Reefer Wannabe
Premium Member
<--- Homer rules....
Gateway Aquatic
- Thread starter toungetwster
- Start date
rgpennell
New member
JxMetal - Another misconception about the case. Most people were under the impression that she was the driver in the drive-thru and placed the cup in between her legs as she drove away. She never placed the coffee cup between her legs. She wasn't the driver. The car pulled up and to the side so they could get situated with their food. The lid was not on properly and she ended up with scalding hot coffee on her crotch requiring surgery.
Mykakel - Punitive damages are absolutely necessary in the proper case and contrary to the common perception, they are very seldom awarded and even when they are they are generally taken away by the trial or appellate courts. Punitive damages are only to be used to punish behavior that is intentional or so reckless that is deemed intentional.
Let's take a hypothetical situation and see if you really believe what you think you mean. The new owners of the Post publish a front page story that your wife/daughter/girlfriend/mother (you pick) was found engaging in unnatural acts with goats and rabbits and the article is complete with photos (you know that these are of course doctored photos because the story is pure lies published to discredit your ___ for having come out against some public issue the Post in favor of. What are the actual damages? Can you really identify any specific compensatory damges? Not really. So its okay for them to do this and you should just suck it up? Hello punitive damages! But these kinds of things virtually never happen! Thats right, and punitive damages are seldom ever awarded so its a perfect match!
Several years ago Domino's had a 30 minute or its free guarantee which was resulting in numerous accidents because the drivers were dinged for not getting the pizzas there in time. During the trial a memo was introduced which showed that Dominos was not only aware that its policy was causing additional accidents, but that Dominos had evaluated the amount of additional revenue it felt it made as a result of the policy and compared that to the cost of paying on the accidents which was minimal since they required drivers to have their own cars with primary insurance so Dominos was only on the hook if it went over the drivers policy limit. The jury was outraged that Dominos would put profits over people's safety and awarded punitive damages but that is what business is supposed to do - maximize profits. The only way in which to ensure that they act responsibly is by letting them know that their is a potential negative economic impact on their business by failing to take these things into consideration.
You talk about accepting responsibility for your own actions but your definition of accepting responsibility essentially says that the injured should bear all the cost and those that contributed to the injury do not have to accept any responsibility for their actions. The law does not differentiate between these and holds everyone accountable for their actions in relation to the percent of responsibility their actions bear to the whole. How can that be deemed anything but fair?
Mykakel - Punitive damages are absolutely necessary in the proper case and contrary to the common perception, they are very seldom awarded and even when they are they are generally taken away by the trial or appellate courts. Punitive damages are only to be used to punish behavior that is intentional or so reckless that is deemed intentional.
Let's take a hypothetical situation and see if you really believe what you think you mean. The new owners of the Post publish a front page story that your wife/daughter/girlfriend/mother (you pick) was found engaging in unnatural acts with goats and rabbits and the article is complete with photos (you know that these are of course doctored photos because the story is pure lies published to discredit your ___ for having come out against some public issue the Post in favor of. What are the actual damages? Can you really identify any specific compensatory damges? Not really. So its okay for them to do this and you should just suck it up? Hello punitive damages! But these kinds of things virtually never happen! Thats right, and punitive damages are seldom ever awarded so its a perfect match!
Several years ago Domino's had a 30 minute or its free guarantee which was resulting in numerous accidents because the drivers were dinged for not getting the pizzas there in time. During the trial a memo was introduced which showed that Dominos was not only aware that its policy was causing additional accidents, but that Dominos had evaluated the amount of additional revenue it felt it made as a result of the policy and compared that to the cost of paying on the accidents which was minimal since they required drivers to have their own cars with primary insurance so Dominos was only on the hook if it went over the drivers policy limit. The jury was outraged that Dominos would put profits over people's safety and awarded punitive damages but that is what business is supposed to do - maximize profits. The only way in which to ensure that they act responsibly is by letting them know that their is a potential negative economic impact on their business by failing to take these things into consideration.
You talk about accepting responsibility for your own actions but your definition of accepting responsibility essentially says that the injured should bear all the cost and those that contributed to the injury do not have to accept any responsibility for their actions. The law does not differentiate between these and holds everyone accountable for their actions in relation to the percent of responsibility their actions bear to the whole. How can that be deemed anything but fair?
chadscamaro
New member
:lol: You gotta protect yourself these days !
Mykayel
New member
IMHO punative damages are unnessecary. They are designed to punish for behavior that is intentional or so reckless that it should be deamed as intentional. To me, if that is the case then it should be dealt as criminal, not just in the civil courts... such as manslaughter for a drunk driving accident. Make people responsible for thier actions, if they are too stupid to make reasonable decisions (such as driving drunk) then they should not be a part of society.
zt444a
New member
Ok, so god forbid that something happens to a loved one, and the offending person is removed and no longer a danger to society. Now what about the victim here? If it was my loved one, I'd want you to pay in every way possible. Revenge would not be the only motive, but I would think the hurt would be so profound that I'd want to basically squash you like a bug.
I'd remember something like that every living day... the emotional loss would be hard to get over.
jwalters103
Active member
i stopped by the other day as well. the store looks great, and definately the best prices on inverts in town
chadfarmer
Premium Member
how long till they lock this one
just remember new people dont know you are playing
just remember new people dont know you are playing
