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.
Sorry, but if you are a minimum wage Wal-Mart worker your injury is not worth $1million. That is more than you would earn in a lifetime of work.
Without an actual situation to base the judgement on, it depends on what happened. Something truly terrible doesn't mean it's less important because the person worked at WalMart.
But it also doesn't mean the WalMart worker losing the ability to sue for a larger amount will lower costs for anyone else. It just means the insurance company keeps more profit. Half the states have tort reform already. Costs are not lower in those states.
Without an actual situation to base the judgement on, it depends on what happened. Something truly terrible doesn't mean it's less important because the person worked at WalMart.
Frivolous lawsuits and jackpot juries are the mating calls for the left.
Without an actual situation to base the judgement on, it depends on what happened. Something truly terrible doesn't mean it's less important because the person worked at WalMart.
But it also doesn't mean the WalMart worker losing the ability to sue for a larger amount will lower costs for anyone else. It just means the insurance company keeps more profit. Half the states have tort reform already. Costs are not lower in those states.
My point is that making someone "whole" again should not make them financially "better" than they would have on their own merits. If I wreck my car, the insurance company only makes my car drivable again. They don't upgrade me to a better model.
Frivolous lawsuits and jackpot juries are the mating calls for the left.
Here's a good example. The pharmaceutical company that created Oxycontin, knowing how addictive it was but saying it was not. The resulting costs that came from that affected people of every economic level but many were and are the poorest in the country. Do you think they should be limited to a small penalty when the costs to the country are practically beyond measure? Is Kentucky a liberal state?
The state of Kentucky may finally get its deliverance. After more than seven years of battling the evasive legal tactics of Purdue Pharma, 2015 may be the year that Kentucky and its attorney general, Jack Conway, are able to move forward with a civil lawsuit alleging that the drugmaker misled doctors and patients about their blockbuster pain pill OxyContin, leading to a vicious addiction epidemic across large swaths of the state.
My point is that making someone "whole" again should not make them financially "better" than they would have on their own merits. If I wreck my car, the insurance company only makes my car drivable again. They don't upgrade me to a better model.
Sometimes the lawsuit must do more. Look at how many people have died of heroin overdose starting back to when Oxycontin flooded the market in the 90s. Do you think other states should follow Kentucky's lead and go after the pharma company? What happened with Oxycontin doesn't get near the level of attention it should. How do you begin to calculate the costs to the country from what followed?
This is why a blanket "limit lawsuits" is not always the answer. And it will not lower health care costs, we've already seen it doesn't, so as an Obamacare alternative, it means nothing.
The state of Kentucky is continuing to fight OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma in state court. In a legal drama that’s moved back and forth between state and federal courts and involved multiple attorney generals, Kentucky is seeking justice for Purdue’s alleged illegal promotion of OxyContin.
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Sorry, but if you are a minimum wage Wal-Mart worker your injury is not worth $1million. That is more than you would earn in a lifetime of work.
So if that same worker, the day before had picked the winning PowerBall numbers and suddenly had $285m in the bank, NOW they can sue for $100m?
The max you can sue for is parallel to the size of your bank balance?
So if that same worker, the day before had picked the winning PowerBall numbers and suddenly had $285m in the bank, NOW they can sue for $100m?
The max you can sue for is parallel to the size of your bank balance?
When I worked in insurance I never dealt directly with death settlements but I'm aware of a few cases we had. The way the value is figured varies alot. Income, education, age, attractiveness, social deeds, family and personality were all used to varying degrees of effectiveness in the court cases I reviewed notes for.
Look at how many people have died of heroin overdose starting back to when Oxycontin flooded the market in the 90s.
So what? That's irrelevant to anything. You get prescribed a pain reliever and then when they stopped giving it to you, you went on heroin ...and that's the drug company's fault? That's as hilarious as those commercials where they say "patients on blood thinners, have you suffered from bleeding? If so, call the law firm of ..." OMG, I'm on a blood thinner and I ...I ...I bled?? Someone must pay!!
The max you can sue for is parallel to the size of your bank balance?
No, the max you can sue for is whatever you want. The only limiting factors are the quality of your case and how much time you have on your hands (because there are many frivolous cases that are settled for thousands of dollars just to get you to stop wasting the time of everyone else).
<sqwawk> Tort reform <sqwawk> Buy across state lines <sqwawk> I'll believe anything right wing media tells me because i'm on their team <sqwawk>
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.