(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

litigious society?

Geo-TH,In

Geo-TH,In

Well-known Member
What is the likely hood that the law firm of Dewee, Cheatem and Howe will someday file a class action suit against an establishment, like the place in Orlando where 49 died and over 50 injured, claiming the establishment is responsible for the safety of it's customers? The establishment is responsible because it didn't have armed security.

I realize this sounds crazy, but I've heard of crazier things. geo.
 
(quoted from post at 15:10:55 06/21/16) What is the likely hood that the law firm of Dewee, Cheatem and Howe will someday file a class action suit against an establishment, like the place in Orlando where 49 died and over 50 injured, claiming the establishment is responsible for the safety of it's customers? The establishment is responsible because it didn't have armed security.

I realize this sounds crazy, but I've heard of crazier things. geo.
Click to expand...

Actually if my understanding is correct they are indeed responsible for the safety of the patrons. How far that responsibility goes I don't know but they are responsible. For example had the guy fire bombed the place and the fire exits were locked or blocked the owner could be held both responsible on the liability side in civil court but also could be charge with at least criminal negligence in a criminal court. I will bet before long someone will file a civil suit against the owners for not having security or enough security. That in turn makes me wonder if the federal government couldn't be held as responsible because according to them they are responsible for safe guarding us.

Rick
 
The chances are 100%. Because so many business are willing to settle to avoid court and publicity they create an atmosphere where they can be sued for anything knowing and attorneys know who will settle and who won't. I'd be willing to be my tractor collection that they will be sued and will settle out of court.Our society always has to blame someone as long as they have deep pockets it doesn't matter. One day it will be legal to sue the gun manufacturer and then you won't have to worry about the second amendment because no one will risk the liability to make or sell a gun.
 
(quoted from post at 17:10:55 06/21/16) What is the likely hood that the law firm of Dewee, Cheatem and Howe will someday file a class action suit against an establishment, like the place in Orlando where 49 died and over 50 injured, claiming the establishment is responsible for the safety of it's customers? The establishment is responsible because it didn't have armed security.

I realize this sounds crazy, but I've heard of crazier things. geo.
Click to expand...

It may depend on weither it was a "gunman" or a "terrorist" . Most insurance policies do not cover acts of war . Lawyers only sue if there is money available
 
Just look at the suit against Remington Arms in court now over the scool shootings in Conn.
Lawyers are totally out of control, and I for one, am sick of their ads, claiming they will "get you the money you deserve" because you were an idiot.
Loren, the Acg.
 
Happened in Dallas years ago.Guy starts drinking in bar #1. Bar cuts off his drinks because he has had to much. He goes to bar #2 gets drunk gets told to leave. He goes out has a wreck kills two people. His lawyer goes after bar #1. Because they are a well known famous bar. Bar #2 doesn't have as much money.Lawyer blames bar #1 because they should have known that refusing him more drinks. Would cause him to drive to bar #2 which would mean he was driving drunk after leaving bar #2. Which caused the wreck. So bar #1 settled out of court. It was a crazy lawsuit. I remember watching on tv when his lawyer said it was all bar #1 fault.
 
You're right Loren. What money that you deserve? The Money for being an idiot? They deserve NOTHING! They were a total idiot and burdening society with their stupidity, and the shouldn't drag anyone else into it.
 
Extraordinarily likely if the owners have money, assets and/or insurance. Unlikely otherwise.

Dean
 
The ads always give me an idea for an idea for an ad for an attorney. "Did you hire an attorney that took your case and built up your expectations of winning but lost the case? Well, we'll sue him, her, or them too" and sue them. See where I'm going with this?

And as far as the Remington Arms lawsuit, I believe that it was the Supreme Court that ruled that manufacturers couldn't be sued in such cases, but I heard one of the attorneys say that the plan is to just keep suing them until they go bankrupt through a never ending process. Clinton did say recently that if she's elected, she intends to do the same thing, sue firearms manufacturers into oblivian. As far as I'm concerned, time for both tort reform and a change that the litigant that loses pays all costs and damages, no exemptions, not even a president.

Mark
 
As Charlie M. says, all lawyers have to do is identify some assets and file some sort of suit against the owner of the assets. Once the legal process is set in motion a settlement is the usual result. That way the lawyers on both sides get paid, with little benefit to the sue-er.
I'm convinced lawyers can devise a way to go after any funds held by any person on the slimmest of grounds. They get paid for the process, not the conclusion. For instance, lawyers can keep a bitter divorce going for as long as it takes to exhaust the funds of the divorcing couple. Vultures.
 
