Just saw this on some American show:
A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his SUV,
smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of the
stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food and
drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
damages.
Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
the world to have?

From:	Peter Webb
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:36:20 +1100

"Uncle Bully" wrote in message
news:35cet7F4kg60gU1@individual.net...
> Just saw this on some American show:
> A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his
> SUV, smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a
> quadriplegic. Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue
> the owner of the stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which
> provides food and drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for
> it... $135 Million in damages.
> Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
> the world to have?
>

You did leave out some teensy details.

It was illegal to sell more that 2 beers at a time at the stadium. There are
eye witnesses who stated that:

1. The many bribed the counter staff to sell him 6 at a time.
2. He was obviously pissed when he did this.

Accepting a bribe to act illegally clearly increases the company's
culpability.

The drunk guy is serving a five year jail term, and has settled
independently with the family.

Whatever the merits of the case, leaving out these details considerably
affects the morality of the situation. If you really felt that justice had
been so poorly served, why did you supress these important details? Is it
because it then doesn't reflect so badly on the "freedom that the US so
desperately wants the rest of the world to have", ie doesn't satisfy your
own particular racist agenda?

From:	Uncle Bully
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:27:15 +1100

> You did leave out some teensy details.
>
> It was illegal to sell more that 2 beers at a time at the stadium. There
> are eye witnesses who stated that:
>
> 1. The many bribed the counter staff to sell him 6 at a time.
> 2. He was obviously pissed when he did this.
>
> Accepting a bribe to act illegally clearly increases the company's
> culpability.
>
> The drunk guy is serving a five year jail term, and has settled
> independently with the family.
>
> Whatever the merits of the case, leaving out these details considerably
> affects the morality of the situation.

No it doesn't.

> If you really felt that justice had been so poorly served, why did you
> supress these important details?

Didn't suppress them, didn't know them. Now that I do know them, it still
makes no difference. Whether he bought 6 beers at once, or 1 beer six times,
he was the one drinking them, and he was the one who chose to drive.

>Is it because it then doesn't reflect so badly on the "freedom that the US
>so desperately wants the rest of the world to have",

No, it still does.

>ie doesn't satisfy your own particular racist agenda?

Which race would that be then?

From:	reg-john
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:08:35 GMT

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
news:41f1f468$0$25526$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Uncle Bully" wrote in message
> news:35cet7F4kg60gU1@individual.net...
> > Just saw this on some American show:
> > A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his
> > SUV, smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a
> > quadriplegic. Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue
> > the owner of the stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company
which
> > provides food and drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for
> > it... $135 Million in damages.
> > Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest
of
> > the world to have?
> >
>
> You did leave out some teensy details.
>
> It was illegal to sell more that 2 beers at a time at the stadium. There
are
> eye witnesses who stated that:
>
> 1. The many bribed the counter staff to sell him 6 at a time.
> 2. He was obviously pissed when he did this.
>
> Accepting a bribe to act illegally clearly increases the company's
> culpability.
>
> The drunk guy is serving a five year jail term, and has settled
> independently with the family.
>
> Whatever the merits of the case, leaving out these details considerably
> affects the morality of the situation. If you really felt that justice had
> been so poorly served, why did you supress these important details? Is it
> because it then doesn't reflect so badly on the "freedom that the US so
> desperately wants the rest of the world to have", ie doesn't satisfy your
> own particular racist agenda?'

ah well, this changes things a lot. except, if it were the acitons of just
bar staff, they should be punished personally. i dont agree with companies
being penalised by default, except if complicity can be proved. however, i
know i dont matter a fuck, jsut my opinion.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From:	Michael C
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:04:19 +1100

From:	John_H
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:18 +1000

Michael C wrote:

>
>Does it matter who they sue? As long as they can find someone to sue the
>money comes from the insurance company, so effectively from the general
>community in the end anyway. $135 mill would hardly compensate.

It only matters if you happen to disagree with the litigation it
generates (which the original poster somehow thinks is peculiar to the
US). Like it or not, it's well and truly an established part of our
own system.

I'd also imagine that in the US, as is the case here, the sums
involved aren't simply pulled from the air. They need to be able
withstand the rigours of proof the legal process requires and are
invariably vigorously contested by those who pay them.

