The article didn't really say what condition the car was in and I wonder how much force the other lady applied to the victim's body to render her paraplegic while getting her out of the car, that's wack!  :o 

The article didn't really say what condition the car was in and I wonder how much force the other lady applied to the victim's body to render her paraplegic while getting her out of the car, that's wack!  :o 
the samaritan said she "saw smoke" and that's what made her think the car was going to explode.

Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."



"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.

Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.

Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. Trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year, the lawyer said.



it's obvious that torti meant no malice but the fact is van horn is going to endure great expense and loss of income because of something stupid that torti did. the fact that torti evidently meant well doesnt change the fact that van horn was a passenger in the car and did absolutely nothing whatsoever herself to merit being paralyzed or having to pay all these expenses out of pocket.

so i understand the people saying oh, the person who tried to save her shouldn't have to pay these expenses, since she meant well. but then you have to answer the question that follows: who should pay, then? simply laying it all on van horn is not an acceptable answer.

the thing about the other case is, im not sure the subway employees were legally enjoined to help. in a lot of countries it's perfectly legal to stand by and be a worthless human being while a crime is committed. these folks should have to live with knowing they're useless people and cowards but sayign they should HAVE to help is something else entirely. some countries have laws obligating people to take reasonable actions to help if they witness a crime (and i'd be inclined to support such laws) but i have a feeling most libertarians would see such laws as an undue infringement of personal liberties. they tend not to like "crimes of omission" -- crimes one commits by not doing something, by simply minding one's own business and looking out for number 1. after all, this is one of libertarianism's core values, looking after one's own welfare primarily if not solely.

If you're getting gang raped on an MTA platform, they don't give damn; jump a turnstile and they'll beat your brains out!
::)

In the car crash case, if I was the judge I don't think I could award damages unless the plaintiff could demonstrate Torti knew better than to move an accident victim.  You'd be surprised at the number of Good Samaritans out there who don't know the first thing about first aid.  If you see a person twisted in a wrecked automobile, your gut will tell you to extricate that person.  Your gut is often wrong, but if you truly don't know better, then I could hardly find you at fault.  Of course, a first-year law student could rip this argument to shreds from a legal standpoint, but from a moral one, I don't think Torti deserved to get sued.  Torti -- what an awesome name for a defendant!

Don't forget, that is the California Supreme Court.

California as a state is hopelessly broken.  And do not be surprised when this ruleing is thrown right out when it reaches the US Supreme Court.


One can only hope.

the subway story is unforgivable but the crushed-car story is a little more complicated, imo. most folks should know that you're never supposed to move someone who's injured and the would-be rescuer, however well-intentioned, actually wound up paralyzing the victim because she apparently didn't know this simple fact that i would hope most people know by now. obviously the rescuer was well-intentioned but i have a hard time blaming the victim for being very bitter. after all, if it hadnt been for the woman who wanted to rescue her, she would probably still be able to walk. not sure if i was the victim that i would SUE. but then again, i personally can walk myself so who am i to judge.

anyway, that first story actually makes the opposite point from what macphisto wants to make, i think. it would have been a helluva lot better in that instance to wait and let the paramedics handle it. it's a lot like the hit-and-run gun story except not so lucky. and the hit-and-run gun story has unintentioned consequences for well-intentioned but irresponsible would-be good samaritans too, in that the guy pulling the gun may have arranged it so that the driver is going to end up with less jail time than he'd have gotten if they'd just called the cops.

i'm not saying good samaritanism is always ill-advised, but it's hard not to see that in these two instances it made matters worse. objectively speaking.


It's rather interesting hearing this from the same person that seems to refer to posts that encourage inaction as "defeatist" or "hopelessly cynical."

Still, I agree.  A lot of the reason why I made this thread was to suggest that helping others is not a wise decision in many cases, so you actually helped support my point.  I think you just misinterpreted what I was trying to convey with this thread.

