http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/10/film.boratlawsuit.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Kinda funny story.

Ah, America. The only land where you can sue someone and get money when <i>you</i> do something stupid.

Ah, America. The only land where you can sue someone and get money when <i>you</i> do something stupid.

Here's another one.

I fully support taking the warning labels off of everything and mandating a law that if you injure yourself through your own actions, you get no compensation, other than perhaps derisive laughter.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-08-shakira-contest_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-contest_x.htm
If she had spontaneously gotten up on the bar and started dancing I'd be inclined to agree with you completely. However, the establishment was hosting a contest and using the top of their bar as the stage. If they failed to take reasonable precautions to make it safe for dancing (like clearing it and wiping it dry) then I think they deserve some degree of liability.

If you care to see the bar, they have a virtual tour of it here:
http://www.calicojacksnyc.com/tours.php
It looks a bit narrow but other than that, it's just a bar.

Yeah, I gotta say if the bar owners sponsered the contest and even charged an entry fee, they're responsible for injuries.

Forget that! That's why companies have to invest thousands of dollars in insurance and lawyers to say things like, "The bar is a bar. It's thin and drinks are served on it. There are no safety nets, only a hard floor below you. Dance at your own risk."

It's a sad sue happy nation.

It's a sad sue happy nation.

Well duh, it is because it is big bucks, and everyone likes the system the way it is.

Lawyers don't mind because they take 33-40 of all of it.
Insurance companies don't mind because that is how they make all of their money.
And stupid people like it, because it offers them a lottery payout.
Businesses don't really mind, because they just pass all the cost on to the consumer.

Now the reasonable way to do it would be for individuals to have insurance for when they get hurt. But that would put most of everybody making a living off this current system, out of a job.

So many people right now don't try ventures because of the risk involved. And so many people do stupid stuff(like the bar thing) at the other end, that I don't rightly know what the effect, that is of making people responsible for themselves, would actually have. Unbridled entrepreneurial explosion of new ventures, or people huddled up in their homes afraid of going out and doing something stupid, and hurting themselves.

Ah, America. The only land where you can sue someone and get money when <i>you</i> do something stupid.

Ah, America, a land where you can sue someone for taking advantage of you and illegally have you sign a release while intoxicated.

What the producers did was wrong and illegal.

Forget that! That's why companies have to invest thousands of dollars in insurance and lawyers to say things like, "The bar is a bar. It's thin and drinks are served on it. There are no safety nets, only a hard floor below you. Dance at your own risk."

It's a sad sue happy nation.

No, companies have to invest thousands of dollars in insurance and lawyers because they do stupid and irresponsible things like host a dance contest on top of a bar and fail to keep the surface of the bar clean and clear of hazards.

Its basic common sense and basic liability. You have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for your patrons.

Well duh, it is because it is big bucks, and everyone likes the system the way it is.

Lawyers don't mind because they take 33-40 of all of it.
Insurance companies don't mind because that is how they make all of their money.
And stupid people like it, because it offers them a lottery payout.
Businesses don't really mind, because they just pass all the cost on to the consumer.

Now the reasonable way to do it would be for individuals to have insurance for when they get hurt. But that would put most of everybody making a living off this current system, out of a job.

So many people right now don't try ventures because of the risk involved. And so many people do stupid stuff(like the bar thing) at the other end, that I don't rightly know what the effect, that is of making people responsible for themselves, would actually have. Unbridled entrepreneurial explosion of new ventures, or people huddled up in their homes afraid of going out and doing something stupid, and hurting themselves.

People do carry insurance to protect themselves in case of injury, Fy'yr. Its called health insurance and car insurance, for instance. In virtually every case, the insuror will seek subrogation for their insurance payout, either from the plaintiff, if he has filed a claim and either settled or been awarded a verdict, or directly from the tortfeasor, if their insured did not file a claim.

Insurance companies sue each other much more than people do. Switching to everyone carrying their own casualty insurance (above and beyond the normal health and auto insurance) would not reduce lawsuits in the United States one iota.

I am not really saying that it would.

