Would you sue if you were hit by a car?

[mske]

@Tom_Tildrum

Is this meant to be humor?

I laughed.

[Belrix]

You know, I had a pretty serious roll-over accident once, I was struck by a Ford F150 that ran a stop sign. I walked away with no broken bones but lots & lots of bruising, pain, and a pretty serious habit of jumping for the next year every time I saw a car approach from the left.

I wondered about suing, for more than the value of the car & my medical bills, but decided that the money cannot be smeared on my body to reduce my pain nor heal my new found nervousness when I drove.

Somethings money can’t fix. Sometimes suing is more about vengeance than anything else and vengence isn’t a “fruit of the spirit” so to speak.

[Jodi]

@Richard_Parker

Look, it’s a moot point. She knows what the content of the conversation actually was, and if it doesn’t match your overly hasty interpretation, then she’ll know not to follow your advice.

Ah, yes, my overly hasty interpretation, based on what she actually told us was said, as opposed to your much more judicious guess that the conversation surely was more nuanced.

Suppose I said to you offhandedly that this morning I ate some eggs because I wanted to ask you about the nutritional content of eggs.

Does “My husband was hit by a car this very day. By best friend’s a lawyer; she says we should sue” sound “offhand” to you – not relevant, not central to the factual background underlying the question presented?

But in fact I only ate one egg and I also had bacon. Would you claim I was lying or inaccurate in my statement?

Is the fact that you had bacon germane to the answer you are seeking? Are you, for example, asking about the cholesterol content of your breakfast? If so, and you say “I had eggs,” must I then withhold a response on the grounds that, hey, maybe you had bacon too? IOW, it is reasonable to assume that the person asking the question will include all the information pertinent to evaluating it. It is not incumbent upon the reader to assume, or to guess, facts not in evidence, and, despite your assertion to the contrary, it is not “overly hasty” to offer exactly what is solicited – an opinion – based on the facts given, under the reasonable assumption that the facts given are truthful and complete enough to inform the opinion.

Do not be “somewhat confident” as to anything. Given your nitpicking of my posts, and your insistent on reading things into the OP that clearly were not ttere, I am not currently inclined to to grant you any authority as to what is essential to the practice of law.

[billfish678]

@Richard_Parker

I’m somewhat confident that you already know all of this because it is essential to the practice of law, so I don’t know why you continue to disingenuously assert that a literal interpretation is sound and that anything else is questioning the speaker’s honesty or accuracy.

What the heck else is someone supposed to do? read minds?

There is literal and there is LITERAL.

I think most folks here have, IMO gone with the more reasonable literal with a small L.

If the poster can’t post a more informative post or leaves out important details, it sure as heck aint the readers fault.