If you're getting gang raped on an MTA platform, they don't give damn; jump a turnstile and they'll beat your brains out!
::)

In the car crash case, if I was the judge I don't think I could award damages unless the plaintiff could demonstrate Torti knew better than to move an accident victim.  You'd be surprised at the number of Good Samaritans out there who don't know the first thing about first aid.  If you see a person twisted in a wrecked automobile, your gut will tell you to extricate that person.  Your gut is often wrong, but if you truly don't know better, then I could hardly find you at fault.  Of course, a first-year law student could rip this argument to shreds from a legal standpoint, but from a moral one, I don't think Torti deserved to get sued.  Torti -- what an awesome name for a defendant!


lol. yeah, i'd thought about that too. torti. most conspiratorially appropriate name for a public figure since madoff and kashkari.

yeah, awarding damages is definitely a tricky proposition. that's why i think the real problem is with education. dont move an injured person, except in the most dire circumstances! everyone should know this stuff! my intuition is that torti did what she did because that's what happens in the movies, and it's a pretty venal sin and she shouldn't be bankrupted because of it.

then again, neither should van horn be left bankrupt in addition to being paraplegic. and i definitely don't judge her harshly for trying to sue, as so many on this thread have done. she's in pretty desperate straits and probably doesn't know what to do to salvage what's left of her life, and from her point of view, if it weren't for torti, she'd still be walking. it's really a dilemma, and if you don't find against torti the question remains: who pays for van horn's healthcare? it certainly shouldn't be her responsibility. i mean, should it? or do we just do the libertarian thing and say, 'hey, it's your spinal cord, therefore, it's your problem?' it's a tougher dilemma than folks are making it out to be.

yeah, i think it's true that if the car was about to explode, you do what you have to. then again, i have the sneaking suspicion that cars explode after crashes a helluva lot more in movies than they do in real life. in the movies, any car accident is pretty much likely to immediately lead to a vehicle explosion. in real life, i'm guessing spontaneously exploding cars are actually pretty rare.

so as the good samaritan in question, you'd have to ask yourself, okay, if i move this person i'm liable to paralyze them. (some folks might say, hey! there's no way she could have foreseen this! but i've actually known for years that moving an injured person is extremely likely to have this outcome.) so is this car actually about to explode? or do i just think it is because i've seen every diehard movie ever made?

the question really is one of education, i think. it sounds like this lady didn't know a few basic things that everyone should know about dealing with serious accidents. every kid in school should have this stuff drummed into them about not moving accident victims and about the real likelihood of spontaneous fires breaking out after car crashes.

the fact that the good samaritan had evidently been drinking probably didn't help either.


I can take it a step further, actually.

Given the fact that this lady had the nerve to sue someone trying to help her, letting the car explode would have probably been a net positive.  Granted, as you said, the car probably wouldn't have exploded anyway.

I can take it a step further, actually.

Given the fact that this lady had the nerve to sue someone trying to help her, letting the car explode would have probably been a net positive.  Granted, as you said, the car probably wouldn't have exploded anyway.
well, we agree, sorta, but for radically different reasons. you think, 'oh i won't help because i could get sued.' strictly self-interested. i'm thinking, 'the way to help is to control the situation and wait for someone to arrive who's qualified to get this woman out of the car without crippling her.'

i like to think what i would have done is to hold her hand and try to comfort her until help arrived, and if the car went up it would have burned up both of us. i might not have had the courage, but i'd say that would have been the really heroic thing to do.

well, we agree, sorta, but for radically different reasons. you think, 'oh i won't help because i could get sued.' strictly self-interested. i'm thinking, 'the way to help is to control the situation and wait for someone to arrive who's qualified to get this woman out of the car without crippling her.'

i like to think what i would have done is to hold her hand and try to comfort her until help arrived, and if the car went up it would have burned up both of us. i might not have had the courage, but i'd say that would have been the really heroic thing to do.


Being heroic isn't very practical if you're not alive to benefit from it.

