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.

 

[PDH]

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.

You have got to be friggin' kidding me. Do you know why my doctor charges out the a$$????........lawsuit insurance!!!

The insurance for my business is astronomical because some pigeon-toed, 250 pound "sweaty Betty" will try to walk in with four inch heels and cries foul when she busts her big tush because she can't step more than 10 inches at a time. This happens every day somewhere. How is that good for our economy? Do you know who pays for the insurance??? You do as the consumer.

More and more people have no car insurance or health insurance because they can no longer afford it. Why? Because some idiot wants 12 years of chiropractor visits because he claims he hurt his back in an accident in which both cars are barely damaged. Sure he may be sore for a while as will the other driver, but would he sue his wife or kid if they were at fault? Most likely not. He wants a free ride.

Why did Piper and Cessna not make small aircraft for a while? Litigation!!! Good for aviation?? I don't think so. Good for the local economies in Kansas and Pennsylvania? I don't think you could make that argument. Do you believe that there is $700,000 worth of metal and R&D in every Bonanza that leaves the Beech factory? Not so much...you are paying for the litigious costs that will be incurred when some moron stacks it in 10 years later because he took it to a shotty mechanic for years.

You are right in that the ability to sue is good for this country. It keeps everybody somewhat honest. However, you should not be allowed to sue if you are unwilling to put your assets at risk. If you believe in it, go full steam ahead, but I still cannot be convinced that an idiot that spills his coffee should get 11 million dollars from McDonalds because he can't hold a cup.

 

[ackattacker]

I agree with A Squared about this one.

"gsrcrsx68" you are completely missing the point. There is simply no way this was a "lawsuit with merit". It's obviously a frivolous lawsuit. And by frivolous I don't mean that the woman did not suffer. I simply mean that the city had zero responsibility for the crash. City taxpayer money is OUR (yours and mine) money.

Perhaps if you feel so strongly about the issue you should give her some of your money. That would be very charitable of you. But don't volunteer MY money.

Personally I feel that the $40k should come from the lawyer who advised her to sue, and she should not loose her house. Interesting to note that she did get $1mil from the helicopter company but "hasn't seen much of it". Wonder where that money is???

But there does need to be consequences for randomly suing anybody with money.

BTW your judgement of what lawsuit is "frivolous" is out of line. The "hot coffee burn" lawsuit was NOT frivolous... because that woman was suing the responsible party. If you read more about that lawsuit you would be surprised at the amount of damage and the degree of negligence McDonalds exhibited.

In this case, the lawsuit WAS frivolous... because she was simply shotgun suing. How'd you like it if she sued you for damages? Wait, you say, I had nothing to do with it! --- exactly!

 

[Slice121]

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.

Maybe she should sue her lawyer for poor representation by going after the city? Where does it end?

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Ackattacker,
You have no idea whether or not this was frivolous. A judge, whom I'm sure has more legal knowledge than all of us saw fit to award her 6 mil from the city. You have no idea what the grounds for the appeal were...So keep spouting off with no facts.
The McDonalds award was ridiculous and is the source of many people misunderstandings about lawsuits and the awards they pay.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

PDH,
You can thank any number of factor for what your Dr. charges you for. You should probably look at the HMO's and such first. They add nearly 40% to the cost of an office visit for admin costs.

You seem to think there are giant awards for people who haven't incurred actual losses...instead of throwing out crap you can't back up, provide some factual data where people who weren't hurt receive money. It is a lot easier to spout off than it is to find people getting over.

As far as what it has done to aviation, try judging it objectively. Maybe it has just messed it up, but maybe it has provided some benefits too. I haven't really thought that through. The cost of A/C don't seem that out of line to me. There are homebuilts and exp ac for people who don't want/need the extra safety.

Overall lawsuits costs are less than 1% of GDP. They are known business costs. Business can and do deal with them effectively through proper risk management. Not a big deal, except for businesses like the helicopter operation involved in tha incident. I think it is great for our society when a shoddy, unsafe businesses gets sent packing when they don't cut it and damage others.