Instead, I would assume, people would just use their lawyers to sue their OWN insurance companies to get settlements or judgements from their claims.

But that would leave third and fourth parties out of the deal, at least.

And it would make idiots like the bar dancer at least a little more cautious.

Switching to everyone carrying their own casualty insurance (above and beyond the normal health and auto insurance) would not reduce lawsuits in the United States one iota.Sure it would, if you forced everyone to be covered and to seek compensation from the insurer only. This way, individuals would have to bear much more of the cost of their stupidity, instead of spreading it out to society.

The big ticket litigation damages -- noneconomic and punitive damages -- would be off the table. They're inherently inefficient and no one would actually buy insurance for such things if they had to pay for it. (In litigation, society pays for it, so people think it's OK.) This incentive is so powerful, I bet the litigation system would reform itself if we just got rid of these damages.

It would also make people more careful. If I'm the one paying the premiums -- not society -- I'll be a hell of a lot more careful when getting up on a bar to dance or balancing a cup of hot coffee on my knees in a moving car.

I am not really saying that it would.

Instead, I would assume, people would just use their lawyers to sue their OWN insurance companies to get settlements or judgements from their claims.

That, also, happens with some frequency. Rare is the time when a person's insurance carrier is willing to pay out the value for uninsured/underinsured auto coverage, for instance. So you end up having to sue your own insurance company to get them to fulfill their end of the contract.

But that would leave third and fourth parties out of the deal, at least.

No, it wouldn't. If that girl sued her own hypothetical insurance company for compensation for that fall, her insurance company would turn around and sue the bar to compensate for their loss in paying her, because they feel he was liable.

Under the current system...its actually one less lawsuit, because her health insurance usually has to wait for her settlement or verdict before any manner of subrogation and there are rarely suits over subrogation, because the amount paid out is the amount paid back, very simple.

And it would make idiots like the bar dancer at least a little more cautious.

Why was she an idiot? She entered a contest to dance...she had a reasonable expectation that the dance surface would be kept clean and clear of spills or debris. The fact that it was on a bar makes zero difference.

Sure it would, if you forced everyone to be covered and to seek compensation from the insurer only. This way, individuals would have to bear much more of the cost of their stupidity, instead of spreading it out to society.

The big ticket litigation damages -- noneconomic and punitive damages -- would be off the table. They're inherently inefficient and no one would actually buy insurance for such things if they had to pay for it. (In litigation, society pays for it, so people think it's OK.) This incentive is so powerful, I bet the litigation system would reform itself if we just got rid of these damages.

It would also make people more careful. If I'm the one paying the premiums -- not society -- I'll be a hell of a lot more careful when getting up on a bar to dance or balancing a cup of hot coffee on my knees in a moving car.

Tudamorf, You are a ****ing moron and your grasp of the realities border on absurd.

Punitive and non economic damages are a necessary part of the system

Tell me, how much would you be willing to part with an arm for? How much would you take to be paralyzed from the waist down? How much would you accept to be incapable of physical interaction with your family for three or four years (or longer)?

You seriously want to tell the man who's lost a leg due to the negligence of someone else "here's the 75,000 it cost for your medical bills and time off work, have a nice life"?

You go ahead and do that...then watch people kill each other, literally, because the justice system has been gutted by stupid ass dumb****s like yourself.

Only economic damages...pfft. Moron.

Punitive and non economic damages are a necessary part of the systemWhy? Virtually every other country on Earth gets along either without them, or with a very limited version of them (compared to the United States).Tell me, how much would you be willing to part with an arm for? How much would you take to be paralyzed from the waist down? How much would you accept to be incapable of physical interaction with your family for three or four years (or longer)?Do I get that choice? I'm betting a whole lot of people would trade parts of their body, or periods of limited freedom, for a guaranteed sum of millions, just to be free of a debt-stricken life of poverty.

