It’s my party and I’ll blog if I want to. Since I can’t seem to find a party I like, I decided to create my own. I actually had some other names for the party, but the cool ones were already taken, so I decided it is My Party. If you wish to join – you’re in and the name works because it will be your party (wait??- no ok, when it is your party and you tell people about it -- you will tell them it is My Party so we are still good!!) Acknowledge your affiliation with My Party by forwarding it to others letting them know about My Party. At some point we may need to have a convention, which will probably consist of a grill and keg and selection of candidates.
My Party Platform
Flat tax everyone pays same. The dollar you earn is the same why not the tax. If you want to pay more great the tax form will have a line for additional contribution.
Pro-life if you don't want a baby there is a way to avoid it.
Congress -- If you pass a law then own it. If you really believe Obamacare is what's best for the country then it should apply to you.
Obamacare should not require anyone to pay for contraceptives or abortion if they oppose it morally or religious.
Congress -- Once you leave congress your salary ends. You're not working for the country so you shouldn't be getting paid.
If your title or job description has the title czar in it – it’s over. USA does not equal USSR. We elect not create positions by fiat.
Every agency should have a justification of its job and need.
Tort reform we have it – they are called juries. They hear the evidence and are in the best position to determine what is just --As in justice. An artificial cap on damages only impacts cases which have been shown to be requiring a verdict to correct harm.
No cap on salary if you can earn it through hard work power to you, but don't be a hypocrite and support tort reform. Either you are for a free market or you aren't
There is no “the problem was Bush, Obama, etc., etc.” The problem is America’s. Stop whining about what happened and start changing what is happening and what is going to happen. There is plenty of blame to go around so let’s move forward and do what has to be done.
Brent Carpenter – It’s My Party
Showing posts with label sugar land. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sugar land. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Court allows Drunks to reduce how much they pay
Texas Supreme Court allows drunk drivers and others who cause car wrecks to reduce how much they will have to pay. Drunk Drivers get benefit of your premiums for health Insurance by getting credit for the negotiated rate.
This should have been front page news in papers across Texas this past week as our Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Haygood v. Escabedo. Did you see a single paper discuss this ruling? Have you heard any of the radio or TV talk shows discuss this case? Why not? Where is the outrage?
I hear comments from people every month who call me about a workers compensation claim, medical malpractice or other issues. I tell them I can’t handle it because the law has made it almost impossible. They almost invariably tell me that it wasn’t supposed to impact their case only those frivolous ones. When I ask them why they weren’t mad and outraged when the laws were being passed or the Supreme Court was “interpreting” them, they always say it didn’t impact me so I didn’t pay attention. The only outrage about our rights being taken away nationally and in Texas seems to be coming from the trial lawyers. I am proud to be in the outraged group.
So what has the Texas Supreme Court done in its latest piece of judicial activism? Their twists and turns distort the law so much it would make a contortionist envious.
The Court's decision in Haywood v. Escobedo allows the person or company who harms you or your family to benefit from the health insurance you have paid premiums for all these years.
The Court argues there ruling is necessary to prevent a “windfall” to the claimant (that would be the person injured, maimed or killed by the drunk or other reckless driver to us normal people).
They also argue they are just interpreting the law as the Texas legislature wanted. Hard to believe that is the case when the legislature actually tried to repeal the law they are “interpreting” the session after they passed it as they realized what it truly was -- which is a windfall for the drunks, reckless drivers and their insurance companies. However Governor Perry vetoed the repeal of the bill so it is still on the books.
So here we are with an Activist Court that needs to protect the drunks and insurance companies, but how? They have already overturned virtually every jury verdict for any Plaintiff that comes their way. So rather than wait until a jury hears all the evidence and votes to compensate the injured person, they have decided to limit what the jury can hear so the compensation will be even lower and the insurance companies will have to pay less, make more profits and be able to contribute to all the expensive political campaigns.
