Some people are willing to sue over anything, but some lawsuits are just plain stupid. A NH family is suing Sea World due to the death of that trainer last year. The family isn't related to the trainer, they are suing due to son has been upset after seeing it happened. I know in the US we can pretty much sue anyone for anything, even if it gets thrown out of court for being frivolous but some people really need to think things through.
Lets just hope that a judge tosses the case out of court and orders the family into a mental ward.
News story
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Lets sue everything!!
Lets sue everything!!Follow
And here I thought the idea of going to Sea World was now more appealing, knowing there was a chance someone was going to die.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
you can see the death video on some Italian news website.. it's pretty graphic and I imagine traumatizing. However, I thought Sea World was offering to pay for counselling etc for people who witnessed it, what more do they need?
niobia wrote:
what more do they need?
An angle for businesses to sell papers?
I agree. Injuries and death are a common enough occurance...the family needs to take the time to work with their son and help him cope with what he witnessed. Traumatic events will happen to everyone. The world would be a pretty crazy place if we were all entitled to large payouts whenever they did. They're negative experiences by their nature...the only thing one should do is to try to learn from them and become a stronger person for it. One shouldn't profit from them.
Yeah, sure...
Edited, Mar 31st 2011 12:43am by Eske
Edited, Mar 31st 2011 12:49am by Eske
Quote:
Hill replied, "So, just to be clear, Mr. Overchuck, in this suit, you simply want to hear from SeaWorld some admittance. You're not necessarily looking for a financial payout here?"
Overchuck responded, "Well, the only way that a corporation can say I'm sorry is with the dollars that they earn every day."
Overchuck responded, "Well, the only way that a corporation can say I'm sorry is with the dollars that they earn every day."
Yeah, sure...
Edited, Mar 31st 2011 12:43am by Eske
Edited, Mar 31st 2011 12:49am by Eske
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Hill replied, "So, just to be clear, Mr. Overchuck, in this suit, you simply want to hear from SeaWorld some admittance. You're not necessarily looking for a financial payout here?"
Overchuck responded, "Well, the only way that a corporation can say I'm sorry is with the dollars that they earn every day."
Overchuck responded, "Well, the only way that a corporation can say I'm sorry is with the dollars that they earn every day."
Yeah, sure...
When they asked him that on the news there was a long pause mid response. And apparently before this lawsuit came out Sea World had received a call from an attorney claiming to be with the family that asked for 5k or would bring them to court. The family and current attorney deny this happened, I hope it did and the family gets a counter suit for extortion cause that would just be awesome.
I knew this thread was going to be stupid when I saw the title. The facts of the case aren't really given in any detail, so it's impossible to tell if it's a frivolous claim. How damaged is the kid? The mother's description is vague and unsubstantiated (though, of course, no amount of mental trauma would be accepted as sufficient by people like niobia, because the worst consequence of that is counselling. Obviously).
Of course, the entire thing is unsubstantiated. For all purposes, this is the same stock story we always get from the media with a few blanks filled in - litigation gone MAD!! A great bit of outrage **** for those who's prejudices are being validated, I'm sure, but it's not news.
Well, great, you disagree wuth the very concept of tort law - I think, I mean, it's kind of hard to tell because of your raging mental diability coupled with your total ignorance of civil law.
Of course, the entire thing is unsubstantiated. For all purposes, this is the same stock story we always get from the media with a few blanks filled in - litigation gone MAD!! A great bit of outrage **** for those who's prejudices are being validated, I'm sure, but it's not news.
Quote:
I agree. Injuries and death are a common enough occurance...the family needs to take the time to work with their son and help him cope with what he witnessed. Traumatic events will happen to everyone. The world would be a pretty crazy place if we were all entitled to large payouts whenever they did. They're negative experiences by their nature...the only thing one should do is to try to learn from them and become a stronger person for it. One shouldn't profit from them.
Well, great, you disagree wuth the very concept of tort law - I think, I mean, it's kind of hard to tell because of your raging mental diability coupled with your total ignorance of civil law.
