SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (121585)9/13/2001 12:44:49 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor  Respond to of 436258
 
<<But I know lawyers . . . . sheesh.>>

Yes, and this is New York, the civil litigation capital of the free world, after all.

Sue who? Let's see, Boeing and the airlines (product liability for not having the pilots in a protected cockpit), owner's/managers of the WTC for that bone-headed loud-speaker announcement saying "all clear", private security firms at Logan contracted to do the safety checks, Embry-Riddle college where the terrorists apparently received Flight Training. And of course, the inevitable endless wrangling between the insurance companies and claimants, insurance companies vs. reinsurance companies, reinsurance companies vs reinsurance companies, families of the deceased vs life insurance companies, injured vs health insurance companies, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not a lawyer, just playing one on the thread.



To: Ilaine who wrote (121585)9/13/2001 12:46:18 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
<<The second attack was an independent, supervening cause, which in my opinion cut off the chain of causation. The announcement didn't cause the deaths, the attack did.>>

Yes, but the announcement caused a clear and obvious "loss of chance" for many who would have otherwise escaped. A valid point legally, no?