Frank Ettin
Administrator
[1] And really, nobody get a "lottery-like payday" from a negligence suit. He'll only get what a jury decides are his legitimate damages.ScottRiqui said:...If it been clear from the start that you're talking about suing for an amount above and beyond my legitimate expenses, basically trying to take an opportunity for a lottery-like payday, then I would have voted differently...
[2] Those legitimate expenses, as described earlier, will may very well include substantial hard, economic damages beyond just medical costs.
[3] If you sue someone for negligence, you may be able to get compensated for the damages he caused you to suffer. You will not get rich, and you will not be rewarded beyond the losses the jury believes you have suffered.
Personally, I would of course consider the circumstances. I would evaluate and weigh those factors I described in post 37. But I would not shrink from suing under the appropriate circumstances.usaign said:All I am asking is if you would be willing to listen and consider the explanation and circumstance before filing a lawsuit or if you would just file anyway no matter what the circumstances are involved....
I do certainly believe that ordinary folks have a right to have guns and to defend themselves and their families. That's why I have guns. That's why I've trained with a number of the major instructors in the use of my gun, and that's why I practice regularly. Certainly it's been demonstrated repeatedly that a gun in the hands of a private citizen can effectively be used to prevent a violent criminal act.
But on the other hand, I'm sometimes shocked at the expressions of irresponsibility I've seen on various gun forums over the years. Some folks seem to think that training and practice are unimportant. Some folks complain bitterly about being expected in some States to demonstrate basic proficiency and knowledge of the law of the use of force as a condition of carrying a gun in public.
It would be nice if we could have confidence that all of those of our fellow citizens who go about in public armed for their protection were equally serous about comporting themselves in a manner consistent with an appropriately high standard of care. But it looks like that would be expecting too much.
[1] Medical insurance doesn't pay 100% of all medical bill. There are co-payments and deductibles. There are limitations on some kinds of care, especial rehabilitation.usaign said:I cant imagine a circumstance where an insurance company would not pay for all of your reasonable medical bills. The point you are trying to assert is a rare case where the medical bills would not be paid for. Employed individuals usually have some type of health insurance and disability. My employer has many different options they offer to include long term disability. Then we have the state which provides various funding through medicare/medicaid. We also have various business and homeowner's insurance plans....
[2] Fewer and fewer employers in this economy are making coverages like long term or short term disability, or other types of income replacement, available. In fact these types of benefits have generally been provided by only larger employers. Small employers, which actually give jobs to a very high percentage of our work force, usually have not provided any meaningful income replacement insurance benefits.
[3] Governmental programs, like Medicaid, will require an applicant meet an indigency test. So if you have any assets, savings for your retirement, equity in a home, etc., you will have to shed them before you become eligible for government assistance.
[4] As mentioned earlier, some of the types of damages you might suffer might not be covered by any of your first party insurance coverages.
Well said.ScottRiqui said:...In fact, it's almost the textbook definition of chutzpah. Without painting a specific scenario, it's possible that the victim is still alive not because of the shooter's actions, but in spite of the shooter's actions....