Being heroic isn't very practical if you're not alive to benefit from it.
a willingness to part with your life if need be is the very definition of heroism.

a willingness to part with your life if need be is the very definition of heroism.


No, that's martyrdom.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, but threat of death isn't a prerequisite of heroism.

No, that's martyrdom.  The two aren't mutually exclusive, but threat of death isn't a prerequisite of heroism.
semantics.

It is semantics, but there's a good reason why people say they'd like to be a hero and rarely say they'd like to be a martyr (unless you're talking about terrorists).

As you pointed out in that other thread, we make a lot of assumptions involving actions we regard as having character to compensate for our own insecurities.

It may be the popular thing to say that you'd do something heroic in the face of danger, but more often than not, most of us succumb to flight more than fight.  Legally speaking, flight would seem to be a better instinct anyway.

Note:  I haven't read much of this thread.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd help out my fellow man if they were in distress.  HOWEVER....I have had first aid training and CPR, so I know when it is okay to move someone or leave them be and just do what you can for them until help arrives.  If it were a dire, life or death, OMG the car is going to explode situation, then yes, I'd move someone.  If they felt that they had to sue me for that because something happened and they became paralyzed, fine.  They wouldn't get much out of me, but at least I know in my heart that I tried my best for them.

For the record, I wouldn't sue if someone helped me as much as they could and made an honest mistake or did what they thought would be in my best interest.  I'd still be alive.

This is just me, however.  Under most circumstances in life, none of us are faced with these decisions.  What I said above would also depend on whether or not I was alone.  If the boy were with me, my priority is to him first, so I'd probably be dialing 911.  If it were just me by myself, then I'd jump in to help.

For the record, I wouldn't sue if someone helped me as much as they could and made an honest mistake or did what they thought would be in my best interest.  I'd still be alive.

so in that case, what would you do to pay for your healthcare bills? to make up for your lost wages? you're never going to walk or work again, and if you have a dependent how are you going to pay to support him or her? i dont know if this woman is married or not, or if she has a baby, but if she's a single mother with a school-age dependent, that kid's gonna starve or they're gonna have to go on welfare or something. if that's her position, she has to say, 'okay, my friend made a foolish mistake and crippled me, but i understand that her heart was in the right place. therefore, i'm going to allow my child's life to be ruined along with my own because of something my friend did, because i know she didn't mean it.'

i think it's easier to say that when we're not in her position, than it would be if we were.

so in that case, what would you do to pay for your healthcare bills? to make up for your lost wages? you're never going to walk or work again, and if you have a dependent how are you going to pay to support him or her? i dont know if this woman is married or not, or if she has a baby, but if she's a single mother with a school-age dependent, that kid's gonna starve or they're gonna have to go on welfare or something. if that's her position, she has to say, 'okay, my friend made a foolish mistake and crippled me, but i understand that her heart was in the right place. therefore, i'm going to allow my child's life to be ruined along with my own because of something my friend did, because i know she didn't mean it.'

i think it's easier to say that when we're not in her position, than it would be if we were.


Dude.  You should be a lawyer.  You'd make an excellent ambulance chaser.

Dude.  You should be a lawyer.  You'd make an excellent ambulance chaser.


Unfortunately, sometimes the law isn't backed up by what we call "principle" :-\\

Dude.  You should be a lawyer.  You'd make an excellent ambulance chaser.
i don't even understand this. what are you talking about?

seriously. i get sarcastic one-liners. but you should integrate actual points and arguments in there someplace, shouldn't you?

i mean, "ambulance chaser"? up yours, dude. i take it you think this woman's life should be ruined? she should just go ahead and shut up, quit her bitching and be crippled? that's YOUR solution?

so in that case, what would you do to pay for your healthcare bills? to make up for your lost wages? you're never going to walk or work again, and if you have a dependent how are you going to pay to support him or her? i dont know if this woman is married or not, or if she has a baby, but if she's a single mother with a school-age dependent, that kid's gonna starve or they're gonna have to go on welfare or something. if that's her position, she has to say, 'okay, my friend made a foolish mistake and crippled me, but i understand that her heart was in the right place. therefore, i'm going to allow my child's life to be ruined along with my own because of something my friend did, because i know she didn't mean it.'

i think it's easier to say that when we're not in her position, than it would be if we were.


