Fatwallet Forums - Assault by Circuit City Store Director.... UPDATED 12/22


Sign Up \| Login \| Help

Have you tried our Topic Alerts? Let us know what you are looking for, and we'll let you know when we find something.

Category:

customize

user profile

new topic

search

today

Author

Message Text For:
Assault by Circuit City Store Director.... UPDATED 12/22 - going on the radio

[ EMAIL TOPIC ]

[ PRINT TOPIC ] [ TEXT ONLY ]

[ FORUMS : TOPICS : REFRESH ]

This Topic has 28 pages : [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | Next | Previous ]

Goferebater

Senior Member
1K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 1:53 PM

psuJC said:

Goferebater said:

psuJC said:

here's a question for you. Do you personally know anybody who has filed a lawsuit against someone that was unfounded? I'm not asking if you've heard of one, I'm asking if YOU personally know someone. In fact, lets take a poll. I don't know anybody. I've asked a few coworkers, they don't know any either.

As a matter of fact -- Yes.
My daughter was at-fault in a very minor fender-bender car accident, which broke her turn signal light and dented the bumper a little. The other car had 3 passengers who all showed and expressed no signs of pain or injury. Later we found out that one of the passengers claimed a neck injury and via a slime-bag lawyer threatened to sue. Our insurance company decided to settle for $20,000.

I am talking about slimeballs like this that are ruining our country by being able to get away with this crap. You ask if any of my friend or family have filed a frivolous claim? No, because they are part of the principled majority of Americans. The problem is the slimeball few who in the past were laughed off or put in jail, but today can collect thousands and millions by visiting a slimeball lawyer.

You managed to twist the question to suit your needs. I asked if you knew anyone who brought a frivilous lawsuit. You quickly answered yes. Obviously your answer is no as you corrected yourself towards the end of the statement, but even in that example the "slimeball" never sued! It was settled!

Threating a lawsuit != filing a lawsuit

Here in Pennsylvania Tort reform was a huge thing 2-3 years ago. The President even visited my small burg and met with a panel of doctors. At the time the doctors were all up in arms about malpractice insurance. They told the president that they would have to move out of state if something didn't change. Nothing changed, and the doctors didn't leave. Turns out it wasn't really the problem they tried to make it out to be. They were able to afford their tax deductable Hummer after all.

I twisted your question????? Huh? Give me a break (but please don't sue me)!

I answered your idiot question, but you apparently did not understand my point. To illustarate the problem, why is personally knowing a VICTIM any less valid that personally knowing a PERPETRATOR? Just because the decent majority of Americans dont abuse the legal system does not mean that there is no problem. My point was that it only takes a few slimeballs and a society that tolerates them to ruin our country.

Answering your point: The fact that our insurance company knuckled under to the threat of a lawsuit IS INDEED an example that we have a big problem in this country. They know that our court system and their high legal fees make it not worthwhile to defend these unfounded claims. If our legal system wasn't so screwed up, our insurance company would have told them to pound sand or else had them prosecuted for fraud. Our society should NOT put up with these slimeballs, but it is happening as illustrated by our insurance company dishing out a $20,000 settlement instead of being able to lower the boom on this slimeball and his slimeball lawyer.

Message edited by: Goferebater on 2004-12-15 14:13:24

wordgirl

Senior Member
3K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 2:04 PM

From what I know of criminal law (from covering it for years) galawdawg is absolutely right about the OP's legal standing at this point, esp. in the criminal arena.

But it also seems to me that the OP is correct on his moral standing. He isn't seeking to get rich or unduly punish from this incident. He wants some assurance that it won't happen again. He wants an apology.

I'd be very surprised if his very reasonable requests aren't met.

I also agree with the posters who say "all they understand is money". But these guys understand the big picture. The fact that they didn't pay out in this case is a lucky break. Had the OP been a more venal-minded person, they'd be over the barrel with their britches 'round their ankles and they know it. In other words, they are probably just as impressed by a potential loss as they would be by actual charges/lawsuits/settlements.

In terms of bad publicity ... what do you think this thread is? And here's the kicker - it's the Internet, so it will never really go away.

The best thing of all is that this thread (and others like it) help educate people as to what their rights are, and educate merchants about the value of staying on the right side of the line. There's a strong element of social engineering to most loss-prevention strategies - they keep pushing the envelope, assuming most customers won't push back. One really bad incident like this is often enough to scare them back to the right side of the line, at least for a little while.

