On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:59:34 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:46:45 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/7/11 1:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

Corporations paying for their megligence isn't part of the "Corporations
Uber Alles" mantra.

Corporations don't pay for anything, their customers do.

Yet another mostly irrelevant comment... Well, people don't pay for
anything either. They just exchange their labor for pieces of paper
with numbers written on them.

On 9/7/11 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:59:34 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:46:45 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/7/11 1:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

Corporations paying for their megligence isn't part of the "Corporations
Uber Alles" mantra.

Corporations don't pay for anything, their customers do.

Yet another mostly irrelevant comment... Well, people don't pay for
anything either. They just exchange their labor for pieces of paper
with numbers written on them.


Perhaps we need a way to make corporations and their execs at least
partially financially responsible for negligence.

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

On 9/7/2011 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:59:34 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:46:45 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/7/11 1:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

Corporations paying for their megligence isn't part of the "Corporations
Uber Alles" mantra.

Corporations don't pay for anything, their customers do.

Yet another mostly irrelevant comment... Well, people don't pay for
anything either. They just exchange their labor for pieces of paper
with numbers written on them.


Therefore "people" have fewer "pieces of paper with numbers written on
them" because the prices they have to pay have risen.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

In article ,
says...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.

Why don't you unionize McDonald's?

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:23:17 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.

Why don't you unionize McDonald's?

You should probably not eat there so much!

"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.


-------------------------------------------------------
Not really. The original case of letting a kid fall out of the grocery cart
because of no seat belt were my neighbors in the mid 50's. The let the kid
fall out of the Safeway Stores grocery cart. They got $50k plus a college
fund for the kid. Was not Safeway's fault they let the kid fall out. Cars
did not even have seat belts. Started a flood of windfall suits over the
years.

On 9/9/2011 11:44 AM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 9/8/11 2:22 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:32:41 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:55:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:42:54 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:44:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1261953.html


That will just raise the cost of everything you buy from any store.
Insurance companies spread this risk to all of us. The Lawyer takes
his 33-50% and keeps it all himself.

Thus, someone shouldn't be compensated for her injuries?

We are not really sure what "injuries" she has. You seem to like to
assess degrees of blame. What is her degree of negligence for not
getting out of the way?

I agree! That's why we need courts and attorneys in the crucible of
jurisprudence.


I thought this would fall under the "cost of doing business" category.

That was my point. Everyone who buys anything from any store will be
paying for this. It simply gets passed along by the insurance
companies. That in turn shows up in the prices of products you buy
from the stores because they all have to buy that insurance.

They also have to pay for termite inspectors, lighting and heating,
and garbage removal services. So what??


You folks are cheering for this woman's windfall. Do you cheer for
termites too?


If the woman gets a windfall, it will be because of the negligence of
Wal-Mart, the marginal employees in its stores, and the lack of training
provided them. In a reasonable world, Wal-Mart would have been driven
out of business by its lack of ethics and predatory practices.



Krause thinks the gubmint is obligated by the Constitution to protect
him from himself and others.

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:44:10 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

Not really. The original case of letting a kid fall out of the grocery
cart
because of no seat belt were my neighbors in the mid 50's. The let the kid
fall out of the Safeway Stores grocery cart. They got $50k plus a college
fund for the kid. Was not Safeway's fault they let the kid fall out. Cars
did not even have seat belts. Started a flood of windfall suits over the
years.

I think it is stupid that they ALLOW kids to ride in the same cart you
put your food in. I never put anything I will eat in that top tray.

Leaky diaper, fresh produce (that most people put up there) what could
possibly go wrong ?
That tray is for bleach, poisons and bathroom cleaners that I also
don't want mixed with my food.
Fortunately I seldom actually see kids in carts. They have those race
car carts for kids. I think they should just eliminate the leg holes.


-------------------------------------------
Hell, the carts are dirty from just being outside and the people pushing the
cart. I normally put the bring your own bag in the cart these days to put
the food in.