That is why I said it is what *I* would do.  I wasn't speaking for the person in the article or for anyone else.  Just ME.  I wasn't putting down the person in the article, either.  It was just MY opinion.  MINE.

As for my circumstances, I don't work anyways, and the state picks up my healthcare because we don't have a lot of money.  So in the offchance something crazy happens while we're living here, I am covered for whatever horrible crap befalls me.

i don't even understand this. what are you talking about?


You essentially rationalized suing people for just about anything.

For example, say a doctor performs a life-saving procedure on you, but while it saves your life, the riskiness of the procedure resulted in it leaving you paralyzed.

Technically, you could sue the doctor even though he saved your life, because he did still inflict harm on you.  The law does allow for this sort of thing, which is why many people push for tort reform (to avert some of the rising healthcare costs that result from lawsuits).

Nevertheless, the intent is the same.  A woman helps a coworker out of a car in what is perceived as imminent danger by her, and the doctor performs the procedure because you will otherwise die.  The result is the same as well, thus, allowing for the same legal vulnerabilities.

Basically, what it comes down to is...  you can sue for a lot of things, but if the potential defendant had no intent on actually harming you, should you sue them on principle?

i previously said if i were the judge i dont think i would award her damages. but i don't blame her for trying. i certainly dont think it's "selfish" or that she has the "nerve" to do it. she's just trying to survive, with what i presume are massive healthcare costs and no way to work or make money.

i keep asking, and no one answers: if torti doesn't pay, who should? or should this woman just waste away and die? if she has dependents, should they waste away and die too?

i previously said if i were the judge i dont think i would award her damages. but i don't blame her for trying. i certainly dont think it's "selfish" or that she has the "nerve" to do it. she's just trying to survive, with what i presume are massive healthcare costs and no way to work.

i keep asking, and no one answers: if torti doesn't pay, who should? or should this woman just waste away and die?


The person who should pay is the person who wrecked into her.

Or, if the wreck was her fault, then she should have to deal with the consequences on her own.

The person who should pay is the person who wrecked into her.

Or, if the wreck was her fault, then she should have to deal with the consequences on her own.
she was a passenger in a car that ran into a pole. the driver was responsible for her being in the accident, but there's no way to say he's legally responsible for her being paralyzed.

did you read the article? i mean, it was YOUR link.  ;D

she was a passenger in a car that ran into a tree. the driver was responsible for her being in the accident, but there's no way to say he's legally responsible for her being paralyzed.

Actually, you could say that.  Her back was clearly in a very vulnerable state.  Unless you could prove conclusively that Torti really did "yank her out like a rag doll", then the damages really should go back to the driver.

What I know of this case seems to suggest that her lawyer pushed pretty hard to paint Torti as having been reckless in her removal of the plaintiff, but then again, people get paralyzed pretty often from serious wrecks.

Chances are, her back was already pretty weakened by the time Torti got to her that ANYONE stood a good chance of paralyzing her once she was removed from the car.  So, it begs the question....  If an EMT worker trained in removing someone still managed to paralyze her, would she still be right in suing the worker?

My feelings on this are no.  The point is...  in situations like these, paralyzation is pretty likely thing to occur.  The main thing working against Torti is her lack of training and knowledge as you mentioned earlier, but since removals from wrecks by professionals still can result in paralysis, it seems rather strange to sue Torti over it.

If anything, the lawyer probably saw an opportunity and jumped for it.  Torti might also conveniently make more money than the victim.

