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.

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.

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

On 9/7/2011 1:46 PM, 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.


What's the going rate for megligence?

On Sep 7, 2:35*pm, BeachBum "not a wrote:
On 9/7/2011 1:46 PM, 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.

What's the going rate for megligence?

Listen. She got knocked to the ground. She says she got knocked out...
BFD... Give her a frekin' wide screen and tell her to get ****ing
lost...

On 9/7/11 3:23 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:35 pm, BeachBum"not a wrote:
On 9/7/2011 1:46 PM, 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.

What's the going rate for megligence?

Listen. She got knocked to the ground. She says she got knocked out...
BFD... Give her a frekin' wide screen and tell her to get ****ing
lost...


Fortunately, you're not in charge of torts.


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

On 9/7/11 3:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:48:53 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/7/11 12:44 PM, 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.


So, someone who is injured on a corporation's property should just grin
and bear it?

Nonsense.

The point is this did not cost WalMart anything. They have insurance
for it and that means we all pay.

Ultimately it is the customers who pay since the insurance premiums
are part of the price of all of the products you buy from any store.
That is the insidious problem with insurance. It spreads the cost of
just or unjust law suits equally. The idea that the insurance company
is hurt is ludicrous. It is just the cost of doing business and
reflected in next year's premiums.

So, again, what is your point? That corporate negligence should be ignored?

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:46:24 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:48:53 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/7/11 12:44 PM, 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.


So, someone who is injured on a corporation's property should just grin
and bear it?

Nonsense.

The point is this did not cost WalMart anything. They have insurance
for it and that means we all pay.

Ultimately it is the customers who pay since the insurance premiums
are part of the price of all of the products you buy from any store.
That is the insidious problem with insurance. It spreads the cost of
just or unjust law suits equally. The idea that the insurance company
is hurt is ludicrous. It is just the cost of doing business and
reflected in next year's premiums.

Honestly, that's a pretty meaningless statement. "Consumers" pay for
lots of things. Insurance claims are just one of them, and they're a
tiny piece of the pie.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:31:08 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/7/11 3:23 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:35 pm, BeachBum"not a wrote:
On 9/7/2011 1:46 PM, 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.

What's the going rate for megligence?

Listen. She got knocked to the ground. She says she got knocked out...
BFD... Give her a frekin' wide screen and tell her to get ****ing
lost...


Fortunately, you're not in charge of torts.

Just to be clear, nobody is "in charge" of torts, unless you're
talking about a pastry.

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 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??