- 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: The plaintiff’s lawyers and their clients are scum
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:02 pm to FearTheFish
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:02 pm to FearTheFish
quote:
Don’t be negligent, don’t get sued. Isn't that kind of counterintuitive? quote: MarinaTigerEsq Stick to maritime, baw.
I don’t know what’s counterintuitive about that- it’s pretty basic. I don’t practice Maritime law, and I’m not a baw.
You don’t get to just open a tow/haul company, pay low wages to an unqualified driver, fail to properly secure loads, and take in baller money. The “friend” should consider it a fairly cheap lesson learned.
0
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:15 pm to MarinaTigerEsq
quote:
I don’t, but I’m aware the human body and mind can be fragile, and that many injuries can be insidious. Life trauma involving car accidents is quite common and could effect the post-incident mental state. Moreover, he didn’t just feel the jolt of the tire, but likely the force of slamming on the brakes. People aren’t all fit and in the prime of life of health
Oh for frick's sake.
quote:
People hauling things on public roads need to secure their loads properly.
Hell of an assumption there. You got some evidence? The mere fact the tire came off does not mean it was improperly secured.
quote:
Don’t be negligent, don’t get sued
Ell Oh fricking Ell. People with zero fault get sued all the damned time and no one almost ever pays the price for that abuse of process. Judges almost never pop plaintiffs or their lawyers for Article 863 or for frivolous lawsuits even when they get zeroed.
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:20 pm to MarinaTigerEsq
quote:
These injuries are plausible and a good reason to secure your haul. Insurance Company is lucky they’re not paying for the death of a family.
Note to self: esq
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:23 pm to Strannix
It feels like this board has a weekly cry fest about PI Lawyers like Gordon, Morris, et al.
It's almost like it's being posted on a schedule spaced out evenly to always be in top of mind. Some would call that propaganda.
It's almost like it's being posted on a schedule spaced out evenly to always be in top of mind. Some would call that propaganda.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:24 pm to NOFOX
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:26 pm to udtiger
quote:
Judges almost never pop plaintiffs or their lawyers for Article 863 or for frivolous lawsuits even when they get zeroed.
That’s because contingency fee structures and professional ethics prevent frivolous cases from going forward (with some unfortunate exceptions). People who think they can just start a business without paying due care to their duties to the public often find the lawsuits against them frivolous, lol.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:34 pm to MarinaTigerEsq
quote:
That’s because contingency fee structures and professional ethics prevent frivolous cases from going forward (with some unfortunate exceptions). People who think they can just start a business without paying due care to their duties to the public often find the lawsuits against them frivolous, lol
I really hope you dont believe this and are just being ironic.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:42 pm to udtiger
quote:Defense lawyers don’t advocate for this b/c 863 also refers to frivolous defenses, and I’ve seen some doozies.
Judges almost never pop plaintiffs or their lawyers for Article 863 or for frivolous lawsuits even when they get zeroed.
And what does “frivolous” mean? Exactly. That’s why you never see it on either side. If an issue is brought to a decision, one side has to win and one side has to lose. Doesn’t mean one side was frivolous.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 3:09 pm to udtiger
quote:
The mere fact the tire came off does not mean it was improperly secured.
It would seem that if a tire came off of a car being transported then by definition it could not have been properly secured.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 4:01 pm to Strannix
quote:
It would seem that if a tire came off of a car being transported then by definition it could not have been properly secured.
Insurance is for the unanticipated. How do you know the plaintiff isn’t really injured? Those at fault and insurance do not always pay when and what they are supposed to.
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:02 pm to udtiger
quote:
Hell of an assumption there. You got some evidence? The mere fact the tire came off does not mean it was improperly secured.
Don't be stupid.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:04 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
It would seem that if a tire came off of a car being transported then by definition it could not have been properly secured.
Lol someone doesn’t know how some car haulers work, are you that dumb?
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:07 pm to Tactical1
quote:
quote:
Hell of an assumption there. You got some evidence? The mere fact the tire came off does not mean it was improperly secured.
Don't be stupid
If there was no indication the tire could come off such that the operator "knew or should have known" the tire would come off, then there's no duty to "secure" it and no fault if it comes off. Strict liability for "things" isn't around anymore.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:08 pm to Strannix
quote:
someone doesn’t know how some car haulers work, are you that dumb?
Some? Are you suggesting that there are some in which you do not need to secure and some in which you do need to secure?
throughout the course of this thread it's pretty evident that you made the story up or are misrepresenting a real story.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:10 pm to udtiger
quote:
If there was no indication the tire could come off such that the operator "knew or should have known" the tire would come off, then there's no duty to "secure" it and no fault if it comes off. Strict liability for "things" isn't around anymore.
Evidently you have never strapped a car down before.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:21 pm to Tactical1
quote:
Some? Are you suggesting that there are some in which you do not need to secure and some in which you do need to secure?
throughout the course of this thread it's pretty evident that you made the story up or are misrepresenting a real story.
You idiot, how do you secure the rear tires when that is what the car being hauled is rolling on? Are you that dumb???
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:23 pm to Strannix
Tell us how you strap the rear tires genius.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:28 pm to Strannix
What are your “friend’s” policy limits? You’ve posted 50 times in this thread, not once leaving out an insult to boot. You seem awfully invested in this...
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:31 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:insurance defense wouldn’t hardly exist without all the plaintiffs with bullshite claims
Insurance companies and their attorneys aren't exactly angels either, dude.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 5:33 pm to Strannix
quote:
Tell us how you strap the rear tires genius.
So a perfectly fine looking tire just flew off a wheel lift?
Your friend isn't an experienced mover or you're lying.
I'm gonna go with lying since you've been caught doing it several times already.
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 5:35 pm
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News