Magrathean
worldbuilder
Well, of course it's their fault. The amusement park should have controlled the weather and made it all sunny and bright so that nobody would get hurt (except vampires). Duh.
:\
:\
swedish
- Thread starter Lithium
- Start date
J the TyranT
Thats just how it is...
um, California... 
-v-
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS: The Right of (Dis)Association by Randy Cassingham of http://www.stellaawards.com
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" reads a classic restaurant sign. Other businesses proclaim the "right to refuse service to anyone". Beyond discrimination, why shouldn't businesses be able to say who they will do business with?
John Claassen, 36, of Emeryville, Calif., was looking for a date, and
logged on to the online dating service eHarmony to find a match. "After
taking two hours to fill out their online profile," he said, "a message
popped up at the end saying they would not find me a match."
Why not? Because Claassen is married, and eHarmony restricts its
dating services to single people. A customer service rep told Claassen
that's their rule, and they'd welcome him as a customer once his
divorce is final.
"If I had my druthers, I'd be divorced by now," Claassen said. "I'm
emotionally in a different state than I am legally."
But isn't his legal status the point? One is either married or not,
and Claassen was married when he entered his profile -- he even
admitted
it there, which is how eHarmony knew about it in the first place. But
he
spent TWO HOURS carefully writing his profile! And oh: did Claassen
mention he's a lawyer? Uh oh: what happens when a lawyer feels like
someone has wasted TWO WHOLE HOURS of his time, which left him
"miffed"? He sues, of course.
Citing a California law which prohibits discrimination based on
marital status, Claassen sued eHarmony in Alameda County Superior
Court, demanding $12,000 in damages.
"I just think I've got a right as an individual trying to recover from
something that wasn't the high point of my life," Claassen said. "If
thatincludes dating now, why can't I?"
He can: there are all sorts of places that welcome legally separated
people looking for a date, including online sites. But eHarmony isn't
one
of them. As "an individual" he can go to bars, to church groups, to
singles meetings. But "individual" help isn't what he's asking by
taking
this to the people's courts: he's demanding that a business change
their
way of doing things to accommodate him outside of their established
rules. That's not their problem; it's his.
Dating sites need to be careful: they don't know whether one of their
clients is a crazed stalker, and it has a right to put in procedures,
suggestions, and rules to make the experience fit the market segment
they're trying to attract. eHarmony is clearly in the business of
helping
single people meet up, and it's reasonable to prohibit married people
from swimming in their singles dating pool. To demand that the courts
jump in and change the rules rather than simply go do business
somewhere else is a petty abuse of the system. Claassen seems to have a fool for a client.
SOURCES:
1) "Married Man Sues eHarmony Over Rejection", San Jose Mercury News,
27 March 2006
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect5.pl?74a
2) "Married Lawyer Sues eHarmony for Refusing to Help Him Find Love",
Associated Press, 27 March 2006
-v-
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS: The Right of (Dis)Association by Randy Cassingham of http://www.stellaawards.com
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" reads a classic restaurant sign. Other businesses proclaim the "right to refuse service to anyone". Beyond discrimination, why shouldn't businesses be able to say who they will do business with?
John Claassen, 36, of Emeryville, Calif., was looking for a date, and
logged on to the online dating service eHarmony to find a match. "After
taking two hours to fill out their online profile," he said, "a message
popped up at the end saying they would not find me a match."
Why not? Because Claassen is married, and eHarmony restricts its
dating services to single people. A customer service rep told Claassen
that's their rule, and they'd welcome him as a customer once his
divorce is final.
"If I had my druthers, I'd be divorced by now," Claassen said. "I'm
emotionally in a different state than I am legally."
But isn't his legal status the point? One is either married or not,
and Claassen was married when he entered his profile -- he even
admitted
it there, which is how eHarmony knew about it in the first place. But
he
spent TWO HOURS carefully writing his profile! And oh: did Claassen
mention he's a lawyer? Uh oh: what happens when a lawyer feels like
someone has wasted TWO WHOLE HOURS of his time, which left him
"miffed"? He sues, of course.
Citing a California law which prohibits discrimination based on
marital status, Claassen sued eHarmony in Alameda County Superior
Court, demanding $12,000 in damages.
"I just think I've got a right as an individual trying to recover from
something that wasn't the high point of my life," Claassen said. "If
thatincludes dating now, why can't I?"
He can: there are all sorts of places that welcome legally separated
people looking for a date, including online sites. But eHarmony isn't
one
of them. As "an individual" he can go to bars, to church groups, to
singles meetings. But "individual" help isn't what he's asking by
taking
this to the people's courts: he's demanding that a business change
their
way of doing things to accommodate him outside of their established
rules. That's not their problem; it's his.
