LODI, Calif. - When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.

After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.

City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband.

"You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property."

But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has "the right to sue the city because a city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle."

In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount _ $4,800.

"I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said.

Information from: Lodi News-Sentinel, http://www.lodinews.com

It takes all kinds.....

Hey!
That's California though. But if you think about it, he should have a case. The "who" shouldn't be more important than the "what" for insurance purposes.

But if you think about it, he should have a case.

If you have a warped imagination, he should have a case.

Not really. Basically it's one insured entity against another. Has nothing to do with who was driving. Of course, he might not have a job for long... but still....

Basically it's one insured entity against another. Has nothing to do with who was driving.

Only if you ignore common sense.

Only if you ignore common sense.
That's never stopped people before...

What a moron.

Not really. Basically it's one insured entity against another. Has nothing to do with who was driving. Of course, he might not have a job for long... but still....

The City of Lodi is self insured(up to $500,000).

It is the city's taxpayers who would have to pay directly.

It is not just a simple case of "lets just sue all the evil insurance companies, they can afford it" nonsense.

I don't understand this obsession with "tax payers money". FFS, it'd have been "tax payers money" even if it HAD been a case of "evil insurance company". Wether you paid it to the state or to the insurance company in the first place, it was still paid for by individuals.

In any case, an injured party has no moral, ethical or legal obligation to weigh who the plaintiff's insurer is into the decision of wether or not to file the claim in the first place. If the city chose to self-insure, when they actually have to pay someone damages, that's on them - NOT on the injured party.

To me this looks like a simple matter.

There is a prima facie case of liability here - a city truck hit a private vehicle causing damage. The city should be liable to pay damages.

The city should then, in turn, recover its costs, including legal costs, from the employee who caused the damage (this is obviously subject to the employee's employment contract). In addition, disciplinary measures should be taken - most likely a written warning to the negligent employee.

The end result? A financial wash for the city, with the moron who is responsible for this mess carrying the can for the whole sorry mess, and one step closer to having his ass kicked out of a cushy public service job.

The City of Lodi is self insured(up to $500,000).

It is the city's taxpayers who would have to pay directly.

It is not just a simple case of "lets just sue all the evil insurance companies, they can afford it" nonsense.I'm not advocating this type of thing as general practice. I just don't understand why the court threw it out. It may not seem "moral", but it is logical that the guy should be able to sue. I would also say that the city would be in the right if they wanted to write him with a warning that sets him on his way to termination.

One thing I learned when I first moved to California years ago... the Yellow Pages are 1/3 full of lawyers because everyone wants to sue everyone else. It's like a "God given right" of all Californians, or something.

I don't understand this obsession with "tax payers money". FFS, it'd have been "tax payers money" even if it HAD been a case of "evil insurance company". ...

If the City of Lodi loses this suit, they will increase electricity and water rates, and taxes, directly for every household in the city to pay for something like that.

They had nothing to do with Mr. Fuucktard's driving, and should not have to pay for the repair of his car(which he himself ran into). He should.

I'm not advocating this type of thing as general practice. I just don't understand why the court threw it out. It may not seem "moral", but it is logical that the guy should be able to sue. I would also say that the city would be in the right if they wanted to write him with a warning that sets him on his way to termination.

One thing I learned when I first moved to California years ago... the Yellow Pages are 1/3 full of lawyers because everyone wants to sue everyone else. It's like a "God given right" of all Californians, or something.

The claim was denied back in February.

His wife has filed a lawsuit.

I don't believe it has been to court. The City Attorney is adamant about not paying it. And considering what happened to the last City Attorney, I am sure that he will fight this strenuously.

The former City Attorney backed a city law requiring background fingerprint checks for workers at a local adult store. The bible thumpers in town wanted to make sure that the girls at the counter was not a former prostitute. The owner of the store filed a suit for 100K against the City. The City Attorney did not show up for court. The City lost by default. The adult store owner's lawyer collected the whole 100K sum. The City Attorney was promptly fired. Idiots.

This new guy seems to have actually done what he wrote on his resume.

OBT, that whole, Lets just sue the insurance company deal has gotten the City of Lodi into about 50 million dollars in debt.

More idiotic stuff, but that is all old.