Here is how the Court accomplished this with their latest decision: Let’s start with a situation where you are hit by a drunk who has a policy of $50,000.00. You are taken by life flight to the hospital where you stay for a week. You then have to go through rehabilitation. After about four months you are mostly better. You missed a month of work and still can’t do everything, but hopefully you will get where you can sleep through the night and play with your kids without having to tell them Daddy needs to rest. You have worked hard for years and paid for your health insurance at the cost of some vacations you wanted to take, but you knew how important it was for you to provide coverage for you and your family in case a situation like this happened. The medical bills were over $100,000.00, but because of your group plan they managed to reduce the total to $35,000.00 and since you met your deductible earlier in the year, you don’t owe anything else.
You send the bills to the drunks’ insurance carrier and ask that they pay the $50,000.00 policy limits because your medical bills alone are over $100k. Pretty straight forward right? You shouldn’t even need to get an attorney to settle this case. The operative word there is shouldn’t.
The reality is the insurance company will tell you we don’t owe $100k in medical because we get to take credit for your health insurance premiums and negotiated rate so all we will owe is $35k and we don’t think all of that is related because we know you hurt your neck 15 years ago when you were putting in fence posts and saw a chiropractor one time so we think all your neck issues are related to that and not this head on collision. So with the paid amount being $35k and us taking out some of the neck issue which we believe is not related (and because we can), we are willing to settle your case for $28,500.00.
What gives them the right to get the benefit of your paying premiums all those years: “Home Office” which is what they consider the Texas Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t they? They have won virtually every case that makes it there. Now the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only evidence a jury may consider in determining medical expenses are those amounts which were actually paid or will be owed by the person injured. So all those years of paying premiums and making sacrifices for you and your family to be covered is now benefitting the person who caused the wreck. The jury is not allowed to hear about how the bills were over $100k and because you had insurance it was reduced to $35k. They are not allowed to hear about the premiums you have paid to make that reduction possible. They may not even be allowed to hear about the deductible if it was met before this wreck. All because our Supreme Court has determined that it would be a “windfall”. How is it they never seem to be have a problem when insurance companies have a windfall of profits.
So if you happen to serve on a jury or hear about someone on a jury who talks about how this person was in a wreck but only had xxx in medical you can be fairly certain that it is at least 3x that amount of actual medical charges.
For my lawyer friends we know there are also significant issues regarding how Section 18.001 will be impacted and other battles over what constitutes paid --Is a deductible to be considered? Co-pay?
Some of you may know that I spent my senior year of high school attending gymnasium in Germany (which is the German equivalent of our U.S. high school). One of the things required in history classes was a complete study of the Nazi takeover both in political and military terms, which included the apathy and violence. The rational was if you never forget you will never repeat. If you were to ask someone who lived through that time how they could let it happen they would tell you it was not a sudden change. Rights were taken away one by one and it always was something that didn’t concern them. If someone was complaining about this or that they didn’t care because it didn’t impact them. Until one day it did. Then it was too late. Everyone asked how could “they” let this have happened? And then it became clear they were the “they” who allowed it.
As always I welcome comments.
This should have been front page news in papers across Texas this past week as our Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Haygood v. Escabedo. Did you see a single paper discuss this ruling? Have you heard any of the radio or TV talk shows discuss this case? Why not? Where is the outrage?
I hear comments from people every month who call me about a workers compensation claim, medical malpractice or other issues. I tell them I can’t handle it because the law has made it almost impossible. They almost invariably tell me that it wasn’t supposed to impact their case only those frivolous ones. When I ask them why they weren’t mad and outraged when the laws were being passed or the Supreme Court was “interpreting” them, they always say it didn’t impact me so I didn’t pay attention. The only outrage about our rights being taken away nationally and in Texas seems to be coming from the trial lawyers. I am proud to be in the outraged group.
So what has the Texas Supreme Court done in its latest piece of judicial activism? Their twists and turns distort the law so much it would make a contortionist envious.
The Court's decision in Haywood v. Escobedo allows the person or company who harms you or your family to benefit from the health insurance you have paid premiums for all these years.
The Court argues there ruling is necessary to prevent a “windfall” to the claimant (that would be the person injured, maimed or killed by the drunk or other reckless driver to us normal people).
They also argue they are just interpreting the law as the Texas legislature wanted. Hard to believe that is the case when the legislature actually tried to repeal the law they are “interpreting” the session after they passed it as they realized what it truly was -- which is a windfall for the drunks, reckless drivers and their insurance companies. However Governor Perry vetoed the repeal of the bill so it is still on the books.