And you're conveniently ignoring the ultimate big ticket item, punitive damages. I don't even have to be injured to hit the jackpot, I just have to find a deep pocket that a jury won't like and a charismatic lawyer. A little spilled coffee is all it takes to pull the lever on that slot machine.You seriously want to tell the man who's lost a leg due to the negligence of someone else "here's the 75,000 it cost for your medical bills and time off work, have a nice life"?If he lost a leg due to an accident where he couldn't sue a deep pocket, that's exactly what we'd be telling him. It shouldn't be any different just because he had the fortune of having a deep pocket to blame.You go ahead and do that...then watch people kill each other, literally, because the justice system has been gutted by stupid ass dumb****s like yourself.I don't see people killing each other in Germany, Japan, or France because they think their civil justice system is unfair.Only economic damages...pfft. Moron.You mean: "Only economic damages...pfft. I'd have to find a job that actually contributes to the economy instead of leeching off of it."

That, also, happens with some frequency. Rare is the time when a person's insurance carrier is willing to pay out the value for uninsured/underinsured auto coverage, for instance. So you end up having to sue your own insurance company to get them to fulfill their end of the contract.


Exactly, as well it should.

I would have a contract with the insurance company. That would be a better way. Contract law, and even disagreements within contracts, is easy to decide, and to predict. It does not take a whole lot of legal prowess to say "Well, you said and wrote what you were going to do right here, and you did not do it, you are in breach."

I, as a bar owner, have no contract with some idiot woman klutz who wants to sue me because she is uncoordinated and has no balance.

y obligations and risks are then clear and predictable.

Additionally, I as a consumer, would be able to pay less for every product and service I buy, because the cost of litigation(the tort tax as some have called it) is born by those who WANT to pay it, and not by the rest of us. Well, I am hesitant to include us and me in there, because I am smart enough not to get drunk, climb up onto a wet bar in a dark saloon, and dance around like a fool.

It is a long chain of events, but ultimately, it is I who has to pay for that ****. And I don't want to anymore, because I don't know her, I would not like her if I did, and honestly, the world would be a better place without such people.

If others want to buy into that system, they should be able to. But there should be an opt out, and currently there is none. I know that you like it that way, of course. Just means the pool of prospective monies is larger for you at the status quo.

I think the only sticking parts to contract disagreements are when both parties breach terms of contracts at or about the same time. But when one party does their side, and the other side does not, that is rather cut and dried.

If I pay an insurance company to pay me X dollars when Y happens, and they don't pay X...well that would be an easy decision for any judge or jury to make.

Why was she an idiot? She entered a contest to dance...she had a reasonable expectation that the dance surface would be kept clean and clear of spills or debris. The fact that it was on a bar makes zero difference.

Reason and what is reasonable is only a matter of opinion.

aybe a thinking person could see the state of the surface, and either opt out, or wipe the ****ing thing down herself.

Just because you are your brother's keeper, does NOT make me yours.

You only think it is reasonable, because you think that it is reasonable. I on the otherhand think that it is more reasonable to be responsible for my own actions, and others theirs.

A reasonable person would say to themselves, "I should not get drunk, hop up on a bar, in an unlit saloon, and bounce around and dance". That is reasonable.

If the bartender did an action, such as picked her up and placed her up there, then, or pushed her, or hit her with a barstool, or yanked a barstool out from under her, AN ACTION, Ya, you got a case. But people should not be responsible to keep other people from making stupid and unsafe choices about their own actions and behaviors. That is what is reasonable.

People should have the liberty and freedom to make their own choices in life, and be free to live with the consequences of them, even if negative. That is reasonable. And other people, other 5th parties, who don't even know the first persons, should not be made liable for paying for their stupidity and unsafe actions in life. That freedom, that liberty, is reasonable.(and would be to anyone who does not collect a paycheck from the current absurd system).

You mean: "Only economic damages...pfft. I'd have to find a job that actually contributes to the economy instead of leeching off of it."
Are you talking about the plaintiffs or are you talking about trial lawyers?

FYI, The Smoking Gun has a lot more info on the lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1113061borat1.html

Are you talking about the plaintiffs or are you talking about trial lawyers?I was referring to Aidon and the personal injury lawyers in general, who have great self-interest in defending the current broken system.