We will certainly have a well equipped on the ground boot force when we have no companies left in this nation to build firears for them won't we???
Loren
 
About 4 years ago, in the TWP I work in, a car load of teenagers ran a stop sign where one fairly busy road crosses abother pretty busy road. Unfortunately, there was a guy driving on that other road and they hit his car when they ran the stop sign, shoving his car down into a ditch where it burst into flames and he passed away. Fast forward a few months and my boss and I were asked to go to our main office. Apparently the family of the gentleman that passed away, was suing the kids in the car that ran the stop sign (or whichever teen's parents owned the car), and the road commission, saying that the intersection was not mowed and the stop signs were not visible, causing the death of their family member. So their lawyer wanted to verify from us that I took care of the township. After stating that it was our fault the teens ran the stop sign, my boss traveled out to the location of the accident with the lawyer and took pictures. That intersection has (2) stop ahead signs, one on your right, one on your left as you approach the intersection, approximately 800 (?) feet from the real stop signs. At the intersection, there is a stop sign on your left, and on your right (the updated larger recent federally mandated ones) with (2) posts on each stop sign and full length red reflectors on each leg of the stop sign. All 4 signs are clearly visible from a half mile away. Sure it is a corner with woods on each side, but it is mowed back about 30', which is past the right of way, but I know the property owners and they would rather have it done that way to prevent any accidents. The final nail in the coffin for their lawyer was after they said it hadn't been mowed, reducing the visibility, my boss pulled up my GPS data from my mower tractor. It is a ping every 15 seconds on the map. It is a high detail map that showed how fast I was moving each 15 seconds, and which way I was traveling, and also most importantly, how long I spent on that corner with that mower tractor number. 1.5 hours on that corner alone, getting it looking neat. It gets mowed twice a year. I can imagine that it would be hard to lose a loved one like that,but if you are looking into it that deep to find someone to sue, I think you're looking for money. They dropped their lawsuit after that.
 
The bouncer (off duty cop) in Orlando was armed. He returned fire, and called for backup. He was outgunned and the shooter was in a crowd of people inside.
 
They were going to sue the bar owners, but then they all swarmed Disney World over the gator incident. More money there!
 
Chicago gang violence, look at what goes on there every week. Who do you think is responsible for that?
 
In my eyes, any establishment with a posted no gun policy is liable for any gun related violence. A no gun sign on the door makes the establishment responsible for everyone through the door. If someone brings in a gun, they should have been stopped at the door, making the establishment responsible for all injuries and deaths.
 
Geo-TH,In- "I never heard that on the news."

It's been all over the news since the second day of the shooting.
 
Spudm- I may blame lawyers for a lot of poor behavior but, I don't blame them for Chicago 'gang' banger mentality.
 
Sprint 6- First of all...the shooting started outside the 'door'. Secondly, it is State law that prohibits guns into places that serve alcohol...not the bar.
 
Our troops will still have pepper spray and loud whistles.

To even things out we'll put "gun free zone" signs on the battlefield.

The UN can pass a resolution making wars with guns illegal, because the UN is such an effective and influential entity.
 
i think it is time to limit the amount lawyers can get in ANY law suit sat 10 grand tops a lot of this bs would stop pdq
 
That is a good idea. I believe I saw that was the way it is in Cananda, but maybe I'm wrong. (I don't live in Canada)
 
Part of the investigation is now moving to how some of the victims were killed or injured by police bullets (besides just the shooter). Nobody's perfect, mistakes do still happen, that's why people, businesses and cities carry insurance. Those suits will probably be settled out of court, and that's probably best for everyone involved.
 
(quoted from post at 17:31:41 06/21/16) The ads always give me an idea for an idea for an ad for an attorney. "Did you hire an attorney that took your case and built up your expectations of winning but lost the case? Well, we'll sue him, her, or them too" and sue them. See where I'm going with this?

And as far as the Remington Arms lawsuit, I believe that it was the Supreme Court that ruled that manufacturers couldn't be sued in such cases, but I heard one of the attorneys say that the plan is to just keep suing them until they go bankrupt through a never ending process. Clinton did say recently that if she's elected, she intends to do the same thing, sue firearms manufacturers into oblivian. As far as I'm concerned, time for both tort reform and a change that the litigant that loses pays all costs and damages, no exemptions, not even a president.