I don't know of a single soul who's been through the process of
claiming damages who doesn't reckon they were short changed at the end
of the day.

--
John H

From:	Rainbow Warrior
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:54:45 +1000

From:	John_H
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:14:36 +1000

Uncle Bully wrote:

>Just saw this on some American show:
>A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his SUV,
>smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
>Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of the
>stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food and
>drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
>damages.
>Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
>the world to have?

Presumably you've been protesting loudly ever since they started on
the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.

IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
her imployment.

I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.

--
John H

From:	John McKenzie
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:23:25 +1100

John_H wrote:
>
> Uncle Bully wrote:
>
> >Just saw this on some American show:
> >A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his SUV,
> >smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
> >Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of the
> >stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food and
> >drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
> >damages.
> >Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
> >the world to have?
>
> Presumably you've been protesting loudly ever since they started on
> the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.
>
> IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
> than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
> her imployment.
>
> I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.

One might argue that this is (for Australians at least) just a further
evolution of the snail in the bottle case. Bastardised to be sure, but a
similar sort of thing, so in a sense, hardly a new concept to say the
least.

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com
abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov
abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au

From:	Al
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:40:42 +1100

"John_H" wrote in message
news:6br2v0hf7ba6s01ugfd3mgc8qo93t70odg@4ax.com...
> Uncle Bully wrote:
>
> the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.
>
> IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
> than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
> her imployment.
>
> I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.
>
> --
> John H

I suppose one difference would be that

1) at small to 'standard' doses smoking has been shown to raise risk of
heart disease, stroke, premature death, lung cancer etc with virtually no
health benefits (some reduction in risk of Parkinsons)

2) Alcohol, while harmful if consumed excessively or inappropriately,
appears to offer some health benefits (reduced cardiovascular disease etc)
if consumed in limited amounts.

but I agree, the legal principle is pretty similar.

Alex

From:	Uncle Bully
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:53:55 +1100

"John_H" wrote in message
news:6br2v0hf7ba6s01ugfd3mgc8qo93t70odg@4ax.com...
> Uncle Bully wrote:
>
>>Just saw this on some American show:
>>A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his
>>SUV,
>>smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
>>Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of
>>the
>>stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food
>>and
>>drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
>>damages.
>>Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
>>the world to have?
>
> Presumably you've been protesting loudly ever since they started on
> the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.
>
> IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
> than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
> her imployment.
>
> I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.

Well allow me to enlighten you.
Smoking cases are different because smoking one cigarette can kill you, and
the tobacco companies knew this yet failed to release that information to
their customers. In effect they continued to sell a known poison for years
and allowed people to die. It is not that cigarettes are dangerous that
creates law suits, it is that they knew and didn't say. (same as James
Hardie and Asbestos).
Alcohol is quite different as it can be taken in moderation and actually be
good for you. Asking a football team, or stadium owner, or vendor to judge
and limit quantities to their customers is as ridiculous as asking McDonalds
not to serve fat people. In fact it is an identical problem. At some point
individuals have to be responsible for their own actions.

From:	Michael C
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:59:36 +1100

"Uncle Bully" wrote in message
news:35dtebF4jfrj6U1@individual.net...
> Asking a football team, or stadium owner, or vendor to judge and limit
> quantities to their customers is as ridiculous as asking McDonalds not to
> serve fat people. In fact it is an identical problem.

Similar but not identical. Serving McChucks (TM) to fat people isn't likely
to wipe out an innocent family.

Michael

From:	Fred At Home
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:52:21 +1100

"Uncle Bully" wrote in message
news:35dtebF4jfrj6U1@individual.net...
>
> "John_H" wrote in message
> news:6br2v0hf7ba6s01ugfd3mgc8qo93t70odg@4ax.com...
>> Uncle Bully wrote:
>>
>>>Just saw this on some American show:
>>>A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his
>>>SUV,
>>>smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a
>>>quadriplegic.
>>>Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of
>>>the
>>>stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food
>>>and
>>>drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
>>>damages.
>>>Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
>>>the world to have?
>>
>> Presumably you've been protesting loudly ever since they started on
>> the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.
>>
>> IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
>> than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
>> her imployment.
>>
>> I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.
>
> Well allow me to enlighten you.
> Smoking cases are different because smoking one cigarette can kill you,

Please advise as to where you learned that one cigarette can kill you.