So here we are with an Activist Court that needs to protect the drunks and insurance companies, but how? They have already overturned virtually every jury verdict for any Plaintiff that comes their way. So rather than wait until a jury hears all the evidence and votes to compensate the injured person, they have decided to limit what the jury can hear so the compensation will be even lower and the insurance companies will have to pay less, make more profits and be able to contribute to all the expensive political campaigns.
Here is how the Court accomplished this with their latest decision: Let’s start with a situation where you are hit by a drunk who has a policy of $50,000.00. You are taken by life flight to the hospital where you stay for a week. You then have to go through rehabilitation. After about four months you are mostly better. You missed a month of work and still can’t do everything, but hopefully you will get where you can sleep through the night and play with your kids without having to tell them Daddy needs to rest. You have worked hard for years and paid for your health insurance at the cost of some vacations you wanted to take, but you knew how important it was for you to provide coverage for you and your family in case a situation like this happened. The medical bills were over $100,000.00, but because of your group plan they managed to reduce the total to $35,000.00 and since you met your deductible earlier in the year, you don’t owe anything else.
You send the bills to the drunks’ insurance carrier and ask that they pay the $50,000.00 policy limits because your medical bills alone are over $100k. Pretty straight forward right? You shouldn’t even need to get an attorney to settle this case. The operative word there is shouldn’t.
The reality is the insurance company will tell you we don’t owe $100k in medical because we get to take credit for your health insurance premiums and negotiated rate so all we will owe is $35k and we don’t think all of that is related because we know you hurt your neck 15 years ago when you were putting in fence posts and saw a chiropractor one time so we think all your neck issues are related to that and not this head on collision. So with the paid amount being $35k and us taking out some of the neck issue which we believe is not related (and because we can), we are willing to settle your case for $28,500.00.
What gives them the right to get the benefit of your paying premiums all those years: “Home Office” which is what they consider the Texas Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t they? They have won virtually every case that makes it there. Now the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only evidence a jury may consider in determining medical expenses are those amounts which were actually paid or will be owed by the person injured. So all those years of paying premiums and making sacrifices for you and your family to be covered is now benefitting the person who caused the wreck. The jury is not allowed to hear about how the bills were over $100k and because you had insurance it was reduced to $35k. They are not allowed to hear about the premiums you have paid to make that reduction possible. They may not even be allowed to hear about the deductible if it was met before this wreck. All because our Supreme Court has determined that it would be a “windfall”. How is it they never seem to be have a problem when insurance companies have a windfall of profits.
So if you happen to serve on a jury or hear about someone on a jury who talks about how this person was in a wreck but only had xxx in medical you can be fairly certain that it is at least 3x that amount of actual medical charges.
For my lawyer friends we know there are also significant issues regarding how Section 18.001 will be impacted and other battles over what constitutes paid --Is a deductible to be considered? Co-pay?
Some of you may know that I spent my senior year of high school attending gymnasium in Germany (which is the German equivalent of our U.S. high school). One of the things required in history classes was a complete study of the Nazi takeover both in political and military terms, which included the apathy and violence. The rational was if you never forget you will never repeat. If you were to ask someone who lived through that time how they could let it happen they would tell you it was not a sudden change. Rights were taken away one by one and it always was something that didn’t concern them. If someone was complaining about this or that they didn’t care because it didn’t impact them. Until one day it did. Then it was too late. Everyone asked how could “they” let this have happened? And then it became clear they were the “they” who allowed it.
