I fail to see the need to sue if there's no permanent injury or disablement.
Kids stumble around and get scars all the time. A kid without some sort of scar hasn't had a childhood.
I sued the local congregation
by chukky 594 97 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
shepherd
The congregation probably did not have insurance but was insuring itself. This is how the WT does it, anyway, self insuring. It is most likely that the money you got came not from some faceless organisation but from the donations of the other members of the congregation.
In other words, because your child tripped, the members of the congregation had to give you money.
This is the problem with litigation of this sort - it's easy to consider the entity you are suing as a faceless monster (shoplifters reason in the same way) but actually where did the money come from? The others members of the congregation.
The congregation may well have been legally liable, but whether suing them years later was morally justifiable is another matter. By your own admission you had a different motive than recovering medical costs etc. Rather, it was your way of recovering some of the money you had voluntarily paid in before.
-
TD
MLE
But what about her running across the isle to sit with someone else, and she's not paying attention and gets balled up?
Balled up in what? Balled up in a trip hazard in the aisleway of a building open to the public?
I understand completely why it would leave a bad taste and I agree that legal actions are overly punishing at times.
But at the same time, there's a responsibility that goes with operating any building where people congregate. I go to JW conventions with my wife and see the most obvious health and fire code violations all the time. Why should the JW's get a free pass and be above the same standards that any restaurant owner deals with everyday?
-
Broken Promises
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Or the allowance that accidents do happen, without malice or intent?
-
Band on the Run
The liability of the KH is clear. Children don't have to exercise the same degree of caution that adults do. Torts has never been my strong suit. I represented Lloyds of London general counsel. Society as a whole pays for these claims. The increased cost to the insurer is merely passed on to the general public through increased premiums. So not just the KH or insurer paid. We all pay. This is not an illogical way of covering accidents. Modern torts focus on Calibrese's economic analysis more than the old common law rules.
There are no winners in these situations. Society wants accident victims to not lose everything b/c of an accident. Too many people think insurance, well it is not out of the person's pocket. This is a major fallacy. Everyone in society pays more. A form of social contract. Tort law is constantly reformed but I don't see any ideal balance. Assuming the costs of an accident might make sense for small claims. When someone lose's life or millions are lost, that result seems harsh. American tort law evolved around the power of the railroads. They were very dangerous. Consumers had no equal bargaining power. Law is more accomodation to interests than justice. God does justice.
I broke my ankle in a slip and fall at the Y. What I did was wrong but the physical therapist I was seeing there also did not perform his duty. Many people think I am wrong to sue. My viewpoint is that the laws set policy. Any lawyer would think my suit was feasible. Perhaps it is important to view this as a common sense from the public plus a more nuanced view. I see no rights or wrongs.
-
bobld
You can bet your last dollar that the wbts will go to wireless mics after this .The wbts like to say they are righteous and honest and obey all rules and laws.I do not think having mic cables in isles in a public place is lawful.
B
-
mkr32208
People like you make me SICK, so you sued just to hurt someone for something that was your DAUGHTERS fault but you did it for the highest reason right they 'tricked you' into being a witness? Bullshit that was YOUR fault to, nobody held a gun to your head.
People of your ilk are a big part of why our country and economy are the way they are, you make me want to fucking puke.
-
AGuest
Oh, thank goodness (may you all have peace!). For a minute there, I thought no one was going to agree with dear Chukky (peace to you!)! The truth is, he/she shouldn't have HAD to sue: the congregation should have OFFERED compensation in the first place. Not only were they liable by law, but negligent - a KH is considered a "public meeting place" when meetings are going on... and so they have a higher level of responsibility and liability. And any idiot(s) in charge should know that if you have children (or others who may be harmed) around, steps should be taken to reduce the potential for that harm. Uncovered wires are a no-brainer: they present great opportunity for harm wherever they're allowed (hence, tape... signs... or an announcement/warning to those present to "watch the wires", etc.).
For those who took the "why are you so litigious?" route, I can almost hear your tearing your garments had it been some elderly person who took a nasty spill and suffered great injury because his/her cane got caught in said wires. Greater care must be taken for BOTH... children and the elderly/disabled. If the "loving" congregation had stepped up and ACKNOWLEDGED their error, negligence, and liability, however... and at least offered commensurate compensation for same... no suit would have been needed.
