OK, so it seems you might be OK with an upper limit, but my suggestion of $10,000,000 is too low, I can understand that. So lets say we agree on a number somewhere between 10,000,000 and 3,000,000,000,000,000. Hopefully it will be a lot closer to the 10,000,000. Either way, forcing the plaintiff to have to pay similar penalties to the defendant if the case is lost or thrown out would probably limit a lot of these types of lawsuits.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:43 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Class action lawsuits where the company has been polluting for years and > has covered up the fact. You buy a new home at a nice location. A couple of > years later you have a kid who is horribly malformed. Then you discover its > due to pollutants seeping into your house. Your neighbours discover the same > thing. > > In this case $10,000,000 is not going to cover the costs by a long shot. > > btw look up the Love Canal case - what I described is what happened there. > > Or how about this example, you make over 100,000 per year. Because of the > manufacturer's negligence your seatbelt fails in an accident and you're left > with serious brain injuries that prevent you from working, and leaves you > with medical bills of much more than 500,000, and annual care costs > exceeding 100,000. Your arbitrary cap will not cover that. Moverover for a > lot of companies, 10,000,000 may be chump change - think of Dupont Chemical > or microSoft. > > >I said 10,000,000 not 10,000. If 10,000,000 is not enough to cover > >'damages' then I think there are bigger issues. I have no issue with > making > >companies pay for wrong doing, but I think suing a dry cleaners for > >$5,000,000 because they lost your pants or suing McDonalds because the > >coffee they served you was hot and you spilled it while trying to drive > and > >drink it at the same time is just a tad bit over board. > > > >Also, I don't think what I said would be considered 'whining'. I merely > was > >trying to state that maybe our tax dollars could be better spent than > >muddling through obviously frivolous lawsuits like the 3 quadrillion > dollar > >lawsuit, like maybe rebuilding the levees the right way. But I guess > its > >better that we cower to these lawsuits than actually try to fix the > >problem. > > There are already mechanisms to cover frivolous lawsuits. > > > > >Anyone who willingly (key word there is WILLINGLY) lives in a coastal > city > >that is, on average, 6 feet below sea level and has their house flooded > will > >get no sympathy from me and should only be able to sue Mother Nature for > >their losses. > > > > Yeah right, if you have the money and wherewithall to move. Many of those > left in NO had no cars, and no money. So where could they go. Given what you > just said I'm surprised you don't advocate making poverty a capital crime > and shooting the poor. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250428 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