And on an related note.

The man I sold my alarm business to was just found not guilt of murder, by reason of self defense.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060311/NEWS01/603110324/1001

That is one legal case where Aidon and I can agree, I suppose.

Here's the grounds in which will allow them to continue with the suit:

If this was another worker, completely unrealted to the family, they would be allowed to sue. Because it's himself, things get complicated.

Personally, I think in either situtation neither case should warrent a lawsuit. The first case (somebody else) will warrent the insurance company to pay for all damages. The second case must prove this was an accident and then the company pay for damages (and they can fire the worker if they choose).

If the City of Lodi loses this suit, they will increase electricity and water rates, and taxes, directly for every household in the city to pay for something like that.

Of course the cost of any lawsuit may have that effect anyway.


They had nothing to do with Mr. Fuucktard's driving, and should not have to pay for the repair of his car(which he himself ran into). He should.

Had the truck driver backed into his neighbour's car then the city, as the employer of the driver, would have been liable for the damage. That he managed to total his own car is just ironic but does have no bearing on the issue of liability.

Unless of course the city can proof that he intentionally totalled his own car with the intention of collecting the insurance money. In that case he is guilty of attempted fraud and should be landed in jail.

If he did indeed accidentally drive over his car then his supervisor may want to look at his record but otherwise should treat this as an unfortunate, if expensive, accident.

Right now the city appears to try to wiggle out of its financial obligation by clouding the issue.


Eri

They had nothing to do with Mr. Fuucktard's driving, and should not have to pay for the repair of his car(which he himself ran into). He should.

Maybe, but not because of who the city's insurer is.

Had the truck driver backed into his neighbour's car then the city, as the employer of the driver, would have been liable for the damage. That he managed to total his own car is just ironic but does have no bearing on the issue of liability.

Unless of course the city can proof that he intentionally totalled his own car with the intention of collecting the insurance money. In that case he is guilty of attempted fraud and should be landed in jail.

If he did indeed accidentally drive over his car then his supervisor may want to look at his record but otherwise should treat this as an unfortunate, if expensive, accident.

Right now the city appears to try to wiggle out of its financial obligation by clouding the issue.
I fully agree.

Maybe, but not because of who the city's insurer is.

The City is the the City's insurer.

It is self insured. I said that.

Had the truck driver backed into his neighbour's car then the city, as the employer of the driver, would have been liable for the damage. That he managed to total his own car is just ironic but does have no bearing on the issue of liability.

Unless of course the city can proof that he intentionally totalled his own car with the intention of collecting the insurance money. In that case he is guilty of attempted fraud and should be landed in jail.

If he did indeed accidentally drive over his car then his supervisor may want to look at his record but otherwise should treat this as an unfortunate, if expensive, accident.

Right now the city appears to try to wiggle out of its financial obligation by clouding the issue.



Only today would that nonsense seem reasonable.

Absurd! Just strap the rat cage to my face now, and get it over with.

Only today would that nonsense seem reasonable.


Think about it Fyyr. It has to be like that. Employees can not be personally liable for job related mistakes. In many cases the cost of such mistakes simply runs too high. I work at an architect's office. We habitually design projects running in the hundreds of millions worth. Mistakes if they are not caught in time could cost as much as tens of millions (if they are bad enough). There simply is no way that I myself can pay for an insurance to cover that, and I sure would be gone in a second if I am somehow personally responsible for that damage. Yet the office I work at is not particularly big or the costs and potential damage would be a factor ten higher. The same is true for just about every job. Even flipping a hamburger in the local fastfood restaurant could potentially open you up to a liability claim of millions of dollars. Can you imagine the kind of insurance fees e.g. a maintenance worker at an airline would have to pay? Or the mechanic who installed that welding robot in the car factory? If he makes a mistake it could lead to tens of thousandsd of cars with potentially lethal defects on the road.
The only practical solution is that liabilities are insured against at company level. That way not only do you garantuee that employees are not individually paying insurance (though I am sure the insurance companies would be delighted to see a law to that extent passed), but it also ensures that a victim can not be out of luck because the particular employee responsible decided not to pay for that insurance and has no way to ever pay even a fraction of the damage he or she caused. And how is any of us going to sue that anonymous factory worker in china or vietnam?