Mark
Click to expand...

Well put! I especially agree with the need to have the litigant pay for the costs! :evil:
 
It seems like its more of a "good guys vs. the bad guys" deal these days. So how about this- firearms prohibited pretty much everywhere except for those with a concealed carry permit. We who have CC permits have been vetted, probably more than gun buyers. How about recognizing that we are not a threat, but the wing nuts walking around with privately purchased weapons may be. Two lines at venues where we presently prohibit weapons- pat-downs for everyone except a separate line for CC permit holders, where CC holders just show their permit and walk on through. Courthouses, sports stadiums, gay bars, whatever. The bar where 49 were killed was a "no weapon" zone- but if there had been some carriers in there (maybe just the bartender, with an AR-15 under the bar), how many lives could have been saved? I don't carry very often, but if I thought I might be able to make a difference in places where weapons are prohibited, I might just carry more often, out of a sense of responsibility.
 
It has never been legal, though it was tried. The PLCAA was passed on '05 to prevent it from happening again. Recently it the idea has come back to life with a Judge saying it was OK to sue the Mfgs of the weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting. Seems to me his ruling is blatantly against the law, but who are we to tell lawmakers what the laws are????

If they keep up crap like this, no one will have to worry about tractor collections either. Seriously, when the tire mfgs can be sued because the tire had too much traction and caused the tractor to tip over, or too little traction causing it to slip and slide, with a death, or injury in either case, no one will be able to afford the new insurance approved, tractors.
PLCAA
 
Anyone can sue anybody for any reason. That doesn't mean they have any expectation to collect damages.

Last month I visited Johnstown, PA. A famous flood in 1889 killed over 2000 people there when a dam failed. The dam was owned by a club whose members included the wealthiest people in Pittsburg, including Andrew Carnegie and Andrew Mellon. Flood victims and survivors unsuccessfully sued the club (which didn't have any assets after the flood, anyway). This single case had a dramatic effect on tort law in the US, resulting in the adoption of "strict liability". Which is to say a plaintiff need not prove negligence, culpability or intent, only that the defendant's actions or omissions caused the plaintiff harm.
 
I listen to the news and read on the internet. This is the first I've heard of an armed guard. Not saying it's not so. Perhaps our news just didn't report it.
 
Greg,
I had to google guard in Orlando shooting to get the story our news left out. My news was more focused on how many people died and they were shot with legally purchased guns.

Then I found this:

West Hollywood gay bar considering armed guards after ?
Los Angeles Times ? 8 days ago
A well-known West Hollywood gay bar is considering making armed security guards a regular presence after the mass shooting in an Orlando, Fla.
 
You cannot sue the government or any of it's agencies.
Too bad as they need it for interfering with our life ,liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
 
(quoted from post at 05:16:53 06/22/16) You cannot sue the government or any of it's agencies.
Too bad as they need it for interfering with our life ,liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

Used to be you could but you had to have the government's permission to sue.

But what about the private suits brought over the last several years against the EPA? SO that may still be true.

RIck
 
It's the state of Florida that says that patrons of a bar can't carry. Although I agree with you - I have cards like this I occasionally leave on the counter of such establishments:


https://www.google.com/search?q=Card,+no+gun,+no+patron&biw=1536&bih=718&tbm=isch&imgil=Q0lQ6e6-HCfgOM%253A%253BQuj-56F2udelrM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fforum.opencarry.org%25252Fforums%25252Fshowthread.php%25253F105035-No-Gun-No-Money-OC-info-cards&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Q0lQ6e6-HCfgOM%253A%252CQuj-56F2udelrM%252C_&usg=__k2fm-18XDl2VTyJe22kjO25ogRs%3D&dpr=1.25&ved=0ahUKEwiX_7ej1bvNAhUMO1IKHe4SDVsQyjcIJw&ei=tIhqV5fVBYz2yALupbTYBQ#imgrc=Q0lQ6e6-HCfgOM%3A
 
I blame the judge in that case. Federal law prohibits such a lawsuit but the judge is allowing it to continue in violation of the law.
 
Actually it is written into individual EPA regulations - if they don't write it into the regulation you can't bring a suit against the EPA over enforcement of that regulation. The EPA does this primarily for environmental groups so they can sue the EPA to apply stricter enforcement with the authority of a federal judgement. Usually the lawsuit clause is limited to ENFORCEMENT only with the only damages to be collected are lawyer fees. So when the EPA puts a farmer out of business all he can sue them for to prevent enforcement of a regulation and attorney fees - he is not allowed to sue for actual financial losses.