Actually, you could say that.  Her back was clearly in a very vulnerable state.  Unless you could prove conclusively that Torti really did "yank her out like a rag doll", then the damages really should go back to the driver.

What I know of this case seems to suggest that her lawyer pushed pretty hard to paint Torti as having been reckless in her removal of the plaintiff, but then again, people get paralyzed pretty often from serious wrecks.

Chances are, her back was already pretty weakened by the time Torti got to her that ANYONE stood a good chance of paralyzing her once she was removed from the car.  So, it begs the question....  If an EMT worker trained in removing someone still managed to paralyze her, would she still be right in suing the worker?

My feelings on this are no.  The point is...  in situations like these, paralyzation is pretty likely thing to occur.  The main thing working against Torti is her lack of training and knowledge as you mentioned earlier, but since removals from wrecks by professionals still can result in paralysis, it seems rather strange to sue Torti over it.

If anything, the lawyer probably saw an opportunity and jumped for it.  Torti might also conveniently make more money than the victim.
well, with no one else corroborating torti's testimony that she thought the car was about to explode, and the fact that she ended up leaving van horn lying next to the car anyway (which implies she didn't REALLY think the car was going to explode), i actually think the case against her is fairly strong. if it ends up that she did "yank" van horn out of the car, it's pretty open and shut. i'm saying, objectively speaking, that it was torti's actions that caused van horn to be paralyzed. if she got yanked out of a car that wasn't about to explode, it's hard to argue (a) that she would have been paralyzed anyway (there's a huge difference between someone with a back injury, and someone with a back injury who gets dragged and yanked around), and (b) that without the imminent possibility of the car exploding there wasn't any real reason for torti to do what she did. (i assume the car didn't actually explode, or else they would have mentioned it. so plainly it wasn't about to, and the testimony of the other people around indicates that it didn't even SEEM like it was about to, to anyone but torti.)

so you could try and get damages out of the driver of the car, but any half-decent lawyer would make pretty short work of it. you can get him to pay reasonable damages for the accident, but no way is he going to pay for the money van horn loses from being paralyzed.

so we're back to the original question: if torti doesn't pay, who does?

i actually think if the EMT tried to remove her and she ended up paralyzed, no, the EMT shouldn't be sued. that would mean that van horn's injuries were likely to result in paralysis in any case. but torti yanked her around, so now we'll never know if her injuries would have been bad enough to paralyze her otherwise.

anyway, like i said, i actually don't think torti should have to pay damages either, so the who-pays question then applies to me too. the difference seems to be that i'm acknowledging there's a real moral dilemma, but you guys seem quite willing to pin the blame exclusively on the driver and on van horn. van horn to me seems completely without blame in this. but you guys seem okay with saying, ok, sucks for her but whatever. she shouldn't have tried to sue so fudge her.

bear in mind, being stupid but having good intentions isn't usually a defense. i can't run someone over because i stupidly failed to obey a traffic law and say, 'oh, well, i didn't mean it,' and get off. torti did something stupid. it wasn't actually illegal, i assume, but it had devastating consequences. the fact that she meant well is definitely a mitigating factor, but we typically aren't allowed to run around doing stupid things that profoundly damage other people's lives and just shrug it off entirely.

so we're back to the original question: if torti doesn't pay, who does?

I was hoping you'd ask that again, because I forgot to mention that she's still eligible for worker's comp. and disability pay.  So, even beyond welfare, a system is in place to take care of her.

i actually think if the EMT tried to remove her and she ended up paralyzed, no, the EMT shouldn't be sued. that would mean that van horn's injuries were likely to result in paralysis in any case. but torti yanked her around, so now we'll never know if her injuries would have been bad enough to paralyze her otherwise.

anyway, like i said, i actually don't think torti should have to pay damages either, so the who-pays question then applies to me too. the difference seems to be that i'm acknowledging there's a real moral dilemma, but you guys seem quite willing to pin the blame exclusively on the driver and on van horn. van horn to me seems completely without blame in this. but you guys seem okay with saying, ok, sucks for her but whatever. she shouldn't have tried to sue so fudge her.