Eri

I can see your point, Eri, but... I can just imagine all the city workers wanting new cars that would intentionally damage their cars with city equipment... oops! An accident.

Think about it Fyyr. It has to be like that. Employees can not be personally liable for job related mistakes. In many cases the cost of such mistakes simply runs too high..... And how is any of us going to sue that anonymous factory worker in china or vietnam?


Eri

Well, I am old fashioned I suppose. I think that people should be resposible for their own actions.

I have no problem accepting my own errors and mistakes, whether on the job or not. I don't think that it is fair for me to accept yours too.

I do think that people should be held accountable for their own mistakes, and should not get a pass just because they are working for someone else at the time they F up. Sue me.

If the guy had done his job correctly and his car was damaged then fine, he could sue. He however failed in his job by driving into a car. It happens to be his car, it shouldn't have been put at risk through his work, and he wants the city to repay him for his own incompetence in damaging his own property.

He is avoiding his own personal responsibility, rather than the city trying to dodge theirs.

The City is the the City's insurer.

It is self insured. I said that.

I know, and if you read again what has been said it went something like this:

Fyyr: The city is self insured, omg tax payer's money, omg he should not sue
Tinsi: It's someone's money regardless, and in any case, there is no obligation to check who the plaintiff's insurer is when deciding if you're going to file a claim. That's not his problem.
Fyyr: But.. it's a silly claim and should be thrown out
Tinsi: Maybe it is, but it should NOT be thrown out because the city is self insured. It's an altogether totally irrelevant point, that has zero bearing on anything regarding this case.
Fyyr: the city is self insured, i already said that
Tinsi: *slams head in key board* FYYR, DRUGS ARE BAD!!

EDIT: So let's rewind to my original post, and I'll try rephrasing it- maybe you'll understand: Why the hell is it relevant TO THIS GUY who the city's insurer is? Why should he react to this information by anything but a shrug and a "so?" ?

I can see your point, Eri, but... I can just imagine all the city workers wanting new cars that would intentionally damage their cars with city equipment... oops! An accident.

Here, the employers are liable for damages caused by their employees as long as the damages occur:
1. While the employee is "at work" -and-
2. While the employee is "working"

So we can't borrow the company car on our lunch break, take it for a spin around the parking lot and cash in a new car from it.

(dammit! :P )

We can, however, be hired as (for instance) pizza deliverance people, and not go all "OMG NO ****ING WAY!! WHAT IF AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS, I CANT AFFORD THAT!!" if we get an order in from our own neighbourhood.

If the guy had done his job correctly and his car was damaged then fine, he could sue. He however failed in his job by driving into a car. It happens to be his car, it shouldn't have been put at risk through his work, and he wants the city to repay him for his own incompetence in damaging his own property.

He is avoiding his own personal responsibility, rather than the city trying to dodge theirs.

Actually, he isn't. He was at work when the accident happened. At least the quoted news article specifically stated that the man was driving a dump truck, which I assume is not his regular car :)


Eri

I can see your point, Eri, but... I can just imagine all the city workers wanting new cars that would intentionally damage their cars with city equipment... oops! An accident.

It is hard to proof of course, but intentionally causing damage for the purpose of claiming insurance is fraud and can (and should) land you in jail. Depending on how the accident happened they can add a variety of additional charges like reckless driving, aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon.

The biggest problem may be that apparently the damages sought (and possibly awarded) are far greater than the actual damage. If you get the 50 or so dollar needed to repair that scratch in the paint, and the 150 dollar to get rid of the dent in that door (amounts of course are totally fabricated since I do not care enough about cars to know how much repairing them costs), then there is really no point in intentionally doing something like that. And of course if you manage to totally destroy your car then I suppose the police would want to have a look how you managed to do so without noticing ...


Eri

Put it this way, if this guy had worked in an office and dropped some office equipment out of a high window and onto his car, we'd all agree it was his own fault. it wouldn't matter whether he dropped office equipment or something of his own. It wouldn't matter that he was on company time. Why is this case any different? His own negligence has damaged his own property. His employers did not tell him to crash into his own car.

Well, I am old fashioned I suppose. I think that people should be resposible for their own actions.

