Quantcast

Guest car accident in parking lot

INNspiring.com | Innkeeper Forum & Innkeeping Resources

Help Support INNspiring.com | Innkeeper Forum & Innkeeping Resources:

seashanty

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
5,718
Reaction score
46
... please ask your insurance company ... best way to find out.
little b&b down the road ... and i do mean little ... 3 guest rooms ... 1 private bath, one shared. there was an accident in her driveway. she learned there is a claim she is partly at fault because of inadequate lighting and inadequate space for turnarounds at maximum occupancy and failing to provide something ... i don't have the exact words. it's a sweet little place. and the accident was in the middle of the day ~ so how someone can speak of inadequate lighting is beyond me. it's like someone went out there and wrote down everything they could think of. i believe it's the insurance companies that are fighting over who should pay.
 

Copperhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
5,968
Reaction score
0
Question to Moose Trax - Did anything ever happen with this?
 

Tim_Toad_HLB

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
585
Reaction score
0
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
 

Copperhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
5,968
Reaction score
0
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
 

gillumhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
214
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
.
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
AMEN!!
 

Tim_Toad_HLB

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
585
Reaction score
0
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
.
Copperhead said:
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Or without enormously high staked motivation to keep things just the way they are.
Sure, we commoners get a crumb thrown our way like some much ballyhoed hot coffee case and it convinces just enough of the gullible and uninformed out there to keep doing the bidding for interests they have absolutely nothing in common with and never will, but that's the beauty of America.
We're all "FREE" to defend a system that protects and insulates folks like Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky until their crimes become so egregious that even they just must be brought to justice and get their little slap on the wrist.
Actually, I think the giant corporations who end up saving enormous amounts of money due to the chilling effect of lopsided tort "reform" are and always have been the big winners.
Do you honestly think that Exxon after having its Valdez fines, penalties and civil judgments slashed to a fraction of what they started out as wasn't ultimately the big winner in that particular case?
How about the 35,000 or so fishermen, tourism related businesses (like small, independently owned, local B&Bs?), etc.. who got a fraction of redress for their actual damages?
And it only took them 20 years and a despoiled environment to find out they were ultimately gonna get the shaft.
Ah, who cares, its better to protect the ultra rich and powerful at all costs.
Cause you just never know when one of us is gonna become a billionaire.

 

gillumhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
214
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
.
Copperhead said:
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Or without enormously high staked motivation to keep things just the way they are.
Sure, we commoners get a crumb thrown our way like some much ballyhoed hot coffee case and it convinces just enough of the gullible and uninformed out there to keep doing the bidding for interests they have absolutely nothing in common with and never will, but that's the beauty of America.
We're all "FREE" to defend a system that protects and insulates folks like Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky until their crimes become so egregious that even they just must be brought to justice and get their little slap on the wrist.
Actually, I think the giant corporations who end up saving enormous amounts of money due to the chilling effect of lopsided tort "reform" are and always have been the big winners.
Do you honestly think that Exxon after having its Valdez fines, penalties and civil judgments slashed to a fraction of what they started out as wasn't ultimately the big winner in that particular case?
How about the 35,000 or so fishermen, tourism related businesses (like small, independently owned, local B&Bs?), etc.. who got a fraction of redress for their actual damages?
And it only took them 20 years and a despoiled environment to find out they were ultimately gonna get the shaft.
Ah, who cares, its better to protect the ultra rich and powerful at all costs.
Cause you just never know when one of us is gonna become a billionaire.

.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Did it ever occur to anyone that not all lawsuits are poor common schmuck vs the big bd wolf? I have seen suits filed against my City (and it is not any big rich bad wolf by any means) because they know the insurance company will settle for $500 to $1000 to get rid of the nusance. And since when is any of us who pay insurance rates up the hoohaa because of liability issues a rich bad wolf?
I have nothing against rich people. I want them to come to my inn and leave money behind. It takes rich people to create jobs. And (gasp) some of these rich people actually got rich because they WORKED!! I do believe we have had enough tirades about the big bad rich and rich companies and how they damage the environment. I have seen some very expensive clean-ups by companies - and yes, there HAS been a lot of toxic stuff. But I hate to burst anyone's bubbles, but I have seen more than a little environmental damage done buy average joes (not Bloggs) with cigarette butts, spitting wherever they wish and whenever, tossing tires in creeks (and not just here in WV, in Illinois and some of those supposedly educated States), etc. Nuff said!
 

