim.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should pay the pilot a bonus for saving their butts. He's the entitled one.
 
#55
#55
BigPapaVol said:
if the law provides for anything in terms of remuneration from a faultless airline, it's dead freaking wrong, regardless what else it might say. It is absolutely working against fairness. The courts might work that way because juries and judges can be idiotic, but there is no way you can argue that punishing the airline here is justice.
Click to expand...

The airline isn't faultless. They have a duty to not crash the plane. They didn't live up to that duty. A crashed plane, then, is the fault of the airline, and the damages are owed by them.

It is correct that the airline should have that duty. They are the ones that should bear it.

VolDad said:
Agreed. Cotton wants to blame the Airline when all the pilots were doing is following instructions. Why isn't he blaming the Airport or Controllers.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming anybody. I'm trying to explain what the law is, and why it is a good thing.

volinbham said:
To flip this around, why should an entity that was not responsible for the harm be forced to compensate the passengers?
Click to expand...

They are responsible. They are responsible due to the fact that their plane is in the river.

allvol123 said:
Other than luggage, what loss or harm?
Click to expand...

Seriously, you don't think there was any loss, other than luggage, on a plane that crashed into a river? None? No monetary loss by spending time getting fished out of the Hudson? No physical harm to the guys who got jostled around? No trauma or psychological injury? Hey, the luggage is still in the plane; alll they have to do is pitch the stuff in the dryer and it is ready to go, right?
 
#56
#56
volmanbill said:
Maybe they should pay the pilot a bonus for saving their butts. He's the entitled one.
Click to expand...

I don't know what this means, or what the pilot's salary has to do with what the airline owes the passengers.

I think that is why so many people are confused. The pilot did a great job. He was terrific. He is the reason the people are alive.

The airline, as an entity, did a lousy job. They launched a plane from NYC that was supposed to go to Wilkes Barre (or wherever it was supposed to be going,) but it didn't do that; it went into the Hudson river. That's wrong. That inconvenienced and bruised and tramatized and delayed the passengers on the plane, and the airline now needs to make up for the fact that they inconvenienced and bruised and tramatized and delayed those folks by paying them something.
 
#57
#57
Some of the most ridiculous drivel I've ever read. Seems to me that folks should be entitled to their money back for the company having failed to deliver them where intended. Anything else is shoddy legal system run amok becase the rules are being made by those with the most to gain from Tort trash.

The BS entitlement mentality you're espousing could easily be carried to the extreme. Maybe I could sue UT for the undue heartache the football team caused me. They knew the coach sucked, yet continued to employ him, even while I had to endure innumerable taunts. Theirjo is to win, period and they aren't. I'm due considerable damages and cash back.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#58
#58
BigPapaVol said:
Some of the most ridiculous drivel I've ever read. Seems to me that folks should be entitled to their money back for the company having failed to deliver them where intended. Anything else is shoddy legal system run amok becase the rules are being made by those with the most to gain from Tort trash.

The BS entitlement mentality you're espousing could easily be carried to the extreme. Maybe I could sue UT for the undue heartache the football team caused me. They knew the coach sucked, yet continued to employ him, even while I had to endure innumerable taunts. Theirjo is to win, period and they aren't. I'm due considerable damages and cash back.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you say that loud enough and often enough, maybe it won't be so wrong.

Your theory, where you have to prove "willful negligence," makes nobody responsible for anything. It's a bass ackwards argument against a "entitlements" that winds up completely doing away with any individual responsibilty whatsoever.

An airline that can't keep a plane in the air has to pay for the damages it causes when it hits the earth. In your cocamamie example, if, instead of the coach sucking, the stadium collapsed, then yes, I think you would be due some recompense.
 
#59
#59
cotton said:
Yeah, if you say that loud enough and often enough, maybe it won't be so wrong.

Your theory, where you have to prove "willful negligence," makes nobody responsible for anything. It's a bass ackwards argument against a "entitlements" that winds up completely doing away with any individual responsibilty whatsoever.

An airline that can't keep a plane in the air has to pay for the damages it causes when it hits the earth. In your cocamamie example, if, instead of the coach sucking, the stadium collapsed, then yes, I think you would be due some recompense.
Click to expand...
how is it undue burden when you're trying to hammer someone for something beyond their control

Again, a garbage response from another of the foxes guarding the hen house.

Asking attorneys to be reasonable about laws or rules that might damage their ability to make absurd tort monies for nothing is a waste of time.

You're ascribing fault here because the company didn't deliver on its business agreement with passengers. The passengers all went home. They should get their money back for the airline failing to deliver on the business agreement, period. Anything else is simply frivolous trash trumped up in our attorney driven entitlement civil justice system.

If I'm wrong according to the current interpretation of our laws and someone is owed money here, we clearly need to fix the situation, rather than pretend it's right. I'll say it forever. Our judicial system is a disaster because it has been in the hands of those who have the most to gain financially from maintaining the status quo or making the rules further away from sensibility and toward entitlement.