EPA chose not to defend itself in lawsuits brought by special interest advocacy groups at least 60 times between 2009 and 2012. In each case, it agreed to settlements on terms favorable to those groups. These settlements directly resulted in EPA agreeing to publish more than 100 new regulations.


An example of how the "enforcement clause" works is the EPA recent poisoned the Animas River - thousands of people that rely on the river have been devastated by the loss of drinking water, but the EPA walks away Scott free because they can't be held for financial damages. If the people sued for "enforcement" what will they actually get?
 
(quoted from post at 07:47:28 06/22/16) Actually it is written into individual EPA regulations - if they don't write it into the regulation you can't bring a suit against the EPA over enforcement of that regulation. The EPA does this primarily for environmental groups so they can sue the EPA to apply stricter enforcement with the authority of a federal judgement. Usually the lawsuit clause is limited to ENFORCEMENT only with the only damages to be collected are lawyer fees. So when the EPA puts a farmer out of business all he can sue them for to prevent enforcement of a regulation and attorney fees - he is not allowed to sue for actual financial losses.

EPA chose not to defend itself in lawsuits brought by special interest advocacy groups at least 60 times between 2009 and 2012. In each case, it agreed to settlements on terms favorable to those groups. These settlements directly resulted in EPA agreeing to publish more than 100 new regulations.


An example of how the "enforcement clause" works is the EPA recent poisoned the Animas River - thousands of people that rely on the river have been devastated by the loss of drinking water, but the EPA walks away Scott free because they can't be held for financial damages. If the people sued for "enforcement" what will they actually get?
Click to expand...


No, there have been a few over the EPA refusing to permit buildings, mostly homes in areas they don't want built up. There have been several of those over the last couple of decades that made it into the courtroom that haven't gone well for the EPA. In one, back in the late 90's the court order the EPA to grant the permits or to buy the land from the owner at what the land would be worth with the home on it. Back then it was around 6 million dollars. The guy got his permits.

Rick
 
Yeah, and just think what Disney faces from the family whose kid was taken by an alligator. Of course it wont bother Disney much. They have extremely deep pockets
 
Like I said - enforcement issues. The EPA refused to grant permits based on enforcement of their interpretation of run off or whatever reasoning they had for denial. If there was the possibility of an economic pay off if was because the EPA (or congress) wrote it into the regulation.
 
A return to common sense would be in order here.
At what point will it be considered "enough" protection of the safety of its patrons? There is no amount of protection that will protect our citizens from a lunatic terrorist.

Along those lines, I will point out that NONE OF US were there. Not one person on this forum knows ALL of the facts. We know only what has been reported to us through the "mainstream" media. Media that has an AGENDA. In case you have not figured it out, that agenda is to outlaw guns. So, all reporting is slanted towards the "blame the gun" syndrome.

So, why don't we leave the investigation and reporting of the Orlando incident to those who are responsible for that investigation and reporting, and not try it in the court of public opinion. I might add that the court of public opinion is also either misinformed or simply UNinformed.
 
You sound like Bill Clinton.


"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
 
There was an armed guard - but the news has been all over the place on where he was. Some say in the club, others say outside the club and that he came in when the shooting started. When it was first reported the media was saying the nnalert shot the off duty police officer first outside the club before entering- that has since changed.
 
True story. A couple of years ago I went into a shop and purchased my most recent of three Smith .500's and they told me that they didn't have any rounds for it. I asked if they would like to buy some. I wasn't joking. I'd post a picture of the three but don't want to get this poofed.

Mark
 
Having a fair say means having a FAIR say. Armed with facts and not hearsay. Armed with truth rather than slanted reporting from a group of people trying to advance their own personal agendas.
I am over 1000 miles away from Orlando. I DO NOT KNOW for sure what happened and in what order. I do not know who was armed, who was not, and how that all tied in with the shootings. You don't know either. I was not there, and you were not there.
Anything said on this forum is strictly hearsay, not based on facts, and therefore irrelevant. I do not feel qualified to "second guess" a security guard or the involved law enforcement personnel. I also do not blame a lack of gun laws. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. Shooters apparently do not obey existing laws, or even God's laws. Like the one that says "Thou shalt not kill."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top