Frivolous lawsuit comes back to haunt plaintiff

[A Squared]

Seems to me to be about time:



http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_4688139

Short version: Woman and husband go for Helicopter ride at airshow. Helicopter runs out of gas and crashes. Woman is injured, husband is killed. Woman sues pilot and helicopter operator, wins but neither have any assets. Woman sues CIty that allowed the airshow to be held, loses on appeal. City's insurance company goes after woman for $41,000, she is horrified because she may have to sell her home.


From the article:

The thought of losing her home as a result of a crash that claimed her husband has once again traumatized her.

No, you're not losing your home as a result of the helicopter crash, you're losing your home as a result of suing someone who had nothing to do with the crash.


Maybe if this happened more often, folks would think twice before filing lawsuits against anyone and everyone with money when something bad happens.

 

[chperplt]

Nice!!!

 

[gsrcrsx68]

A squared, you a an f'in a-hole...Maybe you should read the whole article instead of the first paragraph. Some moron killed this womans husband and nearly killed her and now you take pleasure in the fact she might lose her home. What a total loser u r.

All b/c some stupid moron crash because they didn't get fuel.

From the article:
"After the crash, Dixon spent about eight months in the hospital. She has undergone 23 surgeries and years of physical therapy. She regularly endures pain in her knees, legs and back. And she has memory problems. My feet and legs were crushed and my back was fractured, she said"

 

[FL420]

Some moron killed this womans husband and nearly killed her..........All b/c some stupid moron crash because they didn't get fuel.

From the article:
"After the crash, Dixon spent about eight months in the hospital. She has undergone 23 surgeries and years of physical therapy. She regularly endures pain in her knees, legs and back. And she has memory problems. My feet and legs were crushed and my back was fractured, she said"

I gotta agree with you on this one; minus all the uncalled for name-calling, of course.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

yeah, I shouldn't have done that...kinda pissed me off though

 

[A Squared]

From the article:
"After the crash, Dixon spent about eight months in the hospital. She has undergone 23 surgeries and years of physical therapy. She regularly endures pain in her knees, legs and back. And she has memory problems. My feet and legs were crushed and my back was fractured, she said"

Yeah, right, I read all that about how she suffered, and I read all about how she loves Jesus and reads the bible and all that lovely stuff that tugs at your heartstrings, but that is completely irrelevant.

Apparently, you are part of the problem here. Apparently you are one of those idiots who believes that if someone has a bad experience, the world owes them a big payoff, even entities who had nothing to do with that bad experience.

No, I am not happy that she was injured, or lost her husband, or any of that. You completely missed the point.

The point is she sued the city which had nothing to do with the crash that caused her difficulties. She sued the city, merely because it was a source of money. It is this precisely this "the world owes me something" mentality that has resulted in the out of control ligitation.

the problem that all this bemoaning her pain and suffereing blinds soft headed fools such as yourelf to the fact that the pain in suffiering is unrelated to the fact that the $41,000 judgement was caused by her recklessly suing suing entities that weren't the cause of her pain and suffering.

Notice that I didn't claim that she shouldn't have sued the persons who actually caused that pain and suffering. No, those are the people who *should* be sued. However the fact that the people who *did* cause the pain and suffering don't have the assets to pay the 11 million judgement doesn't entitle her to money from the city which didn't cause the crash.

I am in no way pleased that she has had a bad experience. I am however encouraged that companies who are the subject of frivolous, meritless lawsuits are being awarded litigation fees. If this happened more frequently, perhaps people would think twice before filing meritless lawsuits.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Read the article again. She was originally awarded money, so it wasn't a necessarily an out of control litigation issue. More than likely she was following the advice of her lawyer.

As far as your concerns over our legal system you might want to consider that it is the very legal system your criticze that has in part made this the strongest economy in the world as well as one of the safest places in the world.

Without the ability to litigate our disputes and grievances in the fashion that we do, progress and the economy will suffer. Simply put, people will lose faith in a less safe system. We aren't number one in many economical categories by accident...it is because of this very system.

On a note relevant to this case, you are way off base...almost in la-la land. You probably have a point about absurd lawsuits, however this obiously isn't one. So don't be tarded no more.

 

[chperplt]

I happen to agree with the point A Squared is making.

I feel horrible that this lady lost her husband and has been suffering ever since. It really sucks that the people she rightfully sued has(d) no assets. It also really sucks that she sued the city thinking they had deep pockets and would pay up.

Frivolous litigation hurts all of us, and maybe this is a painful lesson to Attorneys and clients everywhere that companies will be fighting back.

 

[A Squared]

Read the article again. She was originally awarded money, so it wasn't a necessarily an out of control litigation issue.

Sigh, yes, I did read the article, did you read my posts? Notice in the first one I mentioned that it was an appeal. Most people wouldn't need this explained, but apparently you do. My reference to the fact that it was an appeal means I was aware that she initially was awarded a judgement against the city. Before you accuse folks of not reading, be sure you have actually read what has been written.

No, I am not inclined to accept yous inference that the initial award proved the lawsuit was not frivolous. the fact that you apparently do speaks volumes about your outlook...none of it favorable.

More than likely she was following the advice of her lawyer.

Very likely. Do you think that relieves her of responnsibility for the costs of her reckless litigation?

Let me pose a hypothetical that perhaps will sharpen your thinking:

Lets say you have a hpouse out in the country. You have a little airstrip on that preoperty. One of your neighbors calls and says that a friend has an airplane and would like to land on your airstrip to pick him up to give him a ride. You say sure. Guy comes along in his champ, picks up his buddy, takes him out and buzzes his house, of course hitting a tree and killing your neighbor as his wife is watching.

Now his wife has suffered horribly....Oh yeah and she loves jesus and reads her bible. Now does this entitle her to a million dollars of your money? If she sued you and you prevailed, but it cost you $40,000 in lawyer fees would you be happy about spending 40K? would you shrug your shoulders and say ok that's fair? Or would you want to recover the money you lost?

I think what it gets down to is I believe that having a bad experience does not entitle you to money from people who weren't responsible for the bad experience.

You seem to think that if someone has a bad experinnce you are 8entitled* to a bunch of money, even if it has to come from somone who didn't cause your pain and suffereing.

Are you perhaps a PI attorney? serious question.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

No I am not an attorney. No I don't believe people deserve gobbs of money for getting hurt.

I do believe in people being compensated appropriately, which if you take a few minutes to think about, the award was probably not out of line (crertainly not like a 200 million award for a hot coffee burn, which is the picture most people see when they think of frivolous lawsuits).

Next, she didn't decide the judgement or the award. That was done by a judge (and maybe a jury).

Now she is faced with losing her home due to an extrodinary set of circumstances, not due to "crazy lawyers out of control". There is a huge difference between frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits with merit that lose or are overturned. There is nothing in the atricle as to why it was overturned.

Lastly, the part that made me pop a circuit breaker was the appearent glee at someone elses misfortune. I wish the same on anyone who thinks this woman has "gotten over" somehow.