Somehow I doubt whether the lawsuit amounts are going to be limited to medical expenses. Don’t forget pain and suffering, loss of (whatever it is when you lose your spouse), and so forth.
The point is not whether there might be responsible parties that can or should be sued, or how much they are sued for; the point is they ought not to be suing parties who are not responsible for the outcome. Of course, that would be for a court to determine, and anyone can sue anyone for anything, but this smacks of just grubbing money from wherever you might be remotely able to get it.
This. All of this. How else will people pay their bills?
When people talk about mandatory insurance for gun owners, I’m not thinking about insurance to defend owners in court, I’m thinking about insurance to cover the medical bills, when the toddler accidentally shoots the neighbor’s kid. If you buy weapons that can inflict Las Vegas carnage, then you need insurance that will cover the bills.
By all means, sue the manufacturers of the weapons, the ammo, the bump stocks, the sights, and whatever else was used.
I’m quite sure any of the victims would prefer it didn’t happen to whatever compensation they might manage as a result of the carnage. Lawyers don’t typically waste time and lots of money suing entities that “are not responsible for the outcome.” So, I assume (and hope) they have factual support for their decision to sue who they did.
This is a nasty issue. The conservatives who think people should be individually responsible for their own medical care? How do they think this type of scenario should be handled? You can be a victim of a mass shooter out of a clear blue sky, and it’s more likely than not that none of the entities we’re talking about suing really have any real culpability in court other than the shooter. And the 5 million of his estate, minus however much he gambled away, doesn’t cover squat.
Only sue the various manufacturers if you want to lose and wind up paying two sets of legal fees. You’d think people would have learned from the last failed lawsuit.
Because “medical expenses” doesn’t cover needed modifications to a home for someone permanently disabled. It doesn’t include on-going expenses for medical supplies into the future for someone with, say, a colostomy due to damage from a gunshot wound. It doesn’t include on-going in-home nursing care to any meaningful degree. It doesn’t include modifications to vehicles, or replacing a prosthetic limb when it inevitably wears out. It doesn’t include your rent/mortgage while you can’t work, or money for utilities and food. “Just medical expenses” leaves out a lot.
Also, since you typically don’t get everything you ask for, and the lawyer takes a cut, you need to ask for more than you need in order to have a hope of getting what you need after all the deductions from your original request.
One reason other nations see less of this kind of lawsuit is because people have their medical expenses covered and don’t have to desperately seek funds any way they can.
I had a guy think he’d hit the jackpot when I hit him with my car because I fell asleep at the wheel. Now, understand, he got his car replaced, we’re talking over and above that. He sued me (or more properly, my insurance company), after turning down a pretty nice settlement. He lost, to my mind, even though the jury gave him an award, because the award was less than half of what the insurance company had offered him, and less than 10% of what he wanted. After his health insurance company took a cut, which they were bound to do, he was going to owe the attorney something. I doubt he was left with anything at all. I actually felt sorry for the guy, because the accident was totally my fault-- well, falling asleep at the wheel was crappy life circumstances, not up at night partying, or anything, but still, I was responsible. Still, he could have taken the offer, and run.
Thing was, he wanted this back surgery his health insurance wouldn’t pay for, and he was hoping to get enough in the settlement to pay for it OOP. Or so my lawyer (provided by my insurance company) surmised.
So yeah, I imagine suing and losing does pretty much suck. It feels good to win, though.
You’re at least 2½ years too late.
I heard one lawyer talking on the radio earlier stating that the hotel didn’t wand his bags & that they should have. :rolleyes:
Not only is this something I’ve never heard of but many hotels aren’t set up for it. The last hotel I was in, last month, was a 5 story La Quinta. There was one main entrance but at least four other room keycard controlled entrances around the building. It’s much more convenient to park near a side entrance & take the stairs up to my room at that end of the building than park in that same spot (because there are none closer to the main entrance) walk outside in the cold, dark, & rain to the front entrance & then down the hall to almost be in sight of my car. Our small group was six but the larger group was 60-80 staying in that hotel, going in & out multiple times per day, frequently with a backpack or camera bag. Plus the cooler typically came in 2x per day to be refilled with ice &/or drinks. If they closed off all of the side entrances & made us come thru the front door do you realize how long it would take to get a literal busload of people inside with their bags?
In a somewhat related matter, the parents of Darren Drake, one of the 8 killed in the recent NYC terrorist attack have filed paperwork to sue NYC, Hudson River Park Trust, NY State, &…Home Depot.
I AM a lawyer, and I gotta admit it kinda surprised me to see this suit had been filed. Don’t know why. Besides some victims needing to cover their bills, there are plenty of lawyers looking for a fat payout. Kinda surprised I hadn’t heard of lawsuits in the other shootings. Did anyone sue the Colorado movie theater? The Miami nightclub?
IMO just because someone suffered a misfortune and someone else in the area has deep pockets, is a poor justification for liability.
Why wouldn’t it? Those all seem quite reasonable things that one might ask for in a suit for medical expenses, although some of them (such as modifications to vehicles) seem doubtful that they would be covered by government health care.
Again, those items likely wouldn’t be covered by government health care either (if that was any part of your point). They are actual damages, however, and could certainly be legitimate targets for financial relief from any culpable entity.
If the lawsuits are going after legitimate damages plus lawyer’s fees, as long as the entity paying is actually culpable, fine. I don’t think the hotel is, and the event producer’s culpability remains to be proven.
What I wouldn’t like to see is any sort of punitive damages because these two entities failed to foresee the unforeseeable (in the form of an apparently undiagnosed nut case).
If you’re going to sue at all, you will sue everyone in sight, because why wouldn’t you? Let them sort out among themselves how liability is to be apportioned between them.
Well, it may have been a loved one on whose earnings you were dependent.
You only get an award for expenses incurred to that point - but if you’re disabled you will have a lifetime of additional medical expenses the rest of us don’t have.
If people didn’t have crushing medical bills they’d be more likely to have the resources to, say, get hand controls put on a car or pay their phone bill.