Than it is malpractice. The standards of practice kind of define that line. ETA: than why is he licensed by his profession?
Or stated better:
I agree wholeheartedly with what you’ve said above. But there is no dollar amount, including just taking all the dealership’s money, that will change things.
Of course not. It’s entirely possible to do your best and botch something. I have no doubt that Mark Sanchez was doing his best to win a football game last night, for example, but he botched it.
There can be a substantial difference between trying his best and* doing* his best.
So you are saying that if a surgical patient dies, or a lawyer’s client does not win, than the surgeon and attorney have each “botched” their cases?
I understand that, nonetheless, it puts more pressure on the defense to settle. That’s why lawyers always do it (citing the exceptions you mention above). It’s a crapshoot for the defense to go to trial, and both sides know it. It is also a crapshoot for the plaintiff, but the odds are more in his favor.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
$850,000 sounds about right to me. Plus a full page ad in all the local and at least two national papers apologizing. And a policy change at all the dealerships that under no exceptions will they ever contact a customer about this type of issue again, payable with a 5 million dollar civil bond of some sort.
I’d want compensation, but I’d also want that public apology and as important, I’d want no one else to suffer the harassment and false criminal complaint.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Regaurdless of what the victim gets for compensation (can I hear new car annually in perpetuity?) - I want to see the folks that made the false statements to police charged accordingly - and police procedure should have prevented the false imprisonment as soon as the buyer provided paperwork.
No. I’m saying botching and doing one’s best are not mutually exclusive. If the lawyer had a case he should have won, but did not, then he botched it.
How do you determine he “should have won”? Independent review? A rogue juror who seemed fine when interviewed before trial should have been foreseen? There is no place for chance?
If we all know he “should have won”, why bother with a trial?
The same way you determine if someone “did his best for you”, I guess.
OK, now I forget what we are arguing about.
If it’s worth it to you, I’m willing to refresh my recollection, otherwise, shake hands and I’ll buy the next round?
I forgot too. Cheers!
You two SUCK at arguing. Where’s the tu-quoque’ing and name-calling and accusing each other of being just like Hitler? What are you – cats? You’re not supposed to just hiss and snarl and then go back to licking each other’s ears like nothing happened.
Hey, fu… I mean, sorry. We’ll do better next time.
When I briefly worked at a convenience store, I encountered a shocking number of people (mostly teenagers) who didn’t understand the difference between “public place” and “public property”, and who thought we couldn’t tell them to stop congregating in front of the store because it was “public property”. No, punk, it’s private property. Move it!
Bet you enjoyed Snatch.
This. Whoever made the complaint should be arrested and charged.
We don’t know how much the person who made the police report knew. It is possible they got some incomplete and/or incorrect version of what happened. Combine that with a massive ignorance of the legal system (which is not a big stretch), and it’s possible the person believed a crime was committed.
Certainly there should be an investigation – hopefully not by the same dumbass cops who decided to make the original arrest.
Holy shit…