Dating sites need to be careful: they don't know whether one of their
clients is a crazed stalker, and it has a right to put in procedures,
suggestions, and rules to make the experience fit the market segment
they're trying to attract. eHarmony is clearly in the business of
helping
single people meet up, and it's reasonable to prohibit married people
from swimming in their singles dating pool. To demand that the courts
jump in and change the rules rather than simply go do business
somewhere else is a petty abuse of the system. Claassen seems to have a fool for a client.
SOURCES:
1) "Married Man Sues eHarmony Over Rejection", San Jose Mercury News,
27 March 2006
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect5.pl?74a
2) "Married Lawyer Sues eHarmony for Refusing to Help Him Find Love",
Associated Press, 27 March 2006
Enough Swedish story for this topic?
LAWNMOWER MAN
by Randy Cassingham of http://www.StellaAwards.com
By any measure, it was a tragic accident. In April 2004, Orvil Reedy was mowing the lawn with a rider mower in front of his house in Daleville, Virginia. Reedy and his wife, Roberta, operated a day care facility from the house. One of their charges was Justin Simmons, 4. Roberta was watching the boy, and went into the house to change his younger brother's diaper. She left Justin there, sitting on the lawn, unattended. Orvil kept mowing, heading up a slope.
The slope was too steep: the mower rolled backward and stalled. He tried to restart it, but then noticed two tiny legs sticking out from under the multi-bladed mower's deck. He screamed.
Roberta came running, but it was too late: Justin was dead. Is it outrageous for someone whose profession it is to care for small children to allow them to be anywhere near a machine that could easily kill them?
You bet. Thus his parents, Ron and Kristie Simmons, sued, demanding $6 million for Justin's wrongful death. The Reedys had insurance: their insurance company apparently immediately offered the full amount of the policy, $100,000, as a settlement. It wasn't enough; it probably wouldn't be enough for most families whose child was killed in such a violent way due to apparent negligence of a day car provider. Of course, the day are providers would never be able to pay $6 million, so someone else was added to the suit. Can you guess who? Take your time to try to figure it out.
-v-
Since the Reedys only had $100,000 worth of insurance, and the Simmons family wanted $6 million, they also named the manufacturer of the lawnmower to the suit, MTD Products Corp. What did MTD have to do with the accident? The suit complained that there was no safety device to stop the mower's blades from turning anytime the mower rolled backwards.
Is such a safety device standard on other brands? No. In fact, NO mower has such a safety device and, according to MTD's attorney John Fitzpatrick, no device like that has ever even been tested. Further, Such a device has never even been suggested by any safety agency, or anyone else, before the accident in question.
Still, the case went to trial against the Reedys and MTD in June 2006. In the trial, MTD's attorney laid the blame on the Reedys. He pointed out that Orvil Reedy had not attempted to obtain an owner's manual for the 6-year-old lawn mower and had not paid any attention to the warning labels on the mower.
Amazingly, just before the case went to the jury for deliberation, The Simmonses dropped the Reedys from the suit. It is unclear whether they had accepted the original insurance settlement or not, but the jury only had to decide the case against MTD.
You, dear reader, are a member of the jury too -- you're a juror in the Court of Public Opinion. How would YOU rule in this case? You may throw it out, and even award damages to MTD. Or you may find for the Simmonses, awarding anywhere from $1 to the $6 million they asked for, Or even more if you find MTD's conduct to be "outrageous". But you *cannot* order the Reedys to pay a cent: they were dropped from the suit. OK, so how do you rule?
-v-
The jury deliberated for 10 hours before finding that MTD was at fault for not inventing a safety device that no one else has, or maybe has even thought of before this accident. "We're just hoping that we make a difference," said Theresa Reed, who served on the seven-person jury in the case. "We just want the industry to see that there's a problem that needs to be fixed."
"The jury has spoken loud and clear," said the Simmons's lawyer, Brent Brown, after his triumph. "The protection of small children is one of the most important obligations of society." He said the company was sued not to get rich, but to "get the attention" of the mower industry.
The jury awarded Ron Simmons and his wife Kristie $500,000 each, and Justin's now-3-year-old brother, Josh, $1 million for a total of $2 million. "I find it incredulous that a jury no longer cares about common sense," complained Brown, MTD's attorney. He promises an appeal of the "nonsense" verdict.
I'm sure not going to fault the parents for wanting some justice for their child, but that justice needs to come from a rational source. The mower didn't have a safety device which didn't exist when it was made in 1988. In fact, that safety device doesn't exist NOW. Worse, it's not even clear that the safety device the plaintiff's lawyer came up with after the fact, even if it was now invented, tested and installed on mowers, would have prevented Justin's death. How could a company "reasonably foresee" such a thing?
What's the real cause of this accident? The people hired to watch after Justin failed in their responsibility; the child was left unattended near dangerous machinery. Yet the people responsible for watching after him were let off the hook, and a company with deep pockets was made to pay for their failure, even though they could not have reasonably done a thing to prevent the accident. Why is the intentional act of holding MTD responsible any less outrageous than the Reedys unintentional act?
