Sue-whee
When unexpectly good things happen, should you sue? When someone has done you really wrong and another person has done you a little wrong, is it appropriate to focus your lawsuit on the one who only slightly wronged you because they have deeper pockets? Is a bad result always the sign of bad intentions or lack of competence?
It is the poor attorney who cannot find a way to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the one who his client wants to sue. Lawsuits against health care providers stopping to help at an accident scene have pretty much eliminated this humanitarian act. The lack of a person either using restraint or having the appropriate genetic makeup to self-restrain has led to suits against tobacco companies and gun manufacturers. The justifications are that "everyone has the right to sue" and "they have insurance".
Recently, a young girl, pronounced dead at an accident, was subsequently found to have survived in a case of mistaken identity. So, the family is suing the coroner who misidentified the dead girl. This same family probably pays to go to sporting events where their favorite team doesn't win and they neither demand their money back nor do they sue the team. Where did the infallibility of goods and services become the law of the land?
Misrepresentation, making the same mistake repeatedly, and actual malice should be the main sticking points in a law suit. And there should be proportional harm.
It is a crazy world when an attorney says, "The drunk driver crushed your daughter's car with his truck, disfiguring her for life and nearly killing her, but don't sue him because he has no money. Sue the coroner because he has money. He made an honest mistake looking at charred and dismembered remains, but he is the one to blame for your suffering, I can prove it, and we both will make a killing on this one!"
Too much suing is piggish. And tangling with an attorney can be like fighting with a pig. You both will get dirty but the pig will like it.
It is the poor attorney who cannot find a way to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the one who his client wants to sue. Lawsuits against health care providers stopping to help at an accident scene have pretty much eliminated this humanitarian act. The lack of a person either using restraint or having the appropriate genetic makeup to self-restrain has led to suits against tobacco companies and gun manufacturers. The justifications are that "everyone has the right to sue" and "they have insurance".
Recently, a young girl, pronounced dead at an accident, was subsequently found to have survived in a case of mistaken identity. So, the family is suing the coroner who misidentified the dead girl. This same family probably pays to go to sporting events where their favorite team doesn't win and they neither demand their money back nor do they sue the team. Where did the infallibility of goods and services become the law of the land?
Misrepresentation, making the same mistake repeatedly, and actual malice should be the main sticking points in a law suit. And there should be proportional harm.
It is a crazy world when an attorney says, "The drunk driver crushed your daughter's car with his truck, disfiguring her for life and nearly killing her, but don't sue him because he has no money. Sue the coroner because he has money. He made an honest mistake looking at charred and dismembered remains, but he is the one to blame for your suffering, I can prove it, and we both will make a killing on this one!"
Too much suing is piggish. And tangling with an attorney can be like fighting with a pig. You both will get dirty but the pig will like it.
posted by DocBrain at
4:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home