Tim_Toad_HLB

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
585
Reaction score
0
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
.
Copperhead said:
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Or without enormously high staked motivation to keep things just the way they are.
Sure, we commoners get a crumb thrown our way like some much ballyhoed hot coffee case and it convinces just enough of the gullible and uninformed out there to keep doing the bidding for interests they have absolutely nothing in common with and never will, but that's the beauty of America.
We're all "FREE" to defend a system that protects and insulates folks like Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky until their crimes become so egregious that even they just must be brought to justice and get their little slap on the wrist.
Actually, I think the giant corporations who end up saving enormous amounts of money due to the chilling effect of lopsided tort "reform" are and always have been the big winners.
Do you honestly think that Exxon after having its Valdez fines, penalties and civil judgments slashed to a fraction of what they started out as wasn't ultimately the big winner in that particular case?
How about the 35,000 or so fishermen, tourism related businesses (like small, independently owned, local B&Bs?), etc.. who got a fraction of redress for their actual damages?
And it only took them 20 years and a despoiled environment to find out they were ultimately gonna get the shaft.
Ah, who cares, its better to protect the ultra rich and powerful at all costs.
Cause you just never know when one of us is gonna become a billionaire.

.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Did it ever occur to anyone that not all lawsuits are poor common schmuck vs the big bd wolf? I have seen suits filed against my City (and it is not any big rich bad wolf by any means) because they know the insurance company will settle for $500 to $1000 to get rid of the nusance. And since when is any of us who pay insurance rates up the hoohaa because of liability issues a rich bad wolf?
I have nothing against rich people. I want them to come to my inn and leave money behind. It takes rich people to create jobs. And (gasp) some of these rich people actually got rich because they WORKED!! I do believe we have had enough tirades about the big bad rich and rich companies and how they damage the environment. I have seen some very expensive clean-ups by companies - and yes, there HAS been a lot of toxic stuff. But I hate to burst anyone's bubbles, but I have seen more than a little environmental damage done buy average joes (not Bloggs) with cigarette butts, spitting wherever they wish and whenever, tossing tires in creeks (and not just here in WV, in Illinois and some of those supposedly educated States), etc. Nuff said!
.
gillumhouse said:
But I hate to burst anyone's bubbles, but I have seen more than a little environmental damage done buy average joes (not Bloggs) with cigarette butts, spitting wherever they wish and whenever, tossing tires in creeks (and not just here in WV, in Illinois and some of those supposedly educated States), etc. Nuff said!
Spoken like a loyal coal country, company town citizen.
Sorry, but if forced to choose, I'll gladly take the far less impactful but a little unsightful mess of all the world's average joes combined, compared to even what just the West Viriginia coal industry has done to this planet.
I've been through your partially beautiful state several times and have seen what passes for "cleaned up" mining sites.
I think the wisest thing you stated was "nuff said!" and I'll leave it at that forever.
 

gillumhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
15,609
Reaction score
214
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
.
Copperhead said:
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Or without enormously high staked motivation to keep things just the way they are.
Sure, we commoners get a crumb thrown our way like some much ballyhoed hot coffee case and it convinces just enough of the gullible and uninformed out there to keep doing the bidding for interests they have absolutely nothing in common with and never will, but that's the beauty of America.
We're all "FREE" to defend a system that protects and insulates folks like Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky until their crimes become so egregious that even they just must be brought to justice and get their little slap on the wrist.
Actually, I think the giant corporations who end up saving enormous amounts of money due to the chilling effect of lopsided tort "reform" are and always have been the big winners.
Do you honestly think that Exxon after having its Valdez fines, penalties and civil judgments slashed to a fraction of what they started out as wasn't ultimately the big winner in that particular case?
How about the 35,000 or so fishermen, tourism related businesses (like small, independently owned, local B&Bs?), etc.. who got a fraction of redress for their actual damages?
And it only took them 20 years and a despoiled environment to find out they were ultimately gonna get the shaft.
Ah, who cares, its better to protect the ultra rich and powerful at all costs.
Cause you just never know when one of us is gonna become a billionaire.

