Jump to content

The result of a legal system designed & run by tort bar


John Ranalletta

Recommended Posts

John Ranalletta

Here's how this works. Let's say I screw up at work and get fired for cause. I can then sue myself, the employee, for causing harm to me, the person and collect damages.

 

What a great scam. Can you think of other examples?

Link to comment
Here's how this works. Let's say I screw up at work and get fired for cause. I can then sue myself, the employee, for causing harm to me, the person and collect damages.

 

What a great scam. Can you think of other examples?

 

The current situation is nowhere near as simple as that. In this case, when she is operating as the plaintiff, she is in the role of Personal Representative for the Estate of her husband, who was killed in the wreck. She is essentially suing the insurance company, that covered her as the driver of the vehicle.

 

If they had a child who was the Personal Representative of the Estate, they would be doing the same thing. It's just very peculiar, as one person is essentially sitting in two chairs, just in different capacities.

Link to comment
Danny caddyshack Noonan
"So basically she's suing herself so that the insurance recovery can follow," Shima Baradaran, a University of Utah law professor, told ABC4 News.

 

Baradaran called the case rare and "pretty ludicrous."

 

True and true....albeit perhaps understated.

Link to comment

 

Catchy headline, but she's not suing herself. One person is suing another person for causing their injuries.

 

In this case, her husband is suing her for injuring him. Of course, the (dead) guy can only sue someone by having his representative present the case for him -- in this case his wife, although it could be anyone appointed to that position.

 

The real question is: Should we as a society allow one family member who was killed by another family member to sue (through their representative) where any compensation (in this case, insurance proceeds) would go to the family member that caused the death?

 

Have at it, right and left wings. :D

 

Here's how this works. Let's say I screw up at work and get fired for cause. I can then sue myself, the employee, for causing harm to me, the person and collect damages.

 

What a great scam. Can you think of other examples?

While in theory you could file the suit you would have at least two problems -- it would get pitched by a judge in a heartbeat, and even if it went forward and you "won," you would owe yourself whatever damages you won.

 

In other words, absent someone else's deep pockets, there ain't much incentive to sue yourself.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

Sorry, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

Who screwed up, killing the man? The woman. Who seeks to benefit from the killing? The same woman.

 

That the law allows it doesn't make it any less smelly.

 

Is this like a man who, after murdering his parents, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan?

 

 

Link to comment
Who seeks to benefit from the killing? The same woman.

 

I didn't see any information in the piece regarding who the beneficiaries of the man's estate are. We have no information to support this allegation. I agree that it is likely she is at least one of the beneficiaries, however, there may be children or others with interests.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
Who seeks to benefit from the killing? The same woman.

 

I didn't see any information in the piece regarding who the beneficiaries of the man's estate are. We have no information to support this allegation. I agree that it is likely she is at least one of the beneficiaries, however, there may be children or others with interests.

 

Now, a Utah court has ruled Bagley, the representative of her late husband's estate, may sue Bagley the driver in the fatal accident for wrongful death. In her suit, Bagley accuses herself of being negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout and to keep her vehicle under proper control. She seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages that include medical and funeral expenses; loss of past and future financial support; the physical pain her husband suffered before he died from his injuries; and the loss of his love and companionship.

 

Smells.

Link to comment

 

 

Now, a Utah court has ruled Bagley, the representative of her late husband's estate, may sue Bagley the driver in the fatal accident for wrongful death. In her suit, Bagley accuses herself of being negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout and to keep her vehicle under proper control. She seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages that include medical and funeral expenses; loss of past and future financial support; the physical pain her husband suffered before he died from his injuries; and the loss of his love and companionship.

 

None of which indicates that she benefits from this, or who the beneficiaries of the estate are.

 

But I agree, if she is sole beneficiary, then I hope it is eventually tossed.

Link to comment

It's actually not quite as goofy as the headline suggests. She's suing as the representative of the estate and the ultimate financial liability will likely fall on the insurer. Odd, but not quite as bad as the headline would suggest.

 

Nonetheless, the tort system is badly flawed in many ways, with the result that, in many instances, the lawyers benefit greatly and the victims who have actually suffered recover very little. These whacked-out results result in higher insurance costs, more expensive consumer products and the plethora of warning labels that are plastered over many products.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...