Goferebater

Senior Member
1K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 2:07 PM

psuJC said:

Here in Pennsylvania Tort reform was a huge thing 2-3 years ago. The President even visited my small burg and met with a panel of doctors. At the time the doctors were all up in arms about malpractice insurance. They told the president that they would have to move out of state if something didn't change. Nothing changed, and the doctors didn't leave. Turns out it wasn't really the problem they tried to make it out to be. They were able to afford their tax deductable Hummer after all.

There are more lawyers than doctors who own Hummers.

I guess you don't pay for your medical insurance or if you have none, don't pay your medical bills. (Or does your mommy and daddy pay your medical insurance along with your Penn State tuition?)
Doctors can pass along high malpractice insurance rates as higher fees, and try to avoid malpractice claims by over-medicating and practicing defensive medicine -- all resulting in higher medical bills and medical insurance premiums.

Message edited by: Goferebater on 2004-12-15 14:16:08

MrDNA

Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 2:28 PM

This thread has 302 posts in it and is only 1 day old Suffice to say it has generated much attention and considerable dialog about not only the issue at hand but much larger issues and challenges this nation and humanity as a whole has to address.

At this point wouldnt it just be easier to setup a paypal account we can all donate too, generate a small renegade fatwallet mob, fly/bus/carpool and have them meet up at said managers house and just pay our friend a little visit ?? Maybe leave him duct taped to the wall while wearing a read t-shirt after a good roughing up and perhaps sacrifice of the family pet in front of any young children he might have ?

OK OK im joking im joking gimme a break im brainstorming here !!
pssst pm me !!

Ahh haha im joking im joking come seriously just file the complaint

arsw1

Senior Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 2:41 PM

This is a first: I check this thread more often than "Hot Deals"...

psuJC

Senior Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 2:54 PM

Goferebater said:

Some gibberish

Well it's obvious you can't argue your point so you resort to personal attacks. The whole point of the exchange was that you said there were too many frivilous lawsuits. Your example wasn't even a lawsuit, it was a threat of a lawsuit. Who's to say that it ever would have made it to trial? You probably think the Hot Coffee Lawsuit was frivilous because you can't see past the media spin.

wordgirl

Senior Member
3K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 3:35 PM

psuJC said:

The whole point of the exchange was that you said there were too many frivilous lawsuits. Your example wasn't even a lawsuit, it was a threat of a lawsuit. Who's to say that it ever would have made it to trial? You probably think the Hot Coffee Lawsuit was frivilous because you can't see past the media spin.

The myth of the frivolous lawsuit explosion in the United States is one of the most persistent I've ever seen. Folks simply want to believe it regardless of whether or not it's true.
\\
The truth is that most truly frivolous lawsuits wither the minute daylight hits them.

Madscioly

Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 3:47 PM

wordgirl said:

psuJC said:

The whole point of the exchange was that you said there were too many frivilous lawsuits. Your example wasn't even a lawsuit, it was a threat of a lawsuit. Who's to say that it ever would have made it to trial? You probably think the Hot Coffee Lawsuit was frivilous because you can't see past the media spin.

The myth of the frivolous lawsuit explosion in the United States is one of the most persistent I've ever seen. Folks simply want to believe it regardless of whether or not it's true.
\\\\
The truth is that most truly frivolous lawsuits wither the minute daylight hits them.

I think what it comes down to, is when someone does take something like the Coffee case to court, they end up winning way to much. Jurys like to punish the "man" She was finally given About $680,000, when they should have only gave her $50-100k total. The lawsuit was good, she just won way to much money.

undefined

Senior Member
1K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 3:50 PM

Madscioly said:

wordgirl said:

psuJC said:

The whole point of the exchange was that you said there were too many frivilous lawsuits. Your example wasn't even a lawsuit, it was a threat of a lawsuit. Who's to say that it ever would have made it to trial? You probably think the Hot Coffee Lawsuit was frivilous because you can't see past the media spin.

The myth of the frivolous lawsuit explosion in the United States is one of the most persistent I've ever seen. Folks simply want to believe it regardless of whether or not it's true.
\\\\\\\\
The truth is that most truly frivolous lawsuits wither the minute daylight hits them.

I think what it comes down to, is when someone does take something like the Coffee case to court, they end up winning way to much. Jurys like to punish the "man" She was finally given About $680,000, when they should have only gave her $50-100k total. The lawsuit was good, she just won way to much money.

For those that live in Denver there is a really good comedy act about this McDonalds case done by Steve McGrew ("mudflap" from FM 98.5). He performs down at Comedyworks periodicially - well worth the visit.

jayK

Senior Member
5K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 3:55 PM

Madscioly said:

I think what it comes down to, is when someone does take something like the Coffee case to court, they end up winning way to much. Jurys like to punish the "man" She was finally given About $680,000, when they should have only gave her $50-100k total. The lawsuit was good, she just won way to much money.

http://www.fatwallet.com/redirect/bounce.php?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

Punitive damages

Punitive damages are damages awarded to a successful plaintiff in a civil action, over and above the amount of compensatory damages, to:

punish the conduct of the civil defendant;

deter the civil defendant from committing the invidious act again; and

deter others from doing the same thing.