I don't care if the standard isn't willful negligence. Any standard that makes an irresponsible party responsible is simply garbage and needs to be addressed, rather than supported by the clowns that made the stupid rule in the first place. Stalin made lots of rules that were dead wrong. He had many morons around him espousing them because they were the rules, not because they were right.

Finally, your senseless response to my extreme doesn't dismiss the stupidity of the rule that you're proclaiming as "right." The bottom line is that I've been rooked and someone is to blame. My harm is every bit that of the passengers of that flight.
 
#60
#60
BigPapaVol said:
how is it undue burden when you're trying to hammer someone for something beyond their control

Again, a garbage response from another of the foxes guarding the hen house.

Asking attorneys to be reasonable about laws or rules that might damage their ability to make absurd tort monies for nothing is a waste of time.

You're ascribing fault here because the company didn't deliver on its business agreement with passengers. The passengers all went home. They should get their money back for the airline failing to deliver on the business agreement, period. Anything else is simply frivolous trash trumped up in our attorney driven entitlement civil justice system.

If I'm wrong according to the current interpretation of our laws and someone is owed money here, we clearly need to fix the situation, rather than pretend it's right. I'll say it forever. Our judicial system is a disaster because it has been in the hands of those who have the most to gain financially from maintaining the status quo or making the rules further away from sensibility and toward entitlement.

I don't care if the standard isn't willful negligence. Any standard that makes an irresponsible party responsible is simply garbage and needs to be addressed, rather than supported by the clowns that made the stupid rule in the first place. Stalin made lots of rules that were dead wrong. He had many morons around him espousing them because they were the rules, not because they were right.

Finally, your senseless response to my extreme doesn't dismiss the stupidity of the rule that you're proclaiming as "right." The bottom line is that I've been rooked and someone is to blame. My harm is every bit that of the passengers of that flight.
Click to expand...

I don't do any civil plaintiff's work, and I'm only involved in defense side on the rare occasions that it involves my company. I do understand, though, that if the roof collapses in one of our buildings that the company is responsible, even if it wasn't negligent. For the life of me I can't understand the point of view of someone who thinks the operator of an airplane doesn't bear any responsibility when it crashes.

I'm assuming that you are ascribing "fault" to the passengers, as they would be the ones to bear the loss under your scenario. That is unfair and ill-reasoned, and it would make for a much worse system than we have right now.
 
#61
#61
cotton said:
I don't do any civil plaintiff's work, and I'm only involved in defense side on the rare occasions that it involves my company. I do understand, though, that if the roof collapses in one of our buildings that the company is responsible, even if it wasn't negligent. For the life of me I can't understand the point of view of someone who thinks the operator of an airplane doesn't bear any responsibility when it crashes.

I'm assuming that you are ascribing "fault" to the passengers, as they would be the ones to bear the loss under your scenario. That is unfair and ill-reasoned, and it would make for a much worse system than we have right now.
Click to expand...

What responsibility do you think the airport, controllers, and/or government have? After all, they sent the plane on a collision course with the birds. The airline was simply following instructions of Federal employees.
 
#62
#62
For every additional dollar that is paid out, I will personally blow away one goose.

If there's a large enough settlement, I might be able to single-handedly put them back on the endangered species list!
 
#63
#63
Ohio Vol said:
For every additional dollar that is paid out, I will personally blow away one goose.

If there's a large enough settlement, I might be able to single-handedly put them back on the endangered species list!
Click to expand...
Better be careful. Cotton might try to find a way to sue your ass. :vava:
 
#64
#64
cotton said:
I'm assuming that you are ascribing "fault" to the passengers, as they would be the ones to bear the loss under your scenario. That is unfair and ill-reasoned, and it would make for a much worse system than we have right now.
Click to expand...

Isn't it possible to have neither party at fault - are there not accidents or must all unfortunate accidents result in one party paying another?

Who's going to pay the airline? They lost revenue and equipment here plus some possible public confidence (the intangible asset of goodwill).

Why must the airline bear both their own "harm" and the "harm" to the other party when the event was a true accident (neither party's fault)?
 
#65
#65
VolDad said:
What responsibility do you think the airport, controllers, and/or government have? After all, they sent the plane on a collision course with the birds. The airline was simply following instructions of Federal employees.
Click to expand...

You are driving with a passenger and approach an intersection that is being directed by a traffic cop. The cop waves you through, just as he did with the cars in front of you and is preparing to do with the car behind you. In the middle, a previously unseen deer jumps from the woods and into the path of your car. You hit it and careen into the ditch, injuring your passenger. What liability does the municipality that employs the officer have to your passenger?

You are going to be liable for your passenger's injuries, not the city. You are going to have to pay for his medical bills and his pain and suffering and his time off of work and any other harm he suffered. In that case, nobody did anything wrong , yet, given that you are the driver of the car, you are the guy that is liable when it crashes.
 