.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Did it ever occur to anyone that not all lawsuits are poor common schmuck vs the big bd wolf? I have seen suits filed against my City (and it is not any big rich bad wolf by any means) because they know the insurance company will settle for $500 to $1000 to get rid of the nusance. And since when is any of us who pay insurance rates up the hoohaa because of liability issues a rich bad wolf?
I have nothing against rich people. I want them to come to my inn and leave money behind. It takes rich people to create jobs. And (gasp) some of these rich people actually got rich because they WORKED!! I do believe we have had enough tirades about the big bad rich and rich companies and how they damage the environment. I have seen some very expensive clean-ups by companies - and yes, there HAS been a lot of toxic stuff. But I hate to burst anyone's bubbles, but I have seen more than a little environmental damage done buy average joes (not Bloggs) with cigarette butts, spitting wherever they wish and whenever, tossing tires in creeks (and not just here in WV, in Illinois and some of those supposedly educated States), etc. Nuff said!
.
gillumhouse said:
But I hate to burst anyone's bubbles, but I have seen more than a little environmental damage done buy average joes (not Bloggs) with cigarette butts, spitting wherever they wish and whenever, tossing tires in creeks (and not just here in WV, in Illinois and some of those supposedly educated States), etc. Nuff said!
Spoken like a loyal coal country, company town citizen.
Sorry, but if forced to choose, I'll gladly take the far less impactful but a little unsightful mess of all the world's average joes combined, compared to even what just the West Viriginia coal industry has done to this planet.
I've been through your partially beautiful state several times and have seen what passes for "cleaned up" mining sites.
I think the wisest thing you stated was "nuff said!" and I'll leave it at that forever.
.
Hmmmmm. Any time someone does not agree with your tirades we are tagged as being - lets see, yes this time I am a loyal coal country, coal town citizen - or whatever it was you took off at Joe Bloggs about and then Samster. Look, Buster, that is how pompass asses get big. The good people shut up because they do not want to make waves. You do not know jack squat about me or you would never say that.
My State is not partially beautiful - the whole place is beautiful. Mine reclamation areas HAVE been turned into good things and high walls are not permitted to exist any longer. Yes, coal, gas, oil, and timber raped my State - many times over. But our people stood up on their hind legs as we say here and got some changes made. It galls me to have to admit that one political party outnumbers the other by 2 to 1 (is actually down from 3 to 1) and although they keep putting the same hacks back in office every election on a State & local level, they are not completely stupid.
I am NOT going to be silent. Coal is an important industry. It keeps power plants running and it supports a lot of families. The coal companies no longer have the control they once did. You can put any name to the industry that was in a one industry town or State and you have the same situation. In New England it used to be the woolen mills and the textile industry. In some towns it was the shoe industry. Here it happened to be King Coal. In my Ohio Valley steel and potteries were king. You worked in the mill or in the pottery.
My city was never a "company town", TOAD. It was always the retail center. It had coal mines all around, gas wells and oil wells and timbering around us too - and we had the railroad go through - my house belonged to the station agent. The company towns were all around us and this is where they came for movies, schools, shopping beyond the company stores.
We hit hard times when the coal mines sut down and the glass factories closed. But we came back and diversified. We still have a few mines and a lot of miners. But we also have college professors, well tenders, power company workers - people who just get by because here people are content if they can answer, "How are you doing?" with, "I am getting by." We are not angry at the world. We are West Virginians and proud of it. Most can tell you the date of West Virginia's birthday and you will see more people wearing West Virginia or a big WV across their chest or back or hat and more than a few cars have the big WV on them. We may be broke but we are not poor. We are a people who are happy to be living in almost heaven because we know what that means. Because, yes, we are a GOD-loving people. You will usually find more churches in out towns than you will find bars. (We probably have a gambling parlor in most back rooms but the former Governor thought that would get him a balanced budget.) We have our warts like any State. You can bad mouth me all you want - but do not, I repeat DO NOT EVER disparage my State!
 

sharpe

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
We had a guest who owns a very upmarket hotel in Paris park his very expensive car in our carpark. He has stayed many times before. In the night, a storm with high winds sent a big branch crashing down on his hood or as we say "bonnet". In spite of the fact that we have a sign in our carpark that says guests park at their own risk and we are not liable for any damage AND a guest registration card that HE signed that states the same thing, he wanted our insurance company to pay. He was furious when we refused to submit the claim and didn't come back for two years. He has now come back. What really bothered me is that I know he wouldn't have paid up if the same thing happened in his hotel.
 

Copperhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
5,968
Reaction score
0
This matter would be between the 2 parties involved, not you.
I had asked my insurance agent a hypothetical question regarding something along these lines and was told that "that is what they have car insurance for" and that we should never state anything or show any emotion or guilt. But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can..
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
But as someone else pointed out - in this sue happy world we live in today, anyone can be sued for anything (or nothing) so protect yourself (and your B&B) as much as you can.
I don't know why this fallacy keeps getting perpetuated by very smart people.
According to actual court filing records in all districts in America, civil lawsuit rates have not only dropped in the last couple decades, but have never surpassed the "sue happy" days of the late 1870's when they peaked.
Yes, thats the 1870's
Thank you sensationalist TV reporting and powerful anti-tort forces for keeping the fire alive on this cannard.
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
.
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
A positive that did come out of it was that a giant corporation who made a policy decision to serve super heated coffee many degrees above the "normal" for coffee in flimsy, uninsulated paper cups being passed out a drive through window to people reaching through a car window now serves its coffee in better insulated cups at a temperature that is accepted as "normal".
If Mickie D's latest mass marketed McCafe' coffee line is any evidence, that suit didn't do much to inhibit their ability or desire to offer coffee to its customers.
That case is trotted out by every "tort reform" group out there as an example of why the big corporations and the rich and powerful need even more protection from the commoners.
This stuff has been going on since the advent of legal jurisprudence and I'd hardly sum up the centuries of civil litigation as being slanted in the favor of us little guys.
.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Proud Texan said:
I'm going to sue you for saying that!!!!