As always I welcome comments.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Jury Selection - Really Deselection
You get a letter in the mail and it informs you that you need to be at the courthouse on a certain day and time to serve as a juror. You win!!! Make sure you show up on the right day and on time. It is also a good idea to take a book or something to do while waiting. It is a great thing in our country that we have the chance to serve as a juror and if you have ever been involved in a case it can be down right scary as to how the actual jury which hears the case is determined. First of all it is called jury selection, but that is completely wrong. It is actually jury de-selection. Attorneys get to argue to the Court that certain potential jurors are not suited for this particular case and they can be excused. They also get to strike (get rid of) a certain number of potential jurors just because we don't like a particular answer they gave or attitude even if there is not enough grounds to get rid of them for cause (evidence that they can't be completely fair in this trial). What does that mean -- fair? Not have any bias or prejudice. Not much help huh! The problem is it depends on the each case. A person may be a great juror in one case and terrible in another. If you had been robbed and were called to be a potential juror in a robbery case you might not be able to be unbiased, but in a business dispute it might be fine. What happens when you show up for jury duty? I can give you some information about Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, Wharton and other counties in Texas (as well as some other states), but most are fairly alike. You are generally initially selected by driver’s license and/or voters registration. You show up and they ask you to verify the information they have and fill out some more information which will be provided to the attorneys if you make it that far. They first qualify you which means they make sure you still live in the county, are not disqualified (not a felon or medically unable to participate) and do not choose to take a waiver (young children at home, student, etc.) Once you get that done, you wait. As the Courts need jurors they call names out and those people leave and go away?? Where? What happened to them? Is it better that you are still there?? If you are never called you are excused and get to leave. If you are called you are taken to one of the Courts where you will form the jury panel. It could be a criminal or a civil case which you find out when you get to the Court. The attorneys will have had about 5 seconds to review all the information that every potential juror provided as the Court explains a little about the case who the attorneys are and what will happen. Still in the dark, not surprising! At this point the attorneys begin vor dire. They get to ask you questions to see if you are the right person (in their mind) to serve on the jury. What each party really want is every juror to believe them and rule in their favor, but what we hope for is a jury that can be fair. How do we get there? We ask questions which we hope will allow us to learn a little about you to determine who we need to get rid of. We don’t get to select who we like. We get to get rid of some - ask the Court to get rid of some - and the first 6 or 12 (depending on Court) people left after all sides are done make up the jury. So in reality if you are on the jury it is because there was no good reason to get rid of you. I know you really want to know how to improve your chances of not ending up on the jury.
First – Do not just sit there quietly hoping no one will notice you. They won’t which means no reason to strike you and you end up on the jury.
Second – Tell the truth and answer the questions that are asked. If you do that and you end up on the jury it is a good thing and you will appreciate it if you ever have to be in a trial as that is the type of person you would want.
Third - If you are not comfortable with being a juror in that case let the attorneys know why. If it is personal ask to go up to the bench for a private conference with the judge and jury. No one wants a person on the jury who should not be there.
Question I have heard from potential jurors (not about me- I hope.)
Why do lawyers ask such stupid questions? Not a clue. Sometimes they have a reason for a question that doesn’t make sense at the time, sometimes it is just stupid.
Why do they argue with me about my answer? I really don’t know. Not only is it not smart, but it doesn’t get you any useful information. If I don’t agree with an answer a juror gives, I just make a note of it and move on.
Why won’t they answer my questions about… insurance, police report, etc. There are specific rules as to what attorneys are allowed to discuss and what we can’t. In an injury case we are not allowed to discuss anything about insurance, whether it exists (auto or health) what discussions, if any went on, etc. The police report and what they found may or may not come in depending on several issues. So if a lawyer will not answer you or avoids the question, it is probably because he is not allowed to discuss it.
Finally, don’t try to get off a jury panel. It may backfire. I have had jurors flat out lie and everyone knew it. Had an astronaut claim he wasn’t one and just an engineer. Everyone in the courtroom knew him and that he was an astronaut, but he kept swearing he wasn’t. The court called the lawyers up and said he didn’t know why he would lie, he was going to excuse him but also had lost all respect for him. We saw him the next morning on TV doing an interview. I also had a man claim he was a welder, but had a manicure and didn’t know much about the ins and outs of welding. Turns out he owned several welding companies and wanted to get on the jury to “stop the crazy verdicts”. He was struck. But how do you think he would have felt if his company was sued and a juror lied to get on to “make sure he lost”. He would be rightfully furious, but saw nothing wrong in his actions. I have also heard of jurors getting off a panel which would have been only a 1-2 day trial only to end up on a month long murder case. So tell the truth and generally it will all work out as it should. Hope this helps in jury de-selection understanding. If you have any other questions, about jury selection let me know. Next time we will talk about things that happen in trial.