True.  There is a moral dilemma.  The intent of my thread was less about condemning Van Horn than to suggest that helping others simply ups your own risk.

ibear in mind, being stupid but having good intentions isn't usually a defense. i can't run someone over because i stupidly failed to obey a traffic law and say, 'oh, well, i didn't mean it,' and get off. torti did something stupid. it wasn't actually illegal, i assume, but it had devastating consequences. the fact that she meant well is definitely a mitigating factor, but we typically aren't allowed to run around doing stupid things that profoundly damage other people's lives and just shrug it off entirely.


....well, unless you're a cop, politician, or wealthy businessman.

I was hoping you'd ask that again, because I forgot to mention that she's still eligible for worker's comp. and disability pay.  So, even beyond welfare, a system is in place to take care of her.

well, if i understand the system right, she's definitely not going to get workman's comp because she wasn't working at the time, it's not a work-related accident. she might get disability but they say the whole group worked at a "department store", i.e., retail, which to me makes it seem unlikely that they're getting much in the way of long-term disability benefits. i believe that comes from your employer, not from the state, and most retail stores dont do a whole lot in the way of socialist benefits like long-term disability. if the "department store" in question is wal*mart, then she's DEFINITELY fudged.

and in any case, all that only covers living expenses, not healthcare costs. the mere fact that she's suing for healthcare cost compensation makes me think she either doesn't have insurance, her insurance isn't going to cover the accident (even if her lawsuit doesn't stand, i bet the company covering her, if any, will try and get out of honoring her claim on the grounds that the paralysis was torti's fault), or the deductibles alone are enough to bankrupt her. of course, this is all speculation on my part but the mere fact that she's suing for healthcare costs, like i say, makes me think she's like so many people in this country and doesn't have enough coverage to afford getting sick or paralyzed. unless she's just trying to cash in, which seems to be what you're assuming. but this isn't just someone who spilled coffee on her own lap, or slipped on the ice and is pretending to have whiplash. chick's PARALYZED, man. i guess she could be trying to cash in but to just assume so seems cynical to say the least.

another funny aspect to this (well, funny isn't the word, but...) i think it seems pretty obvious that this torti chick has a conscience or else she probably wouldn't have tried to do what she did, misguided though it was, in the first place. my guess (and again, i'm way speculating here) is that her own conscience has been torturing her over the fact that she accidentally paralyzed van horn. (my guess was that she left van horn next to the car because when she pulled her out, she saw how twisted her body was and gathered that pulling her out of the car had helped make it worse...) anyway, van horn's suing torti pretty much lets her off the hook, she's not likely to feel too guilty after that. and van horn is unlikely to win a settlement. so more unintended consequences: van horn suing torti is probably the best thing that could happen to torti, in terms of the latter sleeping nights.

well, if i understand the system right, she's definitely not going to get workman's comp because she wasn't working at the time. she might get disability but they say the whole group worked at a "department store", i.e., retail, which to me makes it seem unlikely that they're getting much in the way of long-term disability benefits. i believe that comes from your employer, not from the state, and most retail stores dont do a whole lot in the way of socialist benefits like long-term disability. if the "department store" in question is wal*mart, then she's DEFINITELY fudged.


The business is in California.  California is actually better than most about providing state benefits.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/disability_insurance.htm

and in any case, all that only covers living expenses, not healthcare costs. the mere fact that she's suing for healthcare cost compensation makes me think she either doesn't have insurance, her insurance isn't going to cover the accident (even if her lawsuit doesn't stand, i bet the company covering her, if any, will try and get out of honoring her claim on the grounds that the paralysis was torti's fault), or the deductibles alone are enough to bankrupt her. of course, this is all speculation on my part but the mere fact that she's suing for healthcare costs, like i say, makes me think she's like so many people in this country and doesn't have enough coverage to afford getting sick or paralyzed. unless she's just trying to cash in, which seems to be what you're assuming. but this isn't just someone who spilled coffee on her own lap, or slipped on the ice and is pretending to have whiplash. chick's PARALYZED, man. i guess she could be trying to cash in but to just assume so seems cynical to say the least.