I have no problem accepting my own errors and mistakes, whether on the job or not. I don't think that it is fair for me to accept yours too.

I do think that people should be held accountable for their own mistakes, and should not get a pass just because they are working for someone else at the time they F up. Sue me.

I'm sure he'll be held accountable when he loses his job.

And of course if you manage to totally destroy your car then I suppose the police would want to have a look how you managed to do so without noticing ... Eri

This might be a problem if your job happened to be driving a monster truck rather than a garbage truck. On that note, if anyone knows of a city council who employs people to drive around in a monster truck, I might be interested in applying for a new line of work!

Put it this way, if this guy had worked in an office and dropped some office equipment out of a high window and onto his car, we'd all agree it was his own fault. it wouldn't matter whether he dropped office equipment or something of his own. It wouldn't matter that he was on company time. Why is this case any different? His own negligence has damaged his own property. His employers did not tell him to crash into his own car.

If someone dropped a piece of office equipment out a window and it damaged my car....the company is liable

Well, the city's insurance should pay to repair the damages unless it can be proven the guy mashed it intentionally. But honestly, he should just turn it over to his own insurance company to deal with the city. The fact that the city chose to self insure is as dumb as the whole "man runs into own car" thing. If the city is self insured to save money, they need to understand that they can't do it by arbitrarily refusing to deal with accident issues.

The issue of vicarious liability turns very much on the facts. If moron-boy was driving his garbage truck in the course of his work (ie collecting garbage on his street), there's likely to be liability for the Council. If he was just parking it in his driveway after taking it home for the night, he's not truely in the course of his work. Not likely to be liability for the council.

Same principle applies to the "dropping office equipment out a window" question. If that task itself isn't part of your job - and lets face it, it aint likely - your employer shouldn't be held liable for damage caused by that falling equipment. This is so even if you're on company time when you "go postal", standing in a company cubicle and wearing company issue loafers.

Back on the garbage truck, as I said earlier, whether or not the moron will have to pay the council back (probably not, as wisely pointed out by Erianaiel), or whether he'll be fired, is another question. You'd have to say it's pretty short sighted to sue your own employer in this kind of scenario - hardly conducive to a "happy happy joy joy" relationship with the guys who write your paycheck.

For all those thinking this moron should get paid for something he is responsible for--

I want to come work for you---I will intentionally damage something of mine or hurt myself and sue you. I would stand in the door of your office and slam the door on my foot and sue you. If a different employee had run into his car then yeah. He hit his own car. when I am driving Air force government vehicles--I am covered by Air Force insurance. If I hit a car while driving a GOV, the air force would cover it. However if I ran into my own vehicle and sued? (well cant sue but filed a tort) Air force would pay for damage to their vehicle---I would be held accountable for my own---or if they did pay, I would lose all driving priveleges. and lets see a dump truck driver who loses driving priveleges ==== fired.

It's a scam. And if it isnt and he is this stupid---pay the claim with him as plaintiff then turn around and fire his ass----see how long that 4K last him when no one would ever be stupid enough to hire someone like that again.

Same principle applies to the "dropping office equipment out a window" question. If that task itself isn't part of your job - and lets face it, it aint likely - your employer shouldn't be held liable for damage caused by that falling equipment. This is so even if you're on company time when you "go postal", standing in a company cubicle and wearing company issue loafers.


well if person A working for company X drops office equipment out of a window onto person A's car-you may be right. employer shouldn't be held liable.

but if person A is dropping it on person B's car? employer will probably be the one sued. As an employer you are responsible for actions your employees take against a third person.

but if person A is dropping it on person B's car? employer will probably be the one sued. As an employer you are responsible for actions your employees take against a third person.

That's true if they're actually doing their job. If they're commiting a criminal act (at the extreme end of the scale), it's nothing to do with the employer.

Here's another example, less extreme - a plumber screws up a job, floods the floor of your office kitchen. Plumbing firm is liable for damages.

Next week, a courier has just dropped off some packages in the company kitchen at the request of your receptionist. He's being a smartass and futzing about at the sink, manages to break something and floods the floor. Courier firm not liable for damages.