From:	OzOne
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:12:44 +1100

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:52:21 +1100, "Fred At Home"
scribbled thusly:

>
>Please advise as to where you learned that one cigarette can kill you.
>
On the TV where thay put that little cyanide pill in it...Bond I think
:-)

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

From:	John_H
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:48:53 +1000

Uncle Bully wrote:

>
>"John_H" wrote in message
>news:6br2v0hf7ba6s01ugfd3mgc8qo93t70odg@4ax.com...
>> Uncle Bully wrote:
>>
>>>Just saw this on some American show:
>>>A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his
>>>SUV,
>>>smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
>>>Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of
>>>the
>>>stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food
>>>and
>>>drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
>>>damages.
>>>Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
>>>the world to have?
>>
>> Presumably you've been protesting loudly ever since they started on
>> the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.
>>
>> IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
>> than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
>> her imployment.
>>
>> I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.
>
>Well allow me to enlighten you.
>Smoking cases are different because smoking one cigarette can kill you, and
>the tobacco companies knew this yet failed to release that information to
>their customers. In effect they continued to sell a known poison for years
>and allowed people to die. It is not that cigarettes are dangerous that
>creates law suits, it is that they knew and didn't say. (same as James
>Hardie and Asbestos).

Utter crap. James Hardie's asbestos is a workplace safety issue pure
and simple and has absolutely nothing in common with tobacco companies
or the purveyors of piss.

What the tobacco companies may have known (which I'd doubt to be
anything that wasn't already in the public arena) is immaterial. IIRC
the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was public knowledge
as early as the 1950's -- long enough ago for the non-smokers who may
have made it to have long since died of natural causes. Raw asbestos
has a similar history.

>Alcohol is quite different as it can be taken in moderation and actually be
>good for you. Asking a football team, or stadium owner, or vendor to judge
>and limit quantities to their customers is as ridiculous as asking McDonalds
>not to serve fat people. In fact it is an identical problem.

Lemme see. A company manufacturing a product that kills its users
when taken in moderation is culpable, whereas the peddlers of another
product that causes its users to kill others when taken in excess
aren't! Your logic escapes me.

> At some point
>individuals have to be responsible for their own actions.

Right at the beginning I would've thought -- unless you happen to be
suggesting that James Hardie's employees should have found jobs
elsewhere.

You have also failed to enlighten me on your original point which was
something along the lines of "it could only happen in the US".

--
John H

From:	Uncle Bully
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:49:54 +1100

> Utter crap. James Hardie's asbestos is a workplace safety issue pure
> and simple and has absolutely nothing in common with tobacco companies
> or the purveyors of piss.

Yes it does. Both Tobacco an Asbestos law suits are based around the fact
that the manufacturer knew of a danger yet withheld that information from
the public.
Alcohol has no such problem which is why there are no similar cases against
breweries.

>
> What the tobacco companies may have known (which I'd doubt to be
> anything that wasn't already in the public arena) is immaterial. IIRC
> the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was public knowledge
> as early as the 1950's -- long enough ago for the non-smokers who may
> have made it to have long since died of natural causes. Raw asbestos
> has a similar history.

There was a period of time when the manufacturers knew the dangers but the
public didn't. Most cases stem from this fact.
The legal ramifications are not because something is dangerous, it is
because that danger was not properly disclosed. Herein lies the difference
between tobacco and alcohol.

> Lemme see. A company manufacturing a product that kills its users
> when taken in moderation is culpable, whereas the peddlers of another
> product that causes its users to kill others when taken in excess
> aren't! Your logic escapes me.

Quite simple. Drink 20 litres of water inand see how successful you next of
kin is at suing the water company. Consume enough of anything and you will
die. Consumed quantity is not the responsibility of the manufacturer, nor
should it be.
The leading cause of death of Australians is Heart Disease. A major
contributor of Heart Disease is poor diet, of which fast food outlets play a
part.

>
>> At some point
>>individuals have to be responsible for their own actions.
>
> Right at the beginning I would've thought -- unless you happen to be
> suggesting that James Hardie's employees should have found jobs
> elsewhere.
>

The Hardie lawsuits are because James Hardie didn't disclose what it knew.

