|
Parent's crazy lawsuit doesn't make any sense, what the hell (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Stingray |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
This is an artist's rendering of me after reading the article.
|
Cale man, you lettin yourself go. |
|
|
| loca |
WTF :wtf:
Yeah it sucks to lose your daughter like that, i can understand she's feeling some pain over it all, but jesus! It's not like Caterpillar sold the bulldozer with the purpose of having it run over people! Sounds almost like all the mother wants is to cash in her daughter's death (shoulda thought of life insurance hmmmmm).
"Who could i blame? My daughter will not die without me getting some money from this! Let's see now... ohhhh Caterpillar was the make of the bulldozer... and they have a lot of money.... eureka! Watch out Caterpillar!!"
Greedy bitch. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local...illed%20Lawsuit
WOW. Just wow. My thoughts... Okay, I feel very bad for them, it completely sucks to lose your daughter in such a horrible way - HOWEVER - she knew the risks, she KNEW what she was doing and she intentionally got in front of a bulldozer in the ing GAZA STRIP. And, as far as who is responsible for her death - there are maybe TWO parties: 1 ) The guy driving the bulldozer and 2) HERSELF.
How the you could think to blame Caterpillar Inc. is absolutely hilarious to me.
OH GOD MISTER CATERPILLAR MAN YOUR BULLDOZER RAN OVER MY DAUGHTER, THIS IS YOUR FAULT! CLEARLY IT IS NOT HERS, FOR GETTING IN THE WAY OF A 48,000 KILOGRAM (~107,000lbs) PIECE OF MOVING STEEL MACHINERY THAT MOVES AT 10KPH, OH GOLLY NO, THIS IS CLEARLY YOUR FAULT, CATERPILLAR INCORPORATED!
This is an artist's rendering of me after reading the article.
If you don't get out of the way of this thing:
...you probably deserve to get run over. |
It's the deep pocket's theory. If you sue everyone that had any part in any misfortune that you suffed, someone will pay you so that they don't run the risk of losing in court. If there are laws that you cannot design and sell something that is meant to endanger peope (I don't know if there is) in the jurisdiction that CAT operates then there may be some grounds here. Moreover, you can bet your ass that Isreal has laws insulating it's military from being held accountable for such things so CAT is really the only entity to sue. Your comments that she knew what she was doing are very valid in that CAT will have a "volentary assumption of risk" defence, however, that is only a partial defence, and it is difficult to prove that the deceased knew that the driver of the vehicle would run her over. More then any legal principle the family is banking that CAT will settle out of court to save on legal costs and prevent bad publicity.... they're probably right! |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| It'll prolly get thrown out of court |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| ^^^^^ it will never reach court. It will be settled. |
|
|
| Playa24_7 |
| This makes me think of austin powers when the steam roller is about to run over that guy "AAHHHHHHHHHH!" "look out!!" and hes like a football field away lol! |
|
|
| bass drive |
I don't want to sound like a leftie, but if they sue cater so that they'd have stricter policy with the way their products are used, then it might makes sense.
I am assuming that the house was demolished by Israel forces with violation of human rights |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
I don't want to sound like a leftie, but if they sue cater so that they'd have stricter policy with the way their products are used, then it might makes sense.
I am assuming that the house was demolished by Israel forces with violation of human rights |
Wait, think about what you just said... You're talking about holding someone legally liable for the way in which someone else uses something they made. This would mean that you could sue Chrysler because I hit your dog with my Jeep. I could sue Johnson and Johnson because my wife accidentally bleached my jeans. If this were allowed you can bet your ass that we'ed either pay through the teeth for everything or no companies would manufacture anything. I don't know about you but I don't want to grow my own cotton, build my own lume, weave my own denim, and sow my own jeans. |
|
|
| bass drive |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Wait, think about what you just said... You're talking about holding someone legally liable for the way in which someone else uses something they made. This would mean that you could sue Chrysler because I hit your dog with my Jeep. I could sue Johnson and Johnson because my wife accidentally bleached my jeans. If this were allowed you can bet your ass that we'ed either pay through the teeth for everything or no companies would manufacture anything. I don't know about you but I don't want to grow my own cotton, build my own lume, weave my own denim, and sow my own jeans. |
war in the middle east is a serious global issue, plus I still think your comparision is not that good. I think a better comparision would be like; sue Chrysler because they sell cars to country X, that uses theri parts in manufacturing wmd
the point is to have tighter laws on the way the company's products are being used by party x not getting money from the company
same with IBM and being used by the Nazis |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
war in the middle east is a serious global issue, plus I still think your comparision is not that good. I think a better comparision would be like; sue Chrysler because they sell cars to country X, that uses theri parts in manufacturing wmd
the point is to have tighter laws on the way the company's products are being used by party x not getting money from the company
same with IBM and being used by the Nazis |
My point is that you cannot hold entity A responsible for how entity B uses a finished product that entity A manufactured. Granted, it seems to be a good idea when talking about things like this because it would force industry to be accountable for some of their less reputable acts. Unfortunately, if you find CAT liable for how Isreal used it's bulldozers then you'll have to find GM liable for how Iraq used it's night vision (from the CTS), then you'll have to hold Ruger liable for how Marc Lapine used their rifle, Bayer is then liable for how some kid ODed on their sleeping pills, and so forwarth on down the line. A bulldozer is not inheirently dangerous, therefore, you cannot expect Catapiller to know that their machines are being used to kill people. Certainly you cannot hold them responsible for it. |
|
|
| bass drive |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
My point is that you cannot hold entity A responsible for how entity B uses a finished product that entity A manufactured. Granted, it seems to be a good idea when talking about things like this because it would force industry to be accountable for some of their less reputable acts. Unfortunately, if you find CAT liable for how Isreal used it's bulldozers then you'll have to find GM liable for how Iraq used it's night vision (from the CTS), then you'll have to hold Ruger liable for how Marc Lapine used their rifle, Bayer is then liable for how some kid ODed on their sleeping pills, and so forwarth on down the line. A bulldozer is not inheirently dangerous, therefore, you cannot expect Catapiller to know that their machines are being used to kill people. Certainly you cannot hold them responsible for it. |
| quote: | | GM liable for how Iraq used it's night vision (from the CTS) |
well if it's used in a bad manner then why not?
I am not saying to sue GM, just force them to either have a policy that theri products are not being used to terrorise people by saddam, or stop selling to him
| quote: | | Bayer is then liable for how some kid ODed on their sleeping pills |
It's more of the way Govs use things, not individuals
I am sure such laws exist at alot of companies |
|
|
| j_spot |
| I would say it didnt make sense if the US wasnt already imposing sanctions on caterpillar..but they are, so its almost like the govt is try to say that what they(caterpillar) do is wrong. I think this case might fly. |
|
|
|
|
