- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Class Action Lawsuit For Sunshine Bridge Fiasco
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:08 am to Lutcher Lad
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:08 am to Lutcher Lad
You are an idiot... have a down vote and enjoy your traffic fiasco.
Also, the lady who sued McDonald's did not win because people felt sorry for her stupidity, she won because McDonald's was heating their coffee up to temperatures hot enough to cause second and third degree burns in order to keep their coffee fresher, longer. They were negligent in heating their coffee up that hot. People can't sue for stupid crap... it doesn't fly.
Also, the lady who sued McDonald's did not win because people felt sorry for her stupidity, she won because McDonald's was heating their coffee up to temperatures hot enough to cause second and third degree burns in order to keep their coffee fresher, longer. They were negligent in heating their coffee up that hot. People can't sue for stupid crap... it doesn't fly.
5
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:08 am to CarRamrod
quote:
typical...... Age of Entitlement.
No, the entitlement you refer to is where folks expect something for nothing. They think they are due food, phones, housing, health-care, etc. just for breathing air.
That isn't the case here. And if you would be effected like so many folks will be, you wouldn't be such an arse about the possibility of them recouping some of their expenses.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:09 am to boosiebadazz
No. Robins Dry Dock doctrine. Under maritime law a plaintiff cannot recover economic damages for a non-intentional tort in the absence of physical damage to property in which the plaintiff has a proprietary interest.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:11 am to Lutcher Lad
Bring on the down votes...it shows what side of the river you're from! And I assume most of them are from folks who aren't bothered by the incident and inconvenience at all.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:12 am to Wavefan
Good post
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:12 am to Cump11b
quote:
People can't sue for stupid crap... it doesn't fly.
it happens everyday...IDK why you would say they don't
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:12 am to Lutcher Lad
It’s gotta be a tough life for you when it’s a legitimate question of whether you’re trolling or really just this dumb.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:13 am to Wavefan
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:13 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
fricking scum bag lawyers are why no companies want to do business in this state!
Don't forget the education base has a lot to do with it as well. I'm glad Louisiana is working hard on fixing the education problem to attract businessses
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:16 am to Lutcher Lad
quote:
Bring on the down votes...it shows what side of the river you're from! And I assume most of them are from folks who aren't bothered by the incident and inconvenience at all.
Telling you that you are wrong has nothing to do with where we live or our convience
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:17 am to Lutcher Lad
quote:
I think they are entitled for compensation
I didn't read the entire OP at first.
There is no question there will be people who will file lawsuits.. Like I mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if sugarcane truck drivers will attempt to, but NO ONE is entitled to shite.
If the ferry isn't working, should everyone who has to go around to get to their job, that is 10 mins away from the ferry landing on the other side, entitled to money because they had to go around?
It sucks and it is affecting traffic even more, but that's just life. There needs to be some kind of "that's just life" law that prevents people from suing for certain things or at least put some type of cap on the amount of money they can get because these insurance companies have to pay out millions of dollars and rates will continue to go up... And when it becomes too high, there will be more uninsured drivers, etc..
And it is a bitch when you get hit by an uninsured driver. I experienced that first hand and frick everyone who drives without insurance.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:19 am to OweO
No one cares about your shitty life or your shitty anecdotes. Stop detailing the thread.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:20 am to Lutcher Lad
yep, everybody sue everybody. that should help
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:22 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
fricking scum bag lawyers are why no companies want to do business in this state!
Huh? The largest companies in the world all do significant business in this state.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:23 am to OweO
The only folks who have a legitimate case will be the small businesses affected. Some may have even close down for good as a result
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:23 am to OysterPoBoy
Please have my upvote, lmao
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:27 am to Lutcher Lad
quote:
Just wondering if all the motorists who travel the bridge daily for work, business, etc. can recoup extra expenses they will incur from the barge company in a class action lawsuit?
frick that.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:40 am to CarRamrod
quote:quote:
quote:
I think they are entitled for compensation due to the inconvenience and extra money they will surely spend for driving way out of the way.
typical...... Age of Entitlement.
If someone lives in Donaldsonville and works in Gonzales, they have to go 20 miles out of their way now to get to the Gramercy bridge now. Thats an extra 80 miles per day round trip. Assuming average of 20 MPG, thats about an extra $50/week in fuel costs for someone to get to their job because of the bridge being out.