I was mostly assuming the lawyer was trying to cash in, actually.  Generally speaking, they take a large portion of damages.

I was mostly assuming the lawyer was trying to cash in, actually. 


no you weren't. you've been spending this whole thread talking about van horn, not the lawyer.


Most normal people wouldn't sue someone after saving them, but then again, there are a lot of people out there that are abnormally selfish and spiteful.



I can take it a step further, actually.

Given the fact that this lady had the nerve to sue someone trying to help her, letting the car explode would have probably been a net positive.  Granted, as you said, the car probably wouldn't have exploded anyway.

Wait...were they driving around for business or just as a carpool?  If they were on a business-type trip, workman's comp would apply, but if not...  ???

no you weren't. you've been spending this whole thread talking about van horn, not the lawyer.



I also said this...

"If anything, the lawyer probably saw an opportunity and jumped for it.."

Wait...were they driving around for business or just as a carpool?  If they were on a business-type trip, workman's comp would apply, but if not...  ???


Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices noted as background.


one thing is, if van horn knowingly got into a car with a driver she had good reason to think was intoxicated, this could make her partly liable. i dunno if they'd picked out designated drivers or not.

but in any case, workman's comp is unlikely. and the lion's share of the expense is gonna be healthcare and related. she needs wheelchairs, she's gonna need to install handrails in her bathroom so she can bathe herself, she might need to hire someone to assist her with things like getting into bed. her disability payments aren't gonna cover this. if she had to receive extensive emergency care and she doesn't have insurance or has substandard, "department store"-style insurance, she's probably already tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for the care she's already gotten. if she's working at wal*mart she's probably making something like 10, 12 dollars an hour and i'm guessing her disability payments are likely to be something like 6 or 8 dollars an hour, 40 hours a week. if she wants to live, she's just gonna have to go bankrupt.

if we keep going down this road as a society, i wonder how long it's gonna be before we just start euthanizing people like this. their employers aren't going to pick up the tab, the government sure as hell aren't going to make them wards of the state, and they can't sue to recompense damages from the people who did it to em. so they end up crippled, and in a completely untenable position. in a society like the one we've got, really might as well put 'em to sleep if we're gonna do this sort of thing to them.

course, who's gonna pay for the euthanasia drugs? the taxpayer? that's socialism, man!

mark my words. if this van horn woman doesn't have a supportive family, i'll lay down ten bucks that a year from now, she'll be homeless and probably alcoholic. as punishment for being in a car accident.

because that's the kind of great nation we are.

Wait...were they driving around for business or just as a carpool?  If they were on a business-type trip, workman's comp would apply, but if not...  ???


Workers comp, those guys sit around all day dreaming up reasons NOT to pay any benefits!
::)

Workers comp, those guys sit around all day dreaming up reasons NOT to pay any benefits!
::)


So true.

course, who's gonna pay for the euthanasia drugs? the taxpayer? that's socialism, man!

mark my words. if this van horn woman doesn't have a supportive family, i'll lay down ten bucks that a year from now, she'll be homeless and probably alcoholic. as punishment for being in a car accident.

because that's the kind of great nation we are.


Through the course of this thread, I've changed my mind about this situation.  I'm going to concede to your position, because admittedly, I was overlooking a number of factors.

Despite our attacks at each other, we can at least agree on some things in the end.

Through the course of this thread, I've changed my mind about this situation.  I'm going to concede to your position, because admittedly, I was overlooking a number of factors.

Despite our attacks at each other, we can at least agree on some things in the end.


No you can't.  That ruins my entertainment.