I think it gets perpetuated by stories like the woman who split hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds and won.
Make my day!
What got very very little ink or press coverge about that case was the final award was about 10% of the original judgment.
And I wonder just how much the lady got of that 10% - most likely very little after her lawyers share... While you make some good points about how things improved at M.D's it still does not convience me that tort reform is not needed... The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
.
Copperhead said:
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Or without enormously high staked motivation to keep things just the way they are.
Sure, we commoners get a crumb thrown our way like some much ballyhoed hot coffee case and it convinces just enough of the gullible and uninformed out there to keep doing the bidding for interests they have absolutely nothing in common with and never will, but that's the beauty of America.
We're all "FREE" to defend a system that protects and insulates folks like Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky until their crimes become so egregious that even they just must be brought to justice and get their little slap on the wrist.
Actually, I think the giant corporations who end up saving enormous amounts of money due to the chilling effect of lopsided tort "reform" are and always have been the big winners.
Do you honestly think that Exxon after having its Valdez fines, penalties and civil judgments slashed to a fraction of what they started out as wasn't ultimately the big winner in that particular case?
How about the 35,000 or so fishermen, tourism related businesses (like small, independently owned, local B&Bs?), etc.. who got a fraction of redress for their actual damages?
And it only took them 20 years and a despoiled environment to find out they were ultimately gonna get the shaft.
Ah, who cares, its better to protect the ultra rich and powerful at all costs.
Cause you just never know when one of us is gonna become a billionaire.

.
Tim_Toad_HLB said:
Copperhead said:
The only ones that are really winning are the attorneys that are pushing these suits.
You seem to be neglecting to note that there are two sets of lawyers in any legal proceeding. The ones protecting the interests of the ultra rich and powerful at the expense of the common interests we all share aren't exactly doing it for free.
Or without enormously high staked motivation to keep things just the way they are.
Sure, we commoners get a crumb thrown our way like some much ballyhoed hot coffee case and it convinces just enough of the gullible and uninformed out there to keep doing the bidding for interests they have absolutely nothing in common with and never will, but that's the beauty of America.
Actually, I think the giant corporations who end up saving enormous amounts of money due to the chilling effect of lopsided tort "reform" are and always have been the big winners.
Do you honestly think that Exxon after having its Valdez fines, penalties and civil judgments slashed to a fraction of what they started out as wasn't ultimately the big winner in that particular case?
How about the 35,000 or so fishermen, tourism related businesses (like small, independently owned, local B&Bs?), etc.. who got a fraction of redress for their actual damages?
And it only took them 20 years and a despoiled environment to find out they were ultimately gonna get the shaft.
Ah, who cares, its better to protect the ultra rich and powerful at all costs.
Cause you just never know when one of us is gonna become a billionaire.
Tim, since you do not know me, you have no idea what I am failing to see or not. Yes, I do know that there are 2 sides to each case and are defended by lawyers on both sides. I know VERY well - I worked for/with them (both sides mind you) for many years. I believe I know the legal system (how it works from the inside) extremely well. As others have said, when someone does not agree with you, they are uninformed, uneducated etc. never is it that maybe you do not know the full story.
Go hug a tree, better yet stick you head back in the the hollow hole of the tree while doing so. As you would never listen to any voice of reason anyway which is typical with those that must call names.
 

Renee V

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure of the stats but in NY state, people do seem to be 'sue happy'. Our business has been sued, and it was so ridiculous. Some parents left their boy to play at the waterfront unsupervised and he decided to take a flying leap from our docks to our neighbors and from there jump to a half sunk rotting dock that had drifted down river. And of course he was hurt, and we were very accommodating to his parents and getting him to the ER, and they seemed gracious, but almost a year later and we, our neighbors, and the owners of the rotten dock all got sued over it. And of course they won. It doesn't really seem to matter if you have signs or what they have signed. There are ways around everything. It does really suck, but these things do happen.
Moose Trax, if I were in your place, all I would do if something like that happened to me is to be as accommodating as possible but without taking any blame. Like another stated, that is what car insurance is for.
 

Tony

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
I place the blame on this sue happy society on the shoulders of idle lawyers looking for work. It's getting so bad that some doctors have to change careers because they can't afford their malpractice insurance or refuse to treat risky cases because of fear of being sued.
 
Top