Let me know your experiences with jury duty or jury selection?
First – Do not just sit there quietly hoping no one will notice you. They won’t which means no reason to strike you and you end up on the jury.
Second – Tell the truth and answer the questions that are asked. If you do that and you end up on the jury it is a good thing and you will appreciate it if you ever have to be in a trial as that is the type of person you would want.
Third - If you are not comfortable with being a juror in that case let the attorneys know why. If it is personal ask to go up to the bench for a private conference with the judge and jury. No one wants a person on the jury who should not be there.
Question I have heard from potential jurors (not about me- I hope.)
Why do lawyers ask such stupid questions? Not a clue. Sometimes they have a reason for a question that doesn’t make sense at the time, sometimes it is just stupid.
Why do they argue with me about my answer? I really don’t know. Not only is it not smart, but it doesn’t get you any useful information. If I don’t agree with an answer a juror gives, I just make a note of it and move on.
Why won’t they answer my questions about… insurance, police report, etc. There are specific rules as to what attorneys are allowed to discuss and what we can’t. In an injury case we are not allowed to discuss anything about insurance, whether it exists (auto or health) what discussions, if any went on, etc. The police report and what they found may or may not come in depending on several issues. So if a lawyer will not answer you or avoids the question, it is probably because he is not allowed to discuss it.
Finally, don’t try to get off a jury panel. It may backfire. I have had jurors flat out lie and everyone knew it. Had an astronaut claim he wasn’t one and just an engineer. Everyone in the courtroom knew him and that he was an astronaut, but he kept swearing he wasn’t. The court called the lawyers up and said he didn’t know why he would lie, he was going to excuse him but also had lost all respect for him. We saw him the next morning on TV doing an interview. I also had a man claim he was a welder, but had a manicure and didn’t know much about the ins and outs of welding. Turns out he owned several welding companies and wanted to get on the jury to “stop the crazy verdicts”. He was struck. But how do you think he would have felt if his company was sued and a juror lied to get on to “make sure he lost”. He would be rightfully furious, but saw nothing wrong in his actions. I have also heard of jurors getting off a panel which would have been only a 1-2 day trial only to end up on a month long murder case. So tell the truth and generally it will all work out as it should. Hope this helps in jury de-selection understanding. If you have any other questions, about jury selection let me know. Next time we will talk about things that happen in trial.
Let me know your experiences with jury duty or jury selection?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Free Speech is Never Free
As I was preparing to write this weeks’ blog I had intended to write about how much is a life worth and methods courts, juries and attorneys can use to try and explain how to calculate compensation for a family who has lost their loved one. Then last night, I learned of a young navy seal Lt. Brendan Looney, 29, a native of Silver Spring. that died in a helicopter crash while serving our country in Afghanistan. He was an Annapolis graduate and married and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. His mother is a friend of my sister-in-law and he has family in the Maryland area. His is a story of courage and sacrifice. A story of fighting for our freedoms including freedom of speech and that is where this blog comes in. A group showed up to protest the war carrying signs and trying to yell out “comments” about the family and solider that died for his and their country. This group has chosen to protest the war not at the White house or Pentagon but at funerals of our fallen soldiers. The group has been sued before and was ordered to pay several million dollars in damages for this same type of action, but continue to exercise what they claim is their free speech. That case has been appealed and is scheduled for oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court tomorrow. A copy of the complaint can be found at http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf and the issues before the Supreme Court can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/09-00751qp.pdf.
The question is how free is free speech? Should a person be allowed to protest at a funeral? What about on the way to the funeral? Can they hold signs, but not yell? What if they are a mile away, but on the route to the cemetery? Should it matter if it is a private person vs. a public person? Are there certain areas which should be free from all protest and how do you determine what those areas should be and how near/far from them? The irony of this discussion and what makes me proud is that those who are fighting and have fought for our freedom to have these arguments are also some of the strongest supporters of the right of the protestors – not the appropriateness of the action – to protest.
