"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2010 7:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2010 4:10 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html


So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

The blame is partly with the insurance industry. They have frequently
taken the short sighted view that it is cheaper to settle some of
these claims than it is to fight them. That's probably true for any
one case but the long term effect is to set expensive precedents.

Yep. But also begets higher rates and more profit.

Mystifies me how they could lose this case. Even dumb as nails jury
can't
be this stupid.

Brunswick shoul counter sue the driver and the swimer. Make their lives
hell.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


And now, straight from Rush/Beck's sitcom, we have nucknuck who doesn't
like
the jury system.

I think competance has something to do with it. Minimum reading skills,
college or university...

Would not want to be a innocent defendant facing a jury that could only
think of fried chicken and your skin color (either way).

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


Why don't we have a literacy test at the polling place. How about a poll tax
to ensure they are true capitalists. Or, how about you can only vote if
you're a landowner.

I guess all the voters who elected Mr. Obama were only thinking about his
skin color (the black voters), since the Republican party has made such
great strides in race relations of late.

--
Nom=de=Plume