Kavekk wrote:
I knew this thread was going to be stupid when I saw the title. The facts of the case aren't really given in any detail, so it's impossible to tell if it's a frivolous claim. How damaged is the kid? The mother's description is vague and unsubstantiated (though, of course, no amount of mental trauma would be accepted as sufficient by people like niobia, because the worst consequence of that is counselling. Obviously).
Of course, the entire thing is unsubstantiated. For all purposes, this is the same stock story we always get from the media with a few blanks filled in - litigation gone MAD!! A great bit of outrage **** for those who's prejudices are being validated, I'm sure, but it's not news.
Well, great, you disagree wuth the very concept of tort law - I think, I mean, it's kind of hard to tell because of your raging mental diability coupled with your total ignorance of civil law.
Of course, the entire thing is unsubstantiated. For all purposes, this is the same stock story we always get from the media with a few blanks filled in - litigation gone MAD!! A great bit of outrage **** for those who's prejudices are being validated, I'm sure, but it's not news.
Quote:
I agree. Injuries and death are a common enough occurance...the family needs to take the time to work with their son and help him cope with what he witnessed. Traumatic events will happen to everyone. The world would be a pretty crazy place if we were all entitled to large payouts whenever they did. They're negative experiences by their nature...the only thing one should do is to try to learn from them and become a stronger person for it. One shouldn't profit from them.
Well, great, you disagree wuth the very concept of tort law - I think, I mean, it's kind of hard to tell because of your raging mental diability coupled with your total ignorance of civil law.
Well aren't you in a pissy mood today!
I admit that I'm not much of a law buff. Based on my limited understanding of it, no, I don't think third parties should be entitled to payouts due to mental trauma. If that runs afoul of civil law, then so be it.
How about you not be a waste of oxygen and provide evidence that supports this being more than frivolous?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
How about you not be a waste of oxygen and provide evidence that supports this being more than frivolous?
Do you have some kind of brain problem? I never said it wasn't frivolous, I said there wasn't enough information to say either way.
Quote:
I knew this thread was going to be stupid when I saw the title. The facts of the case aren't really given in any detail, so it's impossible to tell if it's a frivolous claim.
I think I was quite clear about that, really.
If you understand that but still expect me to give you what you're asking for then, again, do you have some kind of brain problem?
That's what I thought, too lazy.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's what I thought, too lazy.
To fly over to the United States and rifle through a family's affairs like some mental cross between a PI and an investigative journalist, just to satisfy your curiosity? Yeah, I suppose I am.
How unreasonable of me.
Actually, I just heard yesterday that they're about to put the orca back into it's regular shows, and that the same bull has killed THREE people, not just one. 
Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and do a little Free Willy.
Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and do a little Free Willy.
Kavekk wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's what I thought, too lazy.
To fly over to the United States and rifle through a family's affairs like some mental cross between a PI and an investigative journalist, just to satisfy your curiosity? Yeah, I suppose I am.
How unreasonable of me.
You wouldn't have to worry about the nearness principle...
Guenny wrote:
Actually, I just heard yesterday that they're about to put the orca back into it's regular shows, and that the same bull has killed THREE people, not just one.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
They can sue for negligence, and mental anguish if they can get an independent psychiatric specialist to vouch for them.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
They can sue for negligence, and mental anguish if they can get an independent psychiatric specialist to vouch for them.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Timelordwho wrote:
They can sue for negligence, and mental anguish if they can get an independent psychiatric specialist to vouch for them.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
This is true but typically if the party suing for these isn't either victim of the attack or a family member courts will tend to toss. Imagine every time there is a horrible car accident that everyone that witnessed tried to sue because of mental trauma even if they had nothing to do with the accident. The family does have a RIGHT to sue, doesn't mean it will get anywhere and will likely be tossed as frivolous.
Tyrrant wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
They can sue for negligence, and mental anguish if they can get an independent psychiatric specialist to vouch for them.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
This is true but typically if the party suing for these isn't either victim of the attack or a family member courts will tend to toss. Imagine every time there is a horrible car accident that everyone that witnessed tried to sue because of mental trauma even if they had nothing to do with the accident. The family does have a RIGHT to sue, doesn't mean it will get anywhere and will likely be tossed as frivolous.