Generally, punitive damages are only awarded for egregiously invidious and wilful actions, not for mere carelessness or negligence.

http://www.fatwallet.com/redirect/bounce.php?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensatory_damages

Compensatory damages

Compensatory damages are damages awarded for civil cases, it is awarded to the succesful party, in the case of the plaintiff, it is awarded as a compensation for the pain undegone and also in most cases is included the legal services payment, however if it is the defendant that wins the case, then it is awarded for legal services and all hardships undergone during the trial.

The vast majority of the damages in the McDonalds coffee case were punitive.

Message edited by: jayK on 2004-12-15 15:56:53

peachee

Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 4:10 PM

What ever happened to "the customer is always right" these days?

Anyway, I've had lots of disappointing experiences too regarding deceptive PM policies, rebates, and sales that I don't even bother anymore. I just go online for the best price and least hassle.

microdvd

Senior Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 4:27 PM

If anyone is guilty of incompetence in pricing it's CC.
They are so negligent in repricing the games with a sticker when they are
legitimately on-sale, the only way to ever know the actual price of the
game is to take it to a register. This is year-round!!!

Case in point was the big clearance sale a few weeks back.
Some were in a bin with a sale sign, most were back on the actual shelf.
Know how many were actually tagged with the sale price... NONE.

So if this incident was a true case of system mispricing, why wasn't it fixed immediately in
the system, instead of sending a memo that may or may not get acted on 100%.

Sounds like CC needs a new software pricing system.

Message edited by: microdvd on 2004-12-15 16:28:10

noryen

Addicted Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 4:30 PM

psuJC said:

here's a question for you.. Do you personally know anybody who has filed a lawsuit against someone that was unfounded? I'm not asking if you've heard of one, I'm asking if YOU personally know someone. In fact, lets take a poll. I don't know anybody. I've asked a few coworkers, they don't know any either.

I'm pretty sure that people who have filed an unfounded lawsuit would never admit to it. In fact, they may even believe that they were wronged and that they were entitled to the compensation.

I know your questions was not directed to me but I do know some people who have filed multiple frivolous lawsuits. I've asked them about some of their cases and they totally believe that they were wronged, but the facts just don't show it.

Here's one example: My friend was curling her hair with a curling iron. She happened to roll the iron too close to her neck and burned herself. She sued the curling iron company for not putting a warning on the iron that it would heat up to a temperature that could cause burns. She won this case! (It was a low settlement and I think the company settled just to avoid going to court).

She totally believes she was justified in this case, and she doesn't act as if she's filed a frivolous lawsuit. But to me, she was simply careless and blamed others for her own mistake.

Again, I don't think you'll find people who'll admit that they file frivolous lawsuits because they believe that the lawsuit was completely justified. (And people who do intentionally file frivolous lawsuits will not admit to it).

Message edited by: noryen on 2004-12-15 16:33:45

Goferebater

Senior Member
1K

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 4:44 PM

psuJC said:

Goferebater said:

Some gibberish

Well it's obvious you can't argue your point so you resort to personal attacks. The whole point of the exchange was that you said there were too many frivilous lawsuits. Your example wasn't even a lawsuit, it was a threat of a lawsuit. Who's to say that it ever would have made it to trial? You probably think the Hot Coffee Lawsuit was frivilous because you can't see past the media spin.

I apologize for the personal attacks, as I don't think that I "twisted" your original question and I overreacted (or maybe tried to spice up the thread). Hope I don't get sued for libel.

In the example I cited, if the insurance company knew that the slimeball "injured party"'s case would be thrown out of court, they would have never coughed up the $20K. Whether we are talking lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, slimeball lawyers & plantiffs or victims of slimeball lawyers & plantiffs, it is all tied up in the fact that our legal system is all screwed up, and the ill effects on our society are showing, even if you are too blind to see (please don't take that as a personal attack).

And no, spilling hot coffee on you and getting yourself burned is not frivolous, but being awarded a huge monetary judgement is outrageous.

Message edited by: Goferebater on 2004-12-15 17:20:31

krasavets

New Member

Date Posted: Dec/15/2004 4:51 PM

I can't believe the employees care SO MUCH about a little profit! That's really ridiculous... if that had been me I'd file a lawsuit!