 

[lawfly]

The fact that over $6 million was awarded would likely take this out of the category of "frivolous"--a term which has distinct legal meaning, but which is thrown about indiscriminately when the word "unsuccessful" would just do just as well. The $41,000 is apparently the amount now claimed as costs by the prevailing party, but is not a sanctions award for a frivolous suit. We don't know all of the facts or all of the legal niceties here. Having said that, and based on the info available here, a couple of observations: usually when a judgment is reversed on appeal, after a trial, the remedy is a new trial. However, I suppose the cost bill for the first trial can still be out there. We don't know exactly what issues were addressed on appeal. If enough of the original case remains intact, there could still be settlement potential based on the range of outcomes possible in the new trial. On the extremely limited facts available here, another observation: fuel contamination would be a more plausible, it would seem, cause of action against the fuel provider (here, the city?) than fuel exhaustion which, as we all know, is a PIC thing. Insurance limits are discoverable long before trial and are often a factor in evaluating whether to (settle or) go to trial. It is NOT always the attorney who pushes for trial--somtimes, it is the client.

 

[lawfly]

And to add another level of analysis: if a timely policy limit demand was made against the person/entity which had the $1M policy, and it was refused, and a larger judgment was later obtained against that insured person/entity, there could be liability on the part of the insurer for amounts in excess of the policy limit. That liability would be to the policyholder but could potentially be assigned to the plainitff in exchange for non-execution.

 

[PDH]

A jury awarded $1.6 million to a woman who claimed a phonebook company published fraudulent data that resulted in her disfigurement from liposuction surgery. The woman found an ad under the plastic surgery section that indicated a physician was “Board Certified.” The doctor, however, was board certified in dermatology and anatomic pathology.


Oregonian, February 25, 2005

Startled Neighbor Successfully Sues Teens over Cookies and Won

Two teens thought they'd surprise neighbors with a nighttime cookie delivery, but a neighbor sued, claiming the good deed caused a severe anxiety attack. (source: Denver Post, Feb. 4, 2005)




A train conductor settled for $8.5 million from a railroad after claiming a collision between his commuter train and a freight train worsened his alcoholism.



Student Stressed Over Summer Homework Sues School

A student whose vacation plans were spoiled has sued to end summer homework in Wisconsin, claiming it creates an unfair workload and unnecessary stress. (From the Associated Press, January 21, 2005)
Source: Associated Press Feb 2, 2005.


Viewer Vomits, Sues NBC

A viewer has sued NBC for $2.5 million over a "Fear Factor" rat-eating episode, alleging the episode made him dizzy, lightheaded and caused him to vomit and run into a doorway. (From the Associated Press, January 26, 2005)


Woman walking track sues railroad


A woman who suffered minor injuries when she was hit by a train while walking along railroad tracks is suing the railroad for more than $30,000 because she says the railroad didn't warn people that trains were likely to travel on the tracks she was walking along. (Associated Press Newswires, November 5, 2004)
Couple sue airline over legroom

The Chicago Sun- Times reports May 14, 2004 that a Cook County, Illinois, couple is suing American Airlines because they didn't have enough leg room and subsequently were cramped aboard a flight to Paris.
They are seeking more than $100,000.
Chicago Sun-Times, May 2004


These are only a few that I found in a 30 second search. On a more personal level, my doctor was sued because one of his patients ate something that he should not have eaten while on an MOI inhibitor. Patient was adequately warned by the doctor and the Pharmacist. He won because he said the warning print was too small on the information sheet.

I was sued personally for terminating an employee on MLK's birthday. I won, but it cost me 5,000 to fight it.

I can tell you story after story of friends and business associates that have been sued over frivolity. It hits a go----mn nerve when people talk the way you've been talking today, so go slip in Burger King and pay off your flying loans. I work my a$$ off so people like you can live for free. You're welcome.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

You confuse one liners for facts...Entertaining, but evidence of nothing.

You don't do sh%t for me pal, I've been self employed my whole adult life and I doubt you've done 1/10th the amount of business I have. I suggest you start working smarter and not harder then your bitterness might go down.

 

[chperplt]

gsr,

What ever you're holding (your curr position), I think it's cutting the blood flow to your brain. Might want to let go before you do some permanent damage!