#66
#66
volinbham said:
Isn't it possible to have neither party at fault - are there not accidents or must all unfortunate accidents result in one party paying another?

Who's going to pay the airline? They lost revenue and equipment here plus some possible public confidence (the intangible asset of goodwill).

Why must the airline bear both their own "harm" and the "harm" to the other party when the event was a true accident (neither party's fault)?
Click to expand...

The airline had a duty to fly the plane safely. That is the only good place for the duty to rest, and for all sorts of good reasons ranging from public confidence to commerce to planes dropping out of the sky, it has to rest somewhere.

When one party harms another, they legally have to pay to rectify the harm. The airline harmed the passengers when it crashed the plane, even if the cause of the crash wasn't negligence. It owes them whatever amount would make up for the harm the passengers incurred.

It is a good thing that we hold airlines responsible for plane crashes. I don't think I would want to fly on one that didn't think it had a duty to transport its passengers safely.
 
#67
#67
cotton said:
You are driving with a passenger and approach an intersection that is being directed by a traffic cop. The cop waves you through, just as he did with the cars in front of you and is preparing to do with the car behind you. In the middle, a previously unseen deer jumps from the woods and into the path of your car. You hit it and careen into the ditch, injuring your passenger. What liability does the municipality that employs the officer have to your passenger?

You are going to be liable for your passenger's injuries, not the city. You are going to have to pay for his medical bills and his pain and suffering and his time off of work and any other harm he suffered. In that case, nobody did anything wrong , yet, given that you are the driver of the car, you are the guy that is liable when it crashes.
Click to expand...

Any system that operates that way needs to be scrapped or fixed. It's ludicrous that the operator is essentially the default defendant. Our civil courts are garbage if that's the case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
cotton said:
The airline had a duty to fly the plane safely. That is the only good place for the duty to rest, and for all sorts of good reasons ranging from public confidence to commerce to planes dropping out of the sky, it has to rest somewhere.

When one party harms another, they legally have to pay to rectify the harm. The airline harmed the passengers when it crashed the plane, even if the cause of the crash wasn't negligence. It owes them whatever amount would make up for the harm the passengers incurred.

It is a good thing that we hold airlines responsible for plane crashes. I don't think I would want to fly on one that didn't think it had a duty to transport its passengers safely.
Click to expand...

The airline has no duty, save that of the contract with the customer buying the ticket. If a tornado goes through Nwyland the next time I'm there, I'm not holding UT responsible for my bad fortune.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
BigPapaVol said:
The airline has no duty, save that of the contract with the customer buying the ticket. If a tornado goes through Nwyland the next time I'm there, I'm not holding UT responsible for my bad fortune.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I assume you mean to say that the airline "should" have no duty, because legally, they certainly do. I think it is better that they do, but you are free to disagree.
 
#70
#70
cotton said:
I assume you mean to say that the airline "should" have no duty, because legally, they certainly do. I think it is better that they do, but you are free to disagree.
Click to expand...

They have no duty. They are a private enterprise that can quit tomorrow.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#71
#71
BigPapaVol said:
They have no duty. They are a private enterprise that can quit tomorrow.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the way it works, either. While it is true that they are a private enterprise that can quit, that would not alleviate any liabilities they have accrued. Businesses with bills can't just close shop and not pay them.

EDIT: And none of that has anything to do with whether they had a duty to the passengers in the first place.
 
Last edited:
#72
#72
cotton said:
I don't know what this means, or what the pilot's salary has to do with what the airline owes the passengers.

I think that is why so many people are confused. The pilot did a great job. He was terrific. He is the reason the people are alive.

The airline, as an entity, did a lousy job. They launched a plane from NYC that was supposed to go to Wilkes Barre (or wherever it was supposed to be going,) but it didn't do that; it went into the Hudson river. That's wrong. That inconvenienced and bruised and tramatized and delayed the passengers on the plane, and the airline now needs to make up for the fact that they inconvenienced and bruised and tramatized and delayed those folks by paying them something.
Click to expand...
These people are being compensated. Exactly what would you consider a fair amount?

$100,000.?
$1,000,000.?
$10,000,000.?

How much damage was done? Should these people be set for life, because they were scared for 10 minutes and got their feet wet?
 
#73
#73
SavageOrangeJug said:
These people are being compensated. Exactly what would you consider a fair amount?
Click to expand...

I really don't know enough about the individuals to say. Assuming that the harm is limited to some bumps and bruises, inconvenience, and a tramatic experience, I would think an appropriate award should be far less than $100k. The theory behind the award should be that the injured party's life has been negatively affected by a certain amount, and the party responsible for the injury should compensate him in an amount that would raise that life back to where it would have been had the harm not occurred.

If there is a major problem with our system, it lies somewhere in the amounts awarded. Juries often overcompensate for the harm done, particularly when it involves faceless corporations, or worse, their insurance companies. The problem is compounded by defendants that settle for amounts that are too high because of the risk of having a large judgement and the expense of defending the suit.
 
#75
#75
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top