Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (44880)	7/11/1999 2:23:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

FT, the accident is Henry Ford's fault. If he never invented the automobile it would not have happened. Jim

To: Father Terrence who wrote (44880)	7/11/1999 6:29:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<The majority of the responsibility lies with the drunk driver who smashed into them at 70 mph.>> There was a case in Chicago about 8 years ago where a guy who was blind drunk went off the tollway while speeding. He was thrown from his vehicle because he was not wearing his belt even though it was the law. He was quite a ways from the road and a guy wire to a telephone pole cut his head off. Drunk, speeding and no belt and the pole was on right of way ground and his family collected $20 million from GTE. I think the way they are doing liability in Florida where the responsibility is shared makes sense. Ambulance chasers don't like it much though. I had a lawyer tell me that a cast is worth a $10,000 settlement no matter what.

To: Father Terrence who wrote (44880)	7/25/1999 1:47:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Whether a drunk smashed into them is totally irrelevant (although it is predictable why you would think differently). Had their car not had the defective gas tank, the result would not have been such a disaster. Had the car manufacturer not made a cold business calculation that it was cheaper to pay off the families of the dead and injured than fix the defect, they would not have been morally culpable. I think all sorts of personal injury suits are stupid, particularly the ones where the people who got injured did something stupid themselves. However, in this case they did not.