If the bridge is out 6 months for repairs, someone who works across the river 5 days a week is looking at roughly $1300 in extra fuel costs alone, not even taking into account an extra 10,000 miles of wear on their vehicle plus extra time spent commuting.
I'm not saying those people should get money just for being inconvenienced, but I think its reasonable for them to expect some compensation for their actual increased expenses related to the bridge being closed for an extended time.
This post was edited on 10/16/18 at 10:41 am
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:40 am to Cump11b
I do defense work, but the Liebeck case was/is really interesting.
There's a reason that a Wake Forest professor called this lawsuit the “the most misunderstood story in America.”
- Happened in 1992. Liebeck was sitting passenger. While the car was stopped, she removed the lid and accidentally poured the hot coffee on her lap.
- She received 3rd degree burns to over 16% of her body.
She was hospitalized for 8 days and had multiple skin grafts and scarring for over two years thereafter.
- Liebeck attempted to settle the matter for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused.
- During the trial, it was established that McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 – 190 degrees Fahrenheit, that liquids at this temperature could cause third degree burns within seconds, that McDonald's had been warned about these dangerous temperatures on numerous occasions through other burn victims and lawsuits, that the coffee was not fit for consumption, that McDonald’s did not warn its customers, and that they had no plans to change their procedures.
- The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault, and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s conduct. The punitive damages award was reduced and the parties later settled post-verdict.
quote:
McDonald's was heating their coffee up to temperatures hot enough to cause second and third degree burns
There's a reason that a Wake Forest professor called this lawsuit the “the most misunderstood story in America.”
- Happened in 1992. Liebeck was sitting passenger. While the car was stopped, she removed the lid and accidentally poured the hot coffee on her lap.
- She received 3rd degree burns to over 16% of her body.
She was hospitalized for 8 days and had multiple skin grafts and scarring for over two years thereafter.
- Liebeck attempted to settle the matter for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused.
- During the trial, it was established that McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 – 190 degrees Fahrenheit, that liquids at this temperature could cause third degree burns within seconds, that McDonald's had been warned about these dangerous temperatures on numerous occasions through other burn victims and lawsuits, that the coffee was not fit for consumption, that McDonald’s did not warn its customers, and that they had no plans to change their procedures.
- The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault, and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s conduct. The punitive damages award was reduced and the parties later settled post-verdict.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:47 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just reaffirmed the familiar maritime law rule that a plaintiff cannot recover economic loss damages without some kind of physical injury to property.
The facts were simple: the vessel Julie Marie ran into a bridge which connected the communities of Lafitte and Barataria, Lousiana. This seems to have inconvenienced the residents of Barataria, who (if I am reading the map correctly) had to take the long way around to New Orleans. One such resident brought a class action for lost use of property, lost business revenue and other inconvenience-related damages. The vessel's owner moved to dismiss the case. A U.S. district court agreed that the plaintiff had not stated a valid claim, and granted the requested dismissal.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In an opinion entitled In re Bertucci Contracting Co. (filed March 22, 2013), the court agreed that maritime law does not allow any recovery for this type of loss. The rule dates back to an older Supreme Court case, Robins Dry Dock v. Flint, 275 U.S. 203 (1927). Under Robins Dry Dock, to recover for a maritime casualty such as a collision (or, in this case, an "allision"), the plaintiff must suffer physical damage to some property in which the plaintiff has a "proprietary interest." If a wayward vessel strikes your tour boat and causes damage, you can recover. But if someone else's boat is struck, you can't recover even if you suffer some kind of loss. For example, if the Coast Guard shuts the waterway down in order to investigate, guard against pollution, or look for survivors, the fact that you may lose business as a result does not give you the right to recover. In the Bertucci case, the residents of Barataria were obviously put out by the loss of a nearby bridge; but since none of their own property had been damaged, they had no right under maritime law to sue the Julie Marie's owners. The policy at work here is that the law must draw some limit to a wrongdoer's liability for a maritime accident. Not everyone conceivably affected in some way gets to sue.
The main twist in Bertucci seems to be the argument that the plaintiffs were not maritime actors themselves and should be able to rely on state law, which they claimed was more favorable. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, reasoning that maritime law governed the extent of financial responsibility for a maritime incident, even with respect to losses claimed by land-based interests. Otherwise the limiting principle of Robins Dry Dock would be undone.
Not happenin, bubs
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News