 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/02/2012 1:24 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 15:36, Stephen wrote:
>> On 19/02/2012 11:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> The fact that it was a body part shouldn't make a difference.
>>
>> Does "act of God" fit the bill?
>
> When God comes and claims responsibility, I'll consider it.
>
Won't we all. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-2-2012 0:28, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 14:07, Warp wrote:
>> there's basic public healthcare that takes care of any injuries at no
>> cost,
>
> And here there isn't. So you're blaming the woman for getting injured in
> a country where the person causing the injury is expected to pay the
> costs rather than tax money?
>
> Yes, we know the system is fucked. Why would you beat on this woman in
> particular?
Why would you beat on the relatives that recently suffered a great loss
and are is no way responsible for what occurred?
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-2-2012 2:24, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 15:34, Stephen wrote:
>> On 19/02/2012 11:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> Why *shouldn't* she get the money from the person who caused the injury?
>>
>> Because he is dead.
>
> Even better. He doesn't need it any more. :-)
Just for clarification, the USA system might work different than ours.
In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including
his debts. Here suing a dead person would mean suing the heirs. Assuming
that he did own less than the doctor's and lawyer's bills, losing their
son could also be a financial disaster for the parents.
If otoh the system works in such a way that the medical and other costs
must come from his personal belongings, you might argue that he does not
need it anymore anyway.
Still this wasn't a case of suicide and in the eyes of a simple European
not even a case of negligence, but simply a case of bad luck.* This
whole concept of trying to blame someone for bad luck is completely
alien to me. At the same time I understand why the US system (the
combination of a broken health system and no cure no pay lawyers) gives
rise to this sort of ridiculous court cases where everybody looses
except the lawyers.
*) she might as well be hit by the remains of a deer crossing the line.
Oh no, that wouldn't work as just bad luck. She could sue Amtrak for not
preventing the deer from going on the track...
A goose dying in mid air and dropping precisely at the front of the
train at the right time. Amtrak should have put up nets in the
neighbourhood of stations...
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Strange, Thunderbird does not seem to allow me to remove my own posts.
I saw your clarification that the estate construct does indeed works
different than our system.
How likely is it that a 18 yo kid has a life insurance or a medical
insurance that could cover the bills?
On 20-2-2012 9:09, andrel wrote:
> On 20-2-2012 2:24, Darren New wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 15:34, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2012 11:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why *shouldn't* she get the money from the person who caused the
>>>> injury?
>>>
>>> Because he is dead.
>>
>> Even better. He doesn't need it any more. :-)
>
> Just for clarification, the USA system might work different than ours.
>
> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including
> his debts. Here suing a dead person would mean suing the heirs. Assuming
> that he did own less than the doctor's and lawyer's bills, losing their
> son could also be a financial disaster for the parents.
>
> If otoh the system works in such a way that the medical and other costs
> must come from his personal belongings, you might argue that he does not
> need it anymore anyway.
>
> Still this wasn't a case of suicide and in the eyes of a simple European
> not even a case of negligence, but simply a case of bad luck.* This
> whole concept of trying to blame someone for bad luck is completely
> alien to me. At the same time I understand why the US system (the
> combination of a broken health system and no cure no pay lawyers) gives
> rise to this sort of ridiculous court cases where everybody looses
> except the lawyers.
>
> *) she might as well be hit by the remains of a deer crossing the line.
> Oh no, that wouldn't work as just bad luck. She could sue Amtrak for not
> preventing the deer from going on the track...
> A goose dying in mid air and dropping precisely at the front of the
> train at the right time. Amtrak should have put up nets in the
> neighbourhood of stations...
>
>
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 20/02/2012 00:20, Darren New a écrit :
> On 2/19/2012 11:33, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2012 11:30, Warp wrote:
>>>> This crosses the line between stupid and outright sick in the head:
>>
>>> Meh. She's suing the estate to get paid her medical expenses. A bit
>>> gory,
>>> but remember we don't have government-paid medicine here.
>>
>> I don't understand how that justifies it in any way.
>
> I don't understand what you need justified. She's not suing the dead
> kid. She's suing the dead kid's life insurance or whatever, to get paid
> for the damage caused by the dead kid.
>
Well, indeed, the lawyers of that country are turning things in strange
language.
I'm from an area where the death of one party automatically close all
the pending trials involving that person, as well as ending all
contracts (excepted the explicit death-related ones which changes phases).
At worst, the heirs could have a new issue raised on "profiting from the
behaviour or action of the deceased", but that would at best remove such
profit from the inheritance (assuming there is some heirs and an actual
inheritance).
> If he threw a ball at the train, and it bounced off and hit her and
> smashed up her face, you'd say "sure, she deserves to get reimbursed for
> that expense." The fact that it was a body part shouldn't make a
> difference.
>
As long as it remains alive, no difference from a ball or a body part.
As soon as he's dead, no difference either here: you cannot sue a dead
person.
Remember that old joke from US, where a lawyer gives the argument that
it was the right arm of the defendant that did it, so the sentence of
jail should apply to the right arm. Judge agrees (fool!!!), to discover
a few instant later that the defendant had a removable right arm...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.02.2012 22:11, schrieb Warp:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Picture yourself in that woman's position: One moment you are standing
>> on the platform thinking no harm and doing nothing wrong, next moment
>> you've got a broken leg and wrist; the hospital won't give you any care
>> unless they know who's paying; your medical insurance isn't, due to some
>> random loophole of the policy (so now you know why it was so cheap that
>> you could afford it); neither is the government, because hey, this is
>> America, so don't any government dare take from the rich and give to the
>> poor.
>
>> Bottom line: Unless you want to spend the future walking around with a
>> crippled leg and wrist, you've got to find /someone/ to blame for your
>> misfortune and force them to pay.
>
> So the solution to the problem of having a shitty healthcare system is
> to sue people around until someone else pays your medial bills?
>
> No, just no.
You're missing the point. That woman has no way of repairing the
healthcare system, so what else would you expect her to do than sue someone?
Having a shitty healthcare system sure doesn't excuse the US-American
society from being sue-happy - but can you not agree that it may excuse
some of the individuals filing those lawsuits?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I know a lady called Sue. She seldom seems happy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.02.2012 15:06, schrieb Invisible:
> I know a lady called Sue. She seldom seems happy...
Neither was the Boy Named Sue...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Not just "someone." The person who actually injured you. Don't hyperbole and
> it'll make more sense.
You make it sound like that person did it on purpose and hence is guilty
of a crime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including
> his debts.
Imagine someone is living his life just minding his own business,
doing his work, paying his taxes and contributing to society as a good
citizen. Then some official comes to him and says "hey, your uncle,
which you have never even heard of, just died and you are his only
heir, so you inherit everything." This guy is like "cool! How much do
I get?" "Nothing. Your uncle had ten millions in debt, and now it's
yours. I'm here to collect or put you in jail if you can't pay."
Nice.
(And no, I don't know how it's in Finland.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