Now some may argue that the courier firm SHOULD be liable, but the law suggests otherwise. The Courier company might, of course, pay up to save themselves some embarrasment and to keep the relationship good... but there's no legal obligation to. Once the courier stops performing his actual job and starts screwing around, he's on his own.

Well, the city's insurance should pay to repair the damages unless it can be proven the guy mashed it intentionally. But honestly, he should just turn it over to his own insurance company to deal with the city. The fact that the city chose to self insure is as dumb as the whole "man runs into own car" thing. If the city is self insured to save money, they need to understand that they can't do it by arbitrarily refusing to deal with accident issues.

This is for Tinsi.

The city does not have insurance. It has its own money in an escrow account.

btw, I loved your little dialog thingy, reminds me of someone I once knew. /smile.

I was not stating that they should not pay because they were self insured(or be sued). The notion of 'no one gets hurt if I sue, but the evil insurance company' is so prevalent; that people resort to it when it is not the case.

Honestly, we will get to the point where everyone will need to be individually covered by liability insurance anyway. I just think that it would be better for people to insure themselves against loss, to protect themselves when someone screws them over(gives them hot coffee, or runs a dump truck into their car); instead of the other direction.

If individuals(as workers and employees) were held more accountable to their actions, less accidents would happen. Today, they say, "fvck it, if I drive a forklift into that woman's car, my company, or my company's insurance will cover it". If the individual had to fix it, one could assume that they would be a little more careful in the first place. Hell, you have a notable section of the workforce just looking to get into accidents so that they can file Workers Comp and SSI claims, so they don't have to work anymore. I know that all of you have met those people.

If those workers were held accountable, they would lose that motivation.

Let's not forget that the guy who wrecked his own car must have personal insurance and that insurance company will be trying to wrangle out of settling his claim. If he drove his own car into his works truck then his insurance pays. If he drove his works truck into his own car then .... ?

This is for Tinsi.

The city does not have insurance. It has its own money in an escrow account.

So? I totally fail to see why this is even remotely relevant to this case.

If individuals(as workers and employees) were held more accountable to their actions, less accidents would happen. Today, they say, "fvck it, if I drive a forklift into that woman's car, my company, or my company's insurance will cover it". If the individual had to fix it, one could assume that they would be a little more careful in the first place. Hell, you have a notable section of the workforce just looking to get into accidents so that they can file Workers Comp and SSI claims, so they don't have to work anymore. I know that all of you have met those people.

If those workers were held accountable, they would lose that motivation.Reality check here. Your statemest carries a HUGE "if" and it's truly NOT the way the world of today operates. IF he intentionally rammed his own car in hopes of gaining from it, he should be charged with fraud. Maybe he will... the article doesn't go into that much depth but one might think it would IF he was being charged. If the accident was due to negligence, he could be on his way to job termination, but still it would be an "accident", and insurance is supposed to be there to cover accidents. And the fact that the city is "self insured" should not have any bearing on the issue at hand whatsoever.

It's quite possible that the city is self insured to fight the rising costs of insurance. It's possible that they can't find an insurer who will offer them "reasonable" rates. I don't know. (For those of you incensed over oil company profits, insurance profits were hand and fist over those of oil last year.) I would think that California would have some sort of cap on insurance rates, though. Maybe not... they have a LOT of lawyers to support.

I've been telling folks on this board for years that the Insurance Industry is evil...

What I don't understand is how you manage to blame attorneys even for Insurance profits.

I've been telling folks on this board for years that the Insurance Industry is evil...

What I don't understand is how you manage to blame attorneys even for Insurance profits.I don't. I blame the people who use the lawyers to go after them. And if there is a phone book full of lawyers, someone is using them. I will admit, however, wondering today which comes first... With lawyers advertising all over the place, do the people just see an easy way out of working for a living when they see all these ambulance chaser ads? It's my belief that we could find ourselves with 3/4 fewer lawyers in this world and society would be better off (no offense to you guys in the legal field here. You are on the 1/4 list! :D) If lawyers were HARD to find when people got the whim to sue, there would be fewer frivolous suits.

