Shooting victim at least year's NBA All-Star Game (1 Viewer)

[Kinger]

The lady in question also required 3 or 4 skin grafts. Although it sounds stupid of the customer, if you read up on the actuall facts you would find that McDonald's was at fault.

So then, are you saying that if she didn't require that, then McDonalds would not have been at fault or that the jury would have decided differently? Otherwise, there was no reason for you to point that out, if indeed the facts were all that was needed. Unless, of course, you are looking to exploit the emotional aspect of it. Any good lawyer will exploit any angle he can. That doesn't mean the case is decided correctly. Thanks for helping reinforce my point.

Why did you find it necessary to attribute thayman's statement to me?

Because I can't cut and trim properly. When tried to edit it down to what I was addressing, I lost the 'quote' header and went back to correct it in the edit. I scrolled up too far and thought I was responding to you. I see that was incorrect.Sorry. :(

 

[thayman]

The lady in question also required 3 or 4 skin grafts. Although it sounds stupid of the customer, if you read up on the actuall facts you would find that McDonald's was at fault.

So then, are you saying that if she didn't require that, then McDonalds would not have been at fault or that the jury would have decided differently? Otherwise, there was no reason for you to point that out, if indeed the facts were all that was needed. Unless, of course, you are looking to exploit the emotional aspect of it. Any good lawyer will exploit any angle he can. That doesn't mean the case is decided correctly. Thanks for helping reinforce my point.re-edit to attribute the quote to its proper owner...

It's not emotional at all. Since you are too lazy to look it up here is the cliffnotes.She suffered 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body and was hospitialized for 8 days while she under went skin grafting, two years of treatment followed. That's not emotional, that's coffee that was too damn hot.Her medical bills were $11,000 she first tried to sue for $20,000 McDonald's offered to settle for $800.During the trial McDonald's documents showed that between 1982-1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.She was initially awarded 2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $680,000 after an appeal sometime in 1995 McDonalds and the lady settled out of court for less than $600K

 

[redman]

I'm fairly sure you are an attorney, right? You really think this guy should be disbarred? Come on..

After dealing with "attorneys" like this for ten years, yes.

Your "bar" (sorry for that) for those that should be allowed to practice the profession is quite high, no?

Not at all.

So if you bring a suit that does not withstand a "motion to dismiss" you should be disbarred?

Where did he say that. I can't speak for Christo, but speaking for myself (and I would suspect Christo as well), every frivolous case should fall victim to a motion to dismiss, but not every situation where a motion to dismiss is granted is frivolous. If your head's exploding I'll try to do a Venn diagram in HTML for you.

 

[Christo]

I'm fairly sure you are an attorney, right? You really think this guy should be disbarred? Come on..

After dealing with "attorneys" like this for ten years, yes.

Your "bar" (sorry for that) for those that should be allowed to practice the profession is quite high, no?

Not at all.

So if you bring a suit that does not withstand a "motion to dismiss" you should be disbarred?

Your logic is impeccable.

 

[Christo]

The lady in question also required 3 or 4 skin grafts. Although it sounds stupid of the customer, if you read up on the actuall facts you would find that McDonald's was at fault.

So then, are you saying that if she didn't require that, then McDonalds would not have been at fault or that the jury would have decided differently? Otherwise, there was no reason for you to point that out, if indeed the facts were all that was needed. Unless, of course, you are looking to exploit the emotional aspect of it. Any good lawyer will exploit any angle he can. That doesn't mean the case is decided correctly. Thanks for helping reinforce my point.

Why did you find it necessary to attribute thayman's statement to me?

Because I can't cut and trim properly. When tried to edit it down to what I was addressing, I lost the 'quote' header and went back to correct it in the edit. I scrolled up too far and thought I was responding to you. I see that was incorrect.Sorry.

 

[FUBAR]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

How many times do I have to say I think the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit? I'm the OP here!! All I've said is that reading the story a little further that from an intellectual perspective it is a creative argument. Nobody is nominating this guy for lawyer of the year or anything. And you really think this guy should be stripped of his profession and no longer be allowed to bring a living because he brings this type of action? Seriously?

