should people who are easily injured be compensated when they get injured?

[gopunk]

that is, if somebody does something that normal people would not have gotten injured doing... and they get injured, should they be able to sue? just listening to adam's rant about people who are "lemons"... no discernable disease per se, but just clearly more susceptible to illness/injury.

 

[Maleficus]

yep, there still people they still got hurt

 

[shiner]

Only if there is a good reason they did or maybe if a raccoon scared them.....

 

[b0mbrman]

Hmm...you've got a good point there. Insurance companies price discriminate when it comes to how many at-fault car accidents you've been in so the situation you're talking about makes sense...

Also, the answer can't be at either extreme...it's gotta be along a spectrum for the individual case

 

[UglyCasanova]

<< maybe if a raccoon scared them..... >>



That would most likely be the deciding factor right there.

 

[notfred]

Adam who? Sounds like something Adam Corrola would say.... If so, nothing based on Loveline merits any real discussion.

 

[gopunk]

<< Adam who? Sounds like something Adam Corrola would say.... If so, nothing based on Loveline merits any real discussion. >>



oh come now... adam brings up good points, and dr. drew is quite intelligent...

 

[Kadarin]

It's too bad that society has this mentality today where if something bad happens to you, you feel that you must be financially compensated for it. Accidentally get ground into hamburger by a nearby wood chipper? Well guess what? It's the fault of the city for using that wood chipper in the first place... Never mind the fact that common sense would tell you that "hey.. that's a wood chipper, and it's probably not a good idea for me to stick my head in that maw.."

 

[tcsenter]

<< Never mind the fact that common sense would tell you that "hey.. that's a wood chipper, and it's probably not a good idea for me to stick my head in that maw.." >>

My favorite is the burden of land owners (home, business, industrial) to secure their premises from illegal trespassers who may get injured on their property. In Michigan, our insurance company refused to write us a policy unless we put a security fence around our pool to keep uninvited persons from swimming without permission and getting hurt or drowning.

In many instances, its not enough that you have a fence, even with signs posting the area as "Private Property - Trespassing Is Forbidden" or "Danger - Keep Out". If that fence isn't maintained and has a hole cut in it, then you can be liable for any injuries incurred by unlawful trespassers who entered the property through that insecure part of the fence. There are so many absurdities in civil liability its incredible.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< In many instances, its not enough that you have a fence, even with signs posting the area as "Private Property - Trespassing Is Forbidden" or "Danger - Keep Out". If that fence isn't maintained and has a hole cut in it, then you can be liable for any injuries incurred by unlawful trespassers who entered the property through that insecure part of the fence. There are so many absurdities in civil liability its incredible. >>


That's stupid :|

 

[AndrewR]

According to common law, a person who is more susceptible to injury can only recover to the extent that someone who is NOT highly susceptible would have been injured in the same situation. So, in your brief hypothical, the person more easily injured would not recover anything.

 

[Renob]

yep, there still people they still got hurt

I agree, we have to take care of the week.

 

[RKS]

<< According to common law, a person who is more susceptible to injury can only recover to the extent that someone who is NOT highly susceptible would have been injured in the same situation. So, in your brief hypothical, the person more easily injured would not recover anything. >>



I agree for the most part but the "egg-shell skull" doctrine says you take the person "as you find them". If they are more suseptable to injury then you may be liable even though a "normal" person may not have been injured.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I think your question is too vague to give a good answer. I know a girl who's body is slowly breaking down, she's in a wheelchair for life and her bones have become extremely weak, she's broken her leg just by moving it wrong.
If she does something beyond her limitations, like tries to reach over and pick up a bookbag with 50lbs of books in it when she fully knows that it'll cause problems, then she should not receive compensation. If, however, some jackass dropped that bookbag on her lap, he should probably be liable (esp. since she makes sure that ppl know she's very weak)

I think it also depends on the injury. It's pretty easy to scam these days. For a while my family owned two houses and we rented the other one out...we offered the tenants a very good rate that was basically just barely enough for us to pay the mortgage with. We had agreed that they would be responsible for general upkeep, including mowing the lawn and keeping the driveway cleared of snow and ice.
Then, after a few snowstorms, the guy supposedly slipped and sprained his ankle in the driveway...and we got sued.

 

[AndrewR]

If they are more suseptable to injury then you may be liable even though a "normal" person may not have been injured.

Heaven forbid that we keep a common sense rule in the court system. So now every person and company must prepare everything for the lowest common denominator. The legal system in this country is pure sh|t.

 

[RKS]

<< If they are more suseptable to injury then you may be liable even though a "normal" person may not have been injured.

The legal system in this country is pure sh|t. >>




It may have its problems but can you find a better one?

 

[rival]

if you get hurt, you get hurt..but if you bitch and moan that your job is too difficult and your body cant handle it so you have to see a doctor every week, then get a new job..sack up or get out

 

[Thegonagle]

Adam? Adam Carolla?

The show's a day behind when it's broadcast here (M-F, instead of Sun-Thu). I'll probably catch parts of the show tonight.

 

[AndrewR]

It may have its problems but can you find a better one?

The structure is fine, but the people involved are becoming worse every year. It's not just the lawyers and judges either -- juries are doing some amazingly stupid things, swayed by arguments that need to be squashed by judges with some balls to take control of their courtrooms. Further, since Congress is full of lawyers, they are loathe to impose any restrictions on the profession since to do so would limit their future careers and harm a powerful lobby. So, no reform from the bench. No reform from the legislature. No reform from the lawyers themselves. So, no reform, and we continue to see idiocies that used to be confined to California and Mass. spreading to the rest of the country. When is enough enough?

 

[RKS]

<< It may have its problems but can you find a better one?

The structure is fine, but the people involved are becoming worse every year. It's not just the lawyers and judges either -- juries are doing some amazingly stupid things, swayed by arguments that need to be squashed by judges with some balls to take control of their courtrooms. Further, since Congress is full of lawyers, they are loathe to impose any restrictions on the profession since to do so would limit their future careers and harm a powerful lobby. So, no reform from the bench. No reform from the legislature. No reform from the lawyers themselves. So, no reform, and we continue to see idiocies that used to be confined to California and Mass. spreading to the rest of the country. When is enough enough? >>



I think that jury nullification (where the jury ignores courtroom/judge's instructions) sometimes reaches a more reasonable or equitable resolution but the judge can always jnov. Sometimes it is better to let a jury rule than just one person.
I agree with you on the point that since lawyers compose the majority of the 3 branches you will never see rules that impede the income of a J.D.
The public (juries and mandates to state reps) has to be the driving force behind change. What kinda lawyer is for a major overhaul of compensation or some type of Tort Reform when they pocket 30% of winnings?