Back to Lt. Looney and his funeral. The protestors were there with their signs and trying to yell at the family. What are they hoping to gain by protesting at a funeral? Are they really expecting change of policy or just publicity for their own selfish gains? Here is an idea how about the media just doesn’t cover the protestors. Don’t quote them, don’t take any pictures, and don’t even mention that they were there. They are only a story if the media makes them one.
There are heroes in this story. They include the Looney family and all the others who have paid the ultimate price for freedom. They also include Clyde Fleming and others around the county who attend the funeral of our fallen soldiers. We saw them here in Sugar Land escorting home a local solider who was killed overseas. They have been in attendance at funerals across the United State and they were there again at Arlington Cemetery for the Looney family.
Michael E. Ruane staff writer for the Washington Post reported on the events in his story which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/04/AR2010100407104.html Clyde Fleming and others (vets and non-vets) went to Arlington on motorcycles and placed themselves between the protestors and the family procession and as Mr. Ruane reports “Moments before the funeral procession appeared, the bikers arrived with a roar, several flying large American flags from their motorcycles. As they lined up and revved their engines to ear-splitting levels, occupants of cars in the procession gave a thumbs-up sign.” "I'm a vet myself, and I think what these people over here are doing is horribly wrong," said motorcyclist Clyde Fleming, 62, who said he lives on the Eastern Shore. "If you want to protest a war, you do it with government officials, not with the soldiers who died for you," he said. "You don't disrespect them and their families with such hatred." “He (Clyde Fleming) said the church "absolutely" had a right to its protest - "just as we have a right to block their noise and their rhetoric."
Free speech wasn’t free for the Looney family and the hundreds of thousands of others who have given their lives for this country. My thanks and prayers go out them and all the other families who have sacrificed to allow us to have these discussions. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the legality of this type of protest, but we have the freedom to speak out against it and to show up and support our troops and their families when they need us most. We have the freedom to do like Mr. Fleming and the thousands of other riders across the country to show up and support the family of our fallen heroes and shield them from this type of abuse. So the next time you hear about a solider being brought home, say a prayer for them and their family, but also make the time to go and show your support and thanks for all they have sacrificed for you.
The question is how free is free speech? Should a person be allowed to protest at a funeral? What about on the way to the funeral? Can they hold signs, but not yell? What if they are a mile away, but on the route to the cemetery? Should it matter if it is a private person vs. a public person? Are there certain areas which should be free from all protest and how do you determine what those areas should be and how near/far from them? The irony of this discussion and what makes me proud is that those who are fighting and have fought for our freedom to have these arguments are also some of the strongest supporters of the right of the protestors – not the appropriateness of the action – to protest.
Back to Lt. Looney and his funeral. The protestors were there with their signs and trying to yell at the family. What are they hoping to gain by protesting at a funeral? Are they really expecting change of policy or just publicity for their own selfish gains? Here is an idea how about the media just doesn’t cover the protestors. Don’t quote them, don’t take any pictures, and don’t even mention that they were there. They are only a story if the media makes them one.
There are heroes in this story. They include the Looney family and all the others who have paid the ultimate price for freedom. They also include Clyde Fleming and others around the county who attend the funeral of our fallen soldiers. We saw them here in Sugar Land escorting home a local solider who was killed overseas. They have been in attendance at funerals across the United State and they were there again at Arlington Cemetery for the Looney family.
Michael E. Ruane staff writer for the Washington Post reported on the events in his story which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/04/AR2010100407104.html Clyde Fleming and others (vets and non-vets) went to Arlington on motorcycles and placed themselves between the protestors and the family procession and as Mr. Ruane reports “Moments before the funeral procession appeared, the bikers arrived with a roar, several flying large American flags from their motorcycles. As they lined up and revved their engines to ear-splitting levels, occupants of cars in the procession gave a thumbs-up sign.” "I'm a vet myself, and I think what these people over here are doing is horribly wrong," said motorcyclist Clyde Fleming, 62, who said he lives on the Eastern Shore. "If you want to protest a war, you do it with government officials, not with the soldiers who died for you," he said. "You don't disrespect them and their families with such hatred." “He (Clyde Fleming) said the church "absolutely" had a right to its protest - "just as we have a right to block their noise and their rhetoric."