I understand that you think the lawsuit is frivolous and you admire his creativity. I never said you think it's a good suit. Yes, it's creative. So was hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC and Pentagon. So were the arguments for invading Iraq and the acceptance of torture, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo. My "disbarred" comment is overreaching, but the NFL should file a bar complaint.

ETA: how much more can we throw in here before we're moved to the FFA?

 

[tikitime]

I'm fairly sure you are an attorney, right? You really think this guy should be disbarred? Come on..

After dealing with "attorneys" like this for ten years, yes.

Your "bar" (sorry for that) for those that should be allowed to practice the profession is quite high, no?

Not at all.

So if you bring a suit that does not withstand a "motion to dismiss" you should be disbarred?

Where did he say that. I can't speak for Christo, but speaking for myself (and I would suspect Christo as well), every frivolous case should fall victim to a motion to dismiss, but not every situation where a motion to dismiss is granted is frivolous. If your head's exploding I'll try to do a Venn diagram in HTML for you.

*BOOM*I recognize my earlier statement was a bit broad, but nevertheless doesn't disbarring someone for bringing one frivolous action seem ridiculous. I know that in bringing claims in the past I raised some issues that I thought had little chances of succeeding. But it is bad lawyering if you don't bring claims that you think have at least a remote chance of succeeding. Disbarring an attorney under these circumstances is plain silly.BTW, is there a book where I can learn to write like you in as condescending a tone as possible? Please send a PM. TIA

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

How many times do I have to say I think the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit? I'm the OP here!! All I've said is that reading the story a little further that from an intellectual perspective it is a creative argument. Nobody is nominating this guy for lawyer of the year or anything. And you really think this guy should be stripped of his profession and no longer be allowed to bring a living because he brings this type of action? Seriously?

I understand that you think the lawsuit is frivolous and you admire his creativity. I never said you think it's a good suit. Yes, it's creative. So was hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC and Pentagon. So were the arguments for invading Iraq and the acceptance of torture, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo. My "disbarred" comment is overreaching, but the NFL should file a bar complaint.

ETA: how much more can we throw in here before we're moved to the FFA?

This falls under the Bill Mahre "One thing you have to say about the killers, they weren't cowards" comment immediately post 9/11 that he got lambasted for. I agreed with him 100%, and thought the uproar at the time was ridiculous.

 

[redman]

This falls under the Bill Mahre "One thing you have to say about the killers, they weren't cowards" comment immediately post 9/11 that he got lambasted for. I agreed with him 100%, and thought the uproar at the time was ridiculous.

Let's also make sure to praise all those brave SS troops while we're at it. Oh, and don't forget to savor John Wayne Gacy's great makeup job.

 

[tikitime]

This falls under the Bill Mahre "One thing you have to say about the killers, they weren't cowards" comment immediately post 9/11 that he got lambasted for. I agreed with him 100%, and thought the uproar at the time was ridiculous.

Let's also make sure to praise all those brave SS troops while we're at it. Oh, and don't forget to savor John Wayne Gacy's great makeup job.

Apparently you took "Slippery Slope Argumentation 101". Bully for you.

 

[Chaka]

Sitting back and admiring the chaos.

 

[Christo]

I recognize my earlier statement was a bit broad, but nevertheless doesn't disbarring someone for bringing one frivolous action seem ridiculous.

If you think it's his first time you're kidding yourself.

I know that in bringing claims in the past I raised some issues that I thought had little chances of succeeding. But it is bad lawyering if you don't bring claims that you think have at least a remote chance of succeeding. Disbarring an attorney under these circumstances is plain silly.

Ah, yes. The old zealous representation defense for the "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" litigation strategy. We'd like the thank the plaintiffs' bar for its input.

BTW, is there a book where I can learn to write like you in as condescending a tone as possible? Please send a PM. TIA

Looks like you don't need any help with that.