SOURCE:
1) "Lawn Mower Company Liable in Boy's Death", Roanoke Times, 18 June
2006 (source: http://StellaAwards.com)
LAWNMOWER MAN
by Randy Cassingham of http://www.StellaAwards.com
By any measure, it was a tragic accident. In April 2004, Orvil Reedy was mowing the lawn with a rider mower in front of his house in Daleville, Virginia. Reedy and his wife, Roberta, operated a day care facility from the house. One of their charges was Justin Simmons, 4. Roberta was watching the boy, and went into the house to change his younger brother's diaper. She left Justin there, sitting on the lawn, unattended. Orvil kept mowing, heading up a slope.
The slope was too steep: the mower rolled backward and stalled. He tried to restart it, but then noticed two tiny legs sticking out from under the multi-bladed mower's deck. He screamed.
Roberta came running, but it was too late: Justin was dead. Is it outrageous for someone whose profession it is to care for small children to allow them to be anywhere near a machine that could easily kill them?
You bet. Thus his parents, Ron and Kristie Simmons, sued, demanding $6 million for Justin's wrongful death. The Reedys had insurance: their insurance company apparently immediately offered the full amount of the policy, $100,000, as a settlement. It wasn't enough; it probably wouldn't be enough for most families whose child was killed in such a violent way due to apparent negligence of a day car provider. Of course, the day are providers would never be able to pay $6 million, so someone else was added to the suit. Can you guess who? Take your time to try to figure it out.
-v-
Since the Reedys only had $100,000 worth of insurance, and the Simmons family wanted $6 million, they also named the manufacturer of the lawnmower to the suit, MTD Products Corp. What did MTD have to do with the accident? The suit complained that there was no safety device to stop the mower's blades from turning anytime the mower rolled backwards.
Is such a safety device standard on other brands? No. In fact, NO mower has such a safety device and, according to MTD's attorney John Fitzpatrick, no device like that has ever even been tested. Further, Such a device has never even been suggested by any safety agency, or anyone else, before the accident in question.
Still, the case went to trial against the Reedys and MTD in June 2006. In the trial, MTD's attorney laid the blame on the Reedys. He pointed out that Orvil Reedy had not attempted to obtain an owner's manual for the 6-year-old lawn mower and had not paid any attention to the warning labels on the mower.
Amazingly, just before the case went to the jury for deliberation, The Simmonses dropped the Reedys from the suit. It is unclear whether they had accepted the original insurance settlement or not, but the jury only had to decide the case against MTD.
You, dear reader, are a member of the jury too -- you're a juror in the Court of Public Opinion. How would YOU rule in this case? You may throw it out, and even award damages to MTD. Or you may find for the Simmonses, awarding anywhere from $1 to the $6 million they asked for, Or even more if you find MTD's conduct to be "outrageous". But you *cannot* order the Reedys to pay a cent: they were dropped from the suit. OK, so how do you rule?
-v-
The jury deliberated for 10 hours before finding that MTD was at fault for not inventing a safety device that no one else has, or maybe has even thought of before this accident. "We're just hoping that we make a difference," said Theresa Reed, who served on the seven-person jury in the case. "We just want the industry to see that there's a problem that needs to be fixed."
"The jury has spoken loud and clear," said the Simmons's lawyer, Brent Brown, after his triumph. "The protection of small children is one of the most important obligations of society." He said the company was sued not to get rich, but to "get the attention" of the mower industry.
The jury awarded Ron Simmons and his wife Kristie $500,000 each, and Justin's now-3-year-old brother, Josh, $1 million for a total of $2 million. "I find it incredulous that a jury no longer cares about common sense," complained Brown, MTD's attorney. He promises an appeal of the "nonsense" verdict.
I'm sure not going to fault the parents for wanting some justice for their child, but that justice needs to come from a rational source. The mower didn't have a safety device which didn't exist when it was made in 1988. In fact, that safety device doesn't exist NOW. Worse, it's not even clear that the safety device the plaintiff's lawyer came up with after the fact, even if it was now invented, tested and installed on mowers, would have prevented Justin's death. How could a company "reasonably foresee" such a thing?
What's the real cause of this accident? The people hired to watch after Justin failed in their responsibility; the child was left unattended near dangerous machinery. Yet the people responsible for watching after him were let off the hook, and a company with deep pockets was made to pay for their failure, even though they could not have reasonably done a thing to prevent the accident. Why is the intentional act of holding MTD responsible any less outrageous than the Reedys unintentional act?
SOURCE:
1) "Lawn Mower Company Liable in Boy's Death", Roanoke Times, 18 June
2006 (source: http://StellaAwards.com)
Similar threads
