From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
Subject: Re: Let's find somebody to sue
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:35:34 GMT

privette@pippin.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette) writes:

>In article <1992Apr2.061148.327@tware.com>, bash@tware.com (Paul Bash) writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr1.210935@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>|> >Well, it's an April Fool's Day story in the _Camera_, but there's no
>|> >reason to think it's a joke...
>|> >
>|> >"I mean, somebody's got to
>|> >be responsible for this.  We didn't ask for that plane to crash.  Well, we
>|> >know who's responsible, but he's gone."
>|> 
>|> Sorry. Shit happens. Deal with it.
>|> 
>|> -- 
>|> Paul Bash                                                   Techware Design 
>|> bash@tware.com                                              Boulder, CO  U.S.A.

>Well, normally I'm of a very "anti-sue" mentality, but that usually is
>because I feel many if not most lawsuits go after non-negligent persons
>for enormous rewards when indeed little harm was done (someone trying to
>get something for nothing).  Further, I feel many lawsuits stem from lawyers
>who are out to completely misuse and abuse our justice system.  I do not know
>the extent of this person's injuries, so perhaps I'm going way out on
>a limb, but assuming they amounted to a modest $10 K, I do feel the
>estate of the suicide victim should cover medical costs and lost work time.

>This is because this case may not fall under any of the above 3 criteria,
>i.e. 1) The suicide victim clearly chose a *very* negligent manner in carrying
>out his will that by design included injuring others, 2) the reward does
>not have to be huge, but lets face it, the injured person probably incurred
>some major bills (when more than 30% of U.S. is not- or underinsured, I
>would not assume he had full coverage -- perhaps this is an incorrect 
>assumption), and 3) it does seem like significant bodily harm was done (again,
>not knowing details, I am making an assumption -- but planes falling in
>residentail areas certainly have large potential).

>In fact, I think such a case is exactly why our justice system was set
>up!  One person's rights and freedoms were clearly violated by the
>negligent actions of another person -- how more clear of a case can there be?
>Paul says "shit happens."  So, I must assume that is the excuse he
>wishes to assign to everything (being robbed, women being raped, car
>being smashed by a drunken, reckless driver, etc.).  Certainly all these
>are "shit happening", huh?!  Hell, why have any justice system if our
>society's motto is (the civilized, highly intellectual) "shit happens"?

>Jeff

I have to agree with you, Jeff about the estate of the suicidal person.  
However, I also agree with the other posters that the attitude of go for 
the bucks, regardless of culpability, is incorrect.  I agree that much
damage was done here, and that the victims ought to be compensated, but the
person who is ersponsible is the one who is now dead, and it is his estate
that should pay, not the plane manufacturer.  I don't blame the victims for
wanting to find some relief, but they are looking for it in the wrong
place.

Paul E. Ourada
paulo@ohmeda.com
Newsgroups: boulder.general