If your regretted it, you agreed with the loss of the business, and jobs.
If your regretted it, you agreed with the loss of the business, and jobs.
That's an inane leap of logic. If I believed in the case, I would have blamed the negligent design of the can and the company's greed in refusing to expend the money necessary to retool the cans for the loss of jobs, not some horribly burned and disfigured child who happened to win some compensation.
I am not saying it is right, but I do think alot of people think that way. All it takes is one retard on the jury to convince everybody else that the company can afford it. We all finance them. I do not even know if blitz had liability insurance. I bet the jury didn't know either. It is because of people like this that sue to make up for their own stupidity that make insurance cost so outrageous.
I see JB's point on short sightedness. Most of you see 117 people without jobs. I am starting to see 117 civil suits filed against the people who forced the business to close causing financial hardships to the families of those no longer employed. Use the system against them.
One business that has prospered in light of all the litigious cases in courts. Warning Label manufactures!
What would be the case of action? Against whom would they file? The child plaintiff? No one to sue.
the cases would be financial hardship caused by there litigious actions. the suits would be filed against the plaintiffs responsible for causing the factory shutdown. the child didn't bring the suit against the manufacturer, her father/parents did. the argument could be raised that the family was able to put a monetary value on their daughter's life, apples to oranges, but the monetary value of lost money (apples to apples) could be proven. it's an extreme long shot, but this whole conversation shows that dumber cases have been allowed to be tried.
But come to think about it, if you make a gas can that makes it impossible to be stupid and pour gas on a fire, how would you be able to pour gas into a gas tank? The gas can is responsible for the users actions, well then the gun is responsible for the shooters actions, the fork did make me fat and my keeybored did make me misspell wurds.
Hey JB, sorry if this is a foolish question... the little girl was probably sent to the Shriners Children's Burn unit. They normally do not charge the family for their services. As the girl is a minor, her father will probably be the guardian of her settlement. How is this award protected so it is used only for her benefit? She will need repepitive grafting until she reaches adulthood so this award has to last her for a while.
Most states have a "friendly suit" provision. That is a settlement must be approved by a judge and placed in a trust for the minor. The parents aren't able to get to the money (which is usually a very good thing). Money is withdrawn by court approval.
Similar threads