With that said, however, dear Chukky, your motive here may have been not so above reproach. You state your reason was to get back some of what you lost (in contributions, etc.). But your suit really should have been solely about the injury to your daughter... and not your personal "beef" with the congregation ("... and not go returning evil for evil...").
But... I have to say that something "good" has resulted and that is that, for once, BP and I finally agree on something: it is your daughter's money and not yours (she is the one who was injured, after all), so kudos for the bank account (although, it's not like you could have done differently - the court would have made you put it in a trust account, anyway).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring one to pay compensation for NEGLIGENT injury which could have been prevented (and which they failed to offer at the outset), however. That is the reason folks carry INSURANCE, even if it's the self-insured kind: in case of an ACCIDENT, which this was. Had it been on purpose (say, a brother whipped up the wire just as little Suzy was crossing over), well, that's another thing altogether.
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who thinks perhaps some folks here have had claims filed against them/their insurance, have been sued, threatened with a suit, are underinsured, and/or even "upset" that they have to carry any insurance at all... but is quite grateful that it is required (in the U.S.)
-
AGuest
I fail to see the need to sue if there's no permanent injury or disablement.
Hmmmmm. So, 'temporary' injury warrants no compensation? What if, say, I take a chunk out of my chin on the corner of metal file cabinet that stood out, say, 3 inches too much, but I KNEW it was there and so usually went around it but "forgot" to that day because I was rushing to answer the phone, but the injury was only temporary because it "healed" pretty quickly (I got 10 stitches but was still able to go to work... where I didn't need to use my chin). No one should compensate me for my "pain and suffering" (and, yeah, getting those stitches hurt... a little... and now I have an ugly scar)... for a negligently placed filing cabinet that the Fire Department would have deemed a hazard and issued a "fix-it" notice about? And yes, Fire Departments do issue notices about exposes wires, especially in public places, which a KH meeting is...
you sued just to hurt someone for something that was your DAUGHTERS fault
The child was 5-years-old, dear mkr (peace to you!)... and tripped over exposed wires that SHE didn't put there. How in the WORLD was it HER fault? How was it even her parents' fault? True, if she had, say, tripped over her own feet or untied shoestrings (which even adults do)... or had on new shoes... it might have been her fault (in the last instance, though, it may have been the shoe manufacturer's fault). In other words, the ONLY way it could have been her fault was if there was nothing there for her to trip OVER. Do you see that?
Golly, folks - criticize the poster's motive FOR suing when he/she did, yes. But don't say there was no liability. The absolutely, totally was. Legally and scripturally.
Peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
JAG913
Chukky, I am relatively new to this site, and don't post often. However, I read this entire string and felt compelled to say something because it isn't based on the religious aspect.
Your little girl tripped over wires left in the aisle. To sue over this seems dramatic. Granted they are liable, etc. But you must also take responsibility for your child. If my son is moving around, I watch to make sure he isn't getting into anything. You took your daughter to the KH many times, you knew they had cords in the aisles, and you let her go to the other side. There has to be some responsibility on your end..When my son crawls around, I make sure no matter where we are that there isn't anything he can get into - it was your job to keep an eye out too, you knew from your MANY visits to the KH that you needed to look out for wires.
Now, they carry insurance for a reason, so if you were suing because you needed the medical bills paid, etc. I could probably understand. But you didn't sue for that. You sued to get back at a choice YOU made. You decided to be and/or remain a witness. You chose to take your daughter there. As a child you could have been forced into being there. As an adult you made the decision to stay. I say this with brutal honesty as I have seen and experienced the pain of losing family and friends to get away from this cult. Granted, it's an extremely hard decision to make, I relate to you there, but it was a choice you made. To come out of the woodwork years later to sue them out of spite because you're unhappy about the money/time/effort/pain YOU gave/endured is wrong. It has nothing to do with your daughters fall. If you are going to sue, make it for the right reasons.
As a parent, I'm sorry your daughter had to go through that, I know it's hard to see them in pain, and I'm hoping she is ok now and her other medical issues are doing better as well. Best of Luck.