Free speech wasn’t free for the Looney family and the hundreds of thousands of others who have given their lives for this country. My thanks and prayers go out them and all the other families who have sacrificed to allow us to have these discussions. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the legality of this type of protest, but we have the freedom to speak out against it and to show up and support our troops and their families when they need us most. We have the freedom to do like Mr. Fleming and the thousands of other riders across the country to show up and support the family of our fallen heroes and shield them from this type of abuse. So the next time you hear about a solider being brought home, say a prayer for them and their family, but also make the time to go and show your support and thanks for all they have sacrificed for you.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
responsibility
Toyota admits that its black-box recorder readers have a software error that can cause wrong speed readings.
SUV’s have warnings that state avoid sudden turns, but don’t define what that is or how you are to avoid them if someone pulls out in front of you, or if a child runs out in front of your car.
Child safety seats were found to be incorrectly installed 75% of the time by NHTSA in 2009.
What do all these have in common? The manufacturers know of a defect or problem, but rather than fix the problem and save lives they continue to try and blame the driver and parent.
The buzzwords “personal responsibility” is something that manufacturers love to throw out when they are discussing a case. The driver needs to take responsibility. The parent needs to take responsibility.
I have an idea. How about the manufacturers start taking responsibility and fix the problems instead of spending millions of dollars on lobbyist, defense attorneys and advertisements in trying to shift the blame. They have known of the problems for years and yet do nothing about them. Stop blaming your customers and look in a mirror. If any other business was having 75% of their customers not using a product correctly they would probably get the hint that they need to change something. The problem for drivers and parents is that the manufacturers are able to blame them because a jury generally only sees that one case, and not the hundreds or thousands of other claims or lawsuits regarding the same issue filed across the country. The manufacturers can imply this was just a freak accident or this one driver just failed to handle the situation. In those rare instances in which the Courts allow the jury to know about the other incidents the juries usually award significant damages. Does the manufacturer admit they did something wrong and vow to correct the problem and apologize to the family? Do they thank the plaintiffs and jury for helping them become aware of a dangerous defect which is maiming and killing people? No. They generally talk about how the jury was misguided and they how they will appeal this miscarriage of justice. Here’s a solution. Take some responsibility, fix the problem, save the families from having to deal with the sorrow of their children, parents and other family members being injured or killed because you choose to ignore a problem.
Thanks to my partner for the idea for this blog post.
SUV’s have warnings that state avoid sudden turns, but don’t define what that is or how you are to avoid them if someone pulls out in front of you, or if a child runs out in front of your car.
Child safety seats were found to be incorrectly installed 75% of the time by NHTSA in 2009.
What do all these have in common? The manufacturers know of a defect or problem, but rather than fix the problem and save lives they continue to try and blame the driver and parent.
The buzzwords “personal responsibility” is something that manufacturers love to throw out when they are discussing a case. The driver needs to take responsibility. The parent needs to take responsibility.
I have an idea. How about the manufacturers start taking responsibility and fix the problems instead of spending millions of dollars on lobbyist, defense attorneys and advertisements in trying to shift the blame. They have known of the problems for years and yet do nothing about them. Stop blaming your customers and look in a mirror. If any other business was having 75% of their customers not using a product correctly they would probably get the hint that they need to change something. The problem for drivers and parents is that the manufacturers are able to blame them because a jury generally only sees that one case, and not the hundreds or thousands of other claims or lawsuits regarding the same issue filed across the country. The manufacturers can imply this was just a freak accident or this one driver just failed to handle the situation. In those rare instances in which the Courts allow the jury to know about the other incidents the juries usually award significant damages. Does the manufacturer admit they did something wrong and vow to correct the problem and apologize to the family? Do they thank the plaintiffs and jury for helping them become aware of a dangerous defect which is maiming and killing people? No. They generally talk about how the jury was misguided and they how they will appeal this miscarriage of justice. Here’s a solution. Take some responsibility, fix the problem, save the families from having to deal with the sorrow of their children, parents and other family members being injured or killed because you choose to ignore a problem.
Thanks to my partner for the idea for this blog post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