> You have also failed to enlighten me on your original point which was
> something along the lines of "it could only happen in the US".

Funny, you seem have attributed a quote to me which I do not remember
making.

From:	John_H
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:32:19 +1000

Uncle Bully wrote:

>

>> Utter crap. James Hardie's asbestos is a workplace safety issue pure
>> and simple and has absolutely nothing in common with tobacco companies
>> or the purveyors of piss.
>
>Yes it does. Both Tobacco an Asbestos law suits are based around the fact
>that the manufacturer knew of a danger yet withheld that information from
>the public.

The only James Hardie law suit in Oz which I'm aware of is a
compensation case brought on by the ACTU. If an employee incurs a
work related health problem then the company's compensation fund is
supposed to pay. James Hardie white anted theirs when they pissed off
to the Netherlands -- whether or not they withheld information from
the public relating to the hazards of asbestos isn't relevant to their
compensation obligations.

What exclusive knowledge either may have had, other than the number of
sickies their employees took, doesn't stand close scrutiny either.
AFAIK there's never been a James Hardie medical research facility and
I don't think Rothmans had one either.

>Alcohol has no such problem which is why there are no similar cases against
>breweries.

Other than the fact that it's banned in parts of the US (eg Atlanta)
and most Muslim countries -- no doubt because of its health benefits.

>
>>
>> What the tobacco companies may have known (which I'd doubt to be
>> anything that wasn't already in the public arena) is immaterial. IIRC
>> the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was public knowledge
>> as early as the 1950's -- long enough ago for the non-smokers who may
>> have made it to have long since died of natural causes. Raw asbestos
>> has a similar history.
>
>There was a period of time when the manufacturers knew the dangers but the
>public didn't. Most cases stem from this fact.

Precisely what information and where was it obtained, if not from the
public arena?

The dangers of tobacco have now been widely known for so long there's
hardly likely to be anyone left amongst us who should've known about
it -- unless they be deaf, dumb and illiterate.

>The legal ramifications are not because something is dangerous, it is
>because that danger was not properly disclosed. Herein lies the difference
>between tobacco and alcohol.

Are you trying to tell us that plonk bottles carried health warnings
before durries did. In fact the hazards of alcohol have been known
for a lot longer for the simple reason that it's been around much
longer. I doubt if any brewery or distillery has ever disclosed
anything detrimental to their products that they weren't forced to do
-- exactly the same as any other manufacturer..

>
>> Lemme see. A company manufacturing a product that kills its users
>> when taken in moderation is culpable, whereas the peddlers of another
>> product that causes its users to kill others when taken in excess
>> aren't! Your logic escapes me.
>
>Quite simple. Drink 20 litres of water inand see how successful you next of
>kin is at suing the water company. Consume enough of anything and you will
>die. Consumed quantity is not the responsibility of the manufacturer, nor
>should it be.
>The leading cause of death of Australians is Heart Disease. A major
>contributor of Heart Disease is poor diet, of which fast food outlets play a
>part.
>
>>
>>> At some point
>>>individuals have to be responsible for their own actions.
>>
>> Right at the beginning I would've thought -- unless you happen to be
>> suggesting that James Hardie's employees should have found jobs
>> elsewhere.
>>
>
>The Hardie lawsuits are because James Hardie didn't disclose what it knew.

Nope, the compensation case (I know of no other law suit) was because
their employees were affected by asbestos and James Hardie tried to
shirk their responsibility to cover them.

>
>> You have also failed to enlighten me on your original point which was
>> something along the lines of "it could only happen in the US".
>
>Funny, you seem have attributed a quote to me which I do not remember
>making.

Will this one do?...

>>Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
>>the world to have?

In fact, your legal rights here, and the likelihood of successful
damages claim against a negligent party are very similar. Thanks to
the freedom we already have.

--
John H

From:	Uncle Bully
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:20:46 +1100

>>> You have also failed to enlighten me on your original point which was
>>> something along the lines of "it could only happen in the US".
>>
>>Funny, you seem have attributed a quote to me which I do not remember
>>making.
>
> Will this one do?...
>
>>>Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
>>>the world to have?
>

Much better.