I don't. I blame the people who use the lawyers to go after them. And if there is a phone book full of lawyers, someone is using them. I will admit, however, wondering today which comes first... With lawyers advertising all over the place, do the people just see an easy way out of working for a living when they see all these ambulance chaser ads? It's my belief that we could find ourselves with 3/4 fewer lawyers in this world and society would be better off (no offense to you guys in the legal field here. You are on the 1/4 list! :D) If lawyers were HARD to find when people got the whim to sue, there would be fewer frivolous suits.

No, what causes the frivolous lawsuits is that they are potentially lucrative. Even if there were only one lawyer in the entire USA, if winning a lawsuit means you never have to work in your life again that simply means the cases that one laywer was offered would be backlogged a couple of millenia.

To me, and I may have it entirely wrong since my knowledge of the american justice system is formed largely on the basis of tv series ( ;) ) there are several roots of the problem.

First of all (and here I am not at all certain if this is in fact true) if the jury has any influence on the height of the damages awarded then this causes a strong upward pressure in the amount of money awarded. After all it is easy to give away somebody else's money. Especially if that is an anonymous corporation that you already found to be in the wrong, and can have no sympathy for (as opposed to the plaintiff who is somebody much like yourself).

Even if juries do not have any say in the amount of money awarded, there still seems to be the problem that somehow damage has become mixed up with punishment. Claims for millions of dollars for relatively minor issues seem to get awarded, not because the victim actually suffers such damage but because somebody uses the amount of money to punish the company for doing something wrong.
This obviously creates a huge incentive to sue anything and anybody you can since typically companies (which may be insurance companies) have billions of dollars so any fine that they would feel the pinch of sets up for life a victim who is awarded that much in damages.

The no cure-no pay contracts. These obviously have the disadvantage that they remove any threshold for sueing anybody, since you only have to convince a lawyer to take on your case, and with a couple of hundred thousand of them looking for work (and a famous case to make their reputation) you will always find one who is desperate enough. Even if you fail, you do not lose anything by it, except a bit of time. The company on the other hand has to pay for its legal staff, worries about its reputation and may be inclined to settle out of court. In other words, even if your case has no merit you still can attempt to wrangle some money out of it at no risk to yourself. On the other hand, without this option, it is clear that victims have a severe disadvantage against corporations, who likely have several lawyers on retainer, or on staff, and merely have to drag out the case long enough for the victim to be unable to afford continueing the case.

So, what I think needs to be changed is the following.
Cases like this can only award compensation for real damage. I.e. direct damage (something got broken and needs to be fixed) and indirect damage (while waiting for something to be fixed additional costs are made , or loss of income needs to be compensated). Emotional damage should be entirely abandoned as a concept. If the psychological damage results in loss of ability then the cost of the necessary treatment has to be argued same as the cost of medical treatment. And some form of proof of said psychological damage better be provided at the court sessions
It is not the place for a damages claim to punish the evil corporation, but even should that be decided then that money should go to the government, not to the victim.
Something also has to be done about the no cure-no pay contracts, but what I have no idea. Anything I can think of has at least as many drawbacks as the current system.


Eri

I don't. I blame the people who use the lawyers to go after them. And if there is a phone book full of lawyers, someone is using them. I will admit, however, wondering today which comes first... With lawyers advertising all over the place, do the people just see an easy way out of working for a living when they see all these ambulance chaser ads? It's my belief that we could find ourselves with 3/4 fewer lawyers in this world and society would be better off (no offense to you guys in the legal field here. You are on the 1/4 list! :D) If lawyers were HARD to find when people got the whim to sue, there would be fewer frivolous suits.

Studies are pretty clear, the proportion of lawsuits to population over the years has remained fairly constant. Regardless of tort reform, advertising laws, or whatnot.

In Ohio, at least, it wasn't until the 70's that attorneys could advertise (as a result of the class action suit against, I think it was Dana, about some carcinogenic diaphrams. The attorney made the good point that his advertisements were the only way to let women who may have had issues resulting from contreceptive, that the product may have been the cause).

So? I totally fail to see why this is even remotely relevant to this case.

You would.

Eri for president :)

Eri for president :)
Agreed!
Post 45 was awesome.

So Eri makes president and the apocalypse is coming. Who's up for an End of the World barbecue?

..or would a barbecue be inappropriate?

I will bring the cole slaw and gun powder.