Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They don't have to care that's why they have liability insurance.
It's not a question of who violated the law, it's who is how much at fault? Kids parents definitely have some blame, that will be asserted.
All you said there was that you would sue someone and they'd pass the bill on to someone else, so you rationalized in your head that they wouldn't care.
So, to recap, in this situation, your kid would get injured through no fault of anyone, but you couldn't afford to pay the medical bill, so you'd blindly start suing people so that they will pay, and it's OK because they have insurance.
All you said there was that you would sue someone and they'd pass the bill on to someone else, so you rationalized in your head that they wouldn't care.
So, to recap, in this situation, your kid would get injured through no fault of anyone, but you couldn't afford to pay the medical bill, so you'd blindly start suing people so that they will pay, and it's OK because they have insurance.
Rationalized it in my head? This is the process. I'm explaining why it happens.
And we don't know that the kids injury is no fault of anybody else, that's what the court will determine. Usually a judgment or settlement will be reduced by the amount of comparative fault.
If the claimants didn't assert the claim, and their insurer paid the medical bills, they would assert the same claim as a subrogation action. Insurers aren't poor victims, this is a well oiled system for these exact problems.
From a policy standpoint insurance is a good thing.
Once you have them all involved, they can sweat the small stuff, the point is the kids medical bills got paid.
And that's important, because, you know, his dad is a SURGEON and the child has absolutely NO access to healthcare and no resources to pay for it . . . (turning off sarcasm)
Rationalized it in my head? This is the process. I'm explaining why it happens.
And we don't know that the kids injury is no fault of anybody else, that's what the court will determine. Usually a judgment or settlement will be reduced by the amount of comparative fault.
If the claimants didn't assert the claim, and their insurer paid the medical bills, they would assert the same claim as a subrogation action. Insurers aren't poor victims, this is a well oiled system for these exact problems.
From a policy standpoint insurance is a good thing.
We actually do know that the kid's injury is no fault of anybody else. He got his shoe caught in an escalator. It's like if your kid was running in your home and hit his head on a table. You'd be like "well, I should sue the manufacturers of the floor and the manufacturers of the table, since I cannot be certain they were not at fault and also I shouldn't have to pay for the bills. It's OK because they have insurance, too, so it doesn't hurt anyone. Why, I am such a good person!"
We actually do know that the kid's injury is no fault of anybody else. He got his shoe caught in an escalator. It's like if your kid was running in your home and hit his head on a table. You'd be like "well, I should sue the manufacturers of the floor and the manufacturers of the table, since I cannot be certain they were not at fault and also I shouldn't have to pay for the bills. It's OK because they have insurance, too, so it doesn't hurt anyone. Why, I am such a good person!"
My home isn't a public place with any expectation of safety to third parties. These aren't the same thing. I don't have any escalators in my home do you?
Your defense of insurers is admirable, as someone who's worked on behalf of insurers in these sorts of matters I promise they'll be okay.
My home isn't a public place with any expectation of safety to third parties. These aren't the same thing.
Your defense of insurers is admirable, as someone who's worked on behalf of insurers in these sorts of matters I promise they'll be okay.
Ah, so your basic defense is it's OK to do that in a public place. So, let's say you took your child to a library and they ran and hit their head on a table. Then you'd sue the library, the city, the manufacturer of the floor, the manufacturer of the table, and the librarian. And it would be OK because "don't worry, I work for insurers and they will be OK."
Ah, so your basic defense is it's OK to do that in a public place. So, let's say you took your child to a library and they ran and hit their head on a table. Then you'd sue the library, the city, the manufacturer of the floor, the manufacturer of the table, and the librarian. And it would be OK because "don't worry, I work for insurers and they will be OK."
Not my defense but the rules as they are, you seem to be getting awfully emotional about this.
And that's important, because, you know, his dad is a SURGEON and the child has absolutely NO access to healthcare and no resources to pay for it . . . (turning off sarcasm)
good point! after all the father can do the necessary surgery on the kitchen table at home
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.