From:	zonie
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:22:10 -0500

Bully, I agree the amount of settlement is excessive. But, the vendor was
breaking the rules by serving the man more than one beer at a time and for
longer than they should have. And feel sorry for sports team that can pay
15-20 million a year for 1 player I dont think so. Had that been my child
, I would sue also. I bet you would have too. Scott

From:	fritz
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:41:21 +0100

John_H wrote ..
| Uncle Bully wrote:
|
| >Just saw this on some American show:
| >A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his SUV,
| >smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
| >Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of the
| >stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food and
| >drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
| >damages.
| >Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
| >the world to have?
|
| Presumably you've been protesting loudly ever since they started on
| the tobacco companies -- which has also succeeded here.
|
| IIRC a non-smoking barmaid successfully sued a tobacco company (rather
| than her employer) for smoke induced medical problems incurred during
| her imployment.

Tobacco companies always make the headlines when a multi-million dollar
fine is handed down. However, in most cases the verdict is overturned
on appeal, not so newsworthy, so most people don't realise how few such
cases are actually finally lost by the tobacco companies.

Imagine the outcry if every football fan had to pass a breathalyzer test
before they were allowed out of the stadium, yet that is what would
be required to stop footy fans driving home pissed.
Actually, I'm surprised that the US footy tickets don't have some sort of
disclaimer on them along the lines of 'Alcohol is available in the stadium
but spectators are required to stay sober if driving' etc......

| I fail to see any difference in principle to the one cited above.

Did the barmaid actually get any money in the end ?
Have you followed the case since the initial decision ?

| --
| John H

From:	reg-john
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:58:13 GMT

awesome how everyone misses the point again. its called SELF RESPONSIBILITY.
the drunk guy should get whatever penatly is due, but the waitstaff at the
game would be flat out jsut serving people to notice some guy who may or may
not look a little off colour. yeah its tragic someones kid is a vege, but
sometimes in life, shit _just_ happens. sometimes, you cant blame someone.
they already blamed the guy who inflicted the injury, why is there this
imbecilic and destructive move within modern society to punish indirect
parties to these things? it is destroying human compassion and community. it
is purely greed at an individual level, who the fuck needs 135million
dollars to care for a disabled child? youre tleling me it costs 2 million
dollars a year to care for these type of people?

"Uncle Bully" wrote in message
news:35cet7F4kg60gU1@individual.net...
> Just saw this on some American show:
> A guy goes to the football, drinks 16 beers. Drives home pissed in his
SUV,
> smashes into some innocent family and turns their kid into a quadriplegic.
> Drunk guy pleads guilty, gets 5 years. Innocent family sue the owner of
the
> stadium, the footbal team, the NFL, and the company which provides food
and
> drink to patrons at the stadium and win... wait for it... $135 Million in
> damages.
> Is this part of the FreedomT that the US so desperately wants the rest of
> the world to have?
>
>

From:	Michael C
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:10:05 +1100

"reg-john" wrote in message
news:VspId.129217$K7.47500@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> is purely greed at an individual level, who the fuck needs 135million
> dollars to care for a disabled child? youre tleling me it costs 2 million
> dollars a year to care for these type of people?

It's not only about need. A portion of that money would be for care, a
portion for pain and suffering and probably other reasons also. If you think
$135 mill is too much, how much money would you accept to allow your son's
neck to be broken?

Michael

From:	reg-john
Subject:	Re: How about this (Drunk Driving)...
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:24:23 GMT

"Michael C" wrote in message
news:41f369ed$0$6372$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "reg-john" wrote in message
> news:VspId.129217$K7.47500@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > is purely greed at an individual level, who the fuck needs 135million
> > dollars to care for a disabled child? youre tleling me it costs 2
million
> > dollars a year to care for these type of people?
>
> It's not only about need. A portion of that money would be for care, a
> portion for pain and suffering and probably other reasons also. If you
think
> $135 mill is too much, how much money would you accept to allow your son's
> neck to be broken?

i wouldnt allow it to be broken conciously. these people didnt allow their
sons neck to be broken. he was the extremley unfortunate victim of the
stupidy of an imbecile. he wasnt a victim of the parent company giving his
injurer a beer or 4. responsibility lies with the driver, and to some extent
the actual person who accepted a bribe. not indirect parties. my view
wouldnt change if it was my son or father or mother. sometimes, shit just
fucking happens.

>
> Michael
>
>