That was my thinking as well.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Actually, I just heard yesterday that they're about to put the orca back into it's regular shows, and that the same bull has killed THREE people, not just one.
What? That has no bearing. It's relevant to the question of whether SeaWorld was negligent in the first place, but that wasn't what everyone was disputing. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but there are plenty of stupid people here so I'll say this anyway.
I mean, there are a few things I could do that might tell me whether the claim has any merit - bone up on the law of whatever state it happend in, for a start - that I'm not doing, but come on, if you're going to call me out you have to at least correctly identify them.
Ugly wrote:
I think the mental anguish aspect will depend on how far their "we'll pay for counseling" goes.
A successful claim would render SeaWorld liable for any forseeeable/proximate damage.
Tyrrant wrote:
This is true but typically if the party suing for these isn't either victim of the attack or a family member courts will tend to toss. Imagine every time there is a horrible car accident that everyone that witnessed tried to sue because of mental trauma even if they had nothing to do with the accident. The family does have a RIGHT to sue, doesn't mean it will get anywhere and will likely be tossed as frivolous.
In English law, certainly, there has to be a close personal tie between the primary victim (the guy killed) and the 3rd party claimant for a successful nervous shock claim. NIED in the US is not as restrictive.
Fifth Musketeer wrote:
Well aren't you in a pissy mood today!
I admit that I'm not much of a law buff. Based on my limited understanding of it, no, I don't think third parties should be entitled to payouts due to mental trauma. If that runs afoul of civil law, then so be it.
I admit that I'm not much of a law buff. Based on my limited understanding of it, no, I don't think third parties should be entitled to payouts due to mental trauma. If that runs afoul of civil law, then so be it.
OK, that's much more reasonable than what you seemed to be saying.
Edited, Mar 31st 2011 6:38pm by Kavekk
Okay, I actually read the article and noticed a few things.
First, this was posted in August 2010... it's olde **** and has likely been settled by now.
Second, it's very poorly written.
Finally, am I the only one who thinks that this isn't about the money? According to the crappy article, they're only asking for 5k which is peanuts to a company like SeaWorld. It's just a nominal sum, nothing more.
First, this was posted in August 2010... it's olde **** and has likely been settled by now.
Second, it's very poorly written.
Finally, am I the only one who thinks that this isn't about the money? According to the crappy article, they're only asking for 5k which is peanuts to a company like SeaWorld. It's just a nominal sum, nothing more.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Quote:
Finally, am I the only one who thinks that this isn't about the money? According to the crappy article, they're only asking for 5k which is peanuts to a company like SeaWorld. It's just a nominal sum, nothing more.
Yeah, but if they lose in court they are vulnerable to others, the best course would be to settle out 5k.
Even if they think a suit has next to no chance.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Finally, am I the only one who thinks that this isn't about the money? According to the crappy article, they're only asking for 5k which is peanuts to a company like SeaWorld. It's just a nominal sum, nothing more.
Yeah, but if they lose in court they are vulnerable to others, the best course would be to settle out 5k.
Even if they think a suit has next to no chance.
That's true, but my point was more to defend the family. I can understand why SeaWorld would fight it, but I also understand why the family is pursuing it.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Eske Esquire wrote:
Tyrrant wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
They can sue for negligence, and mental anguish if they can get an independent psychiatric specialist to vouch for them.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
Neither of these angles are frivolous.
This is true but typically if the party suing for these isn't either victim of the attack or a family member courts will tend to toss. Imagine every time there is a horrible car accident that everyone that witnessed tried to sue because of mental trauma even if they had nothing to do with the accident. The family does have a RIGHT to sue, doesn't mean it will get anywhere and will likely be tossed as frivolous.
That was my thinking as well.
This.
Man up, people. Life sucks, wear a helmet.
I wonder if they are hoping that Sea World will offer a settlement to shut them up..
niobia wrote:
I wonder if they are hoping that Sea World will offer a settlement to shut them up..
They'll probably let the kid swim with the orca whenever he wants.
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Recent Visitors: 207
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (207)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Lets sue everything!!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC