Stumpy got screwed by lawyers. That's the story here. 15k less 40%.
Let's kill all the lawyers - Bill S from Stratford
Let's kill all the lawyers - Bill S from Stratford
Kamala’s take on the Economy
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Bitch fix your tab key or you’re gonna have problems
Stick it up your ass, Bernstein.
At hooky.com, we are committed to inclusivity and accessibility on our website, which is why we are actively working with a third-party to meet or exceed all requirements of WCAG Level AA conformance. These standards ensure that our website will be accessible for the majority of users with disabilities and compatible with most screen readers and other assistive technology. Our goal is that all people can use our website without complications or challenges.
If you have specific questions or concerns about the accessibility of our website, please contact us by calling 866-EAT-SHIT.
Thank you for your continued support and check back soon for more updates.
That's something a lot easier said than done. Who's the gatekeeper? Every single case is unique.
These discussions are no different than the health insurance ones. It's very easy to critique the system in general. How you go about reforming it quickly becomes an all encompassing quagmire. Particularly with so much existing case law and so many entrenched interests.
Of course. She works for the insurance company. And her defense lawyers work for her. Paying out is losing. She'll throw someone $20 or $50k to go away rather than have it eaten by defense litigation cost. But when the demand is $1m and she's at $50k... It's gonna take a very long time. It's great game theory on a daily basis.
Negotiating chores at home must be fun.
And this is the reality of “justice” in our system.
They should be sued for simply using that word to describe this charade.
We know our roles well after a decade. Was sometimes bumpy getting there.
Those rare times when she loses a 7 figure trial settlement aren't the best of days. But it's insurance and they roll on.
Maybe. I dunno. I can understand it from a lot of sides hearing about all kinds of crazy cases over the years.
You don’t hate that word as much as nuisance value 🤣
Train him not to stick his arm in an auger that is connected to a power source?
Regardless…they guy deserves work comp.
But I fail to see how Crazed company should be involved in the lawsuit.
Why harass just one company in the courts to get them to give you money to go away when you can harass 8 companies at once?
You should've seen the questions I had to answer in the depositions. Whoever wrote them had about as much technical knowledge about electrical design and engineering as my mother. And this was from a person who was supposedly going to prove that we had some of the liability...for a guy sticking his arm in a machine.
The thing is: it makes sense to lawyers. And I say that without any derision towards lawyers in general. But imagine if an electrician wrote legal questions of a technical nature for a lawyer to answer. And in a way meant to implicate him...about what he does professionally. That's how dumb it looks to people in my world.
In a sane world, this guy would've consulted somebody who knew what they were talking about and asked: looking through all this, is this contractor at fault? And he'd have been told "no" and left us alone.
But it wasn't about the practice of justice. It was about the ability to get money -- for both the lawyer and the client. And that's the problem.
Can’t just sue one bc they’ll point to the other and say it was their fault. I do sympathize with you but without discovery there’s just no way to get to the facts.
The worst is when it’s all complex technical shit and you look at the jury pool and think how the F are they going to understand any of this. They looked bussed in from Walmart.
Lastly don’t be afraid of nuisance value. It essentially defines my life at this point. Can I help carry that out of ex 1’s basement. Yeah. Can I leave early for that dentist’s appointment. Yeah. Can I cover this. Pay for that. Yeah. Nuisance value defines my existence at this point
I find your posts here really interesting. But I don’t think you apply the same logic or standards to lawyers as other economic actors.
Re your last paragraph, yes, firms maximize profit. Lawyers run businesses in a capitalist society. We could just as easily list all the ridiculous practices of construction companies, right? All the terrible ways they do things, cheap out on labor or materials costs, cut corners on refs, hide mistakes, fail to follow through, evade responsibility, etc. And then conclude: it wasn’t about building the best building, it was about making money and that’s the problem.
Re it makes sense to lawyers: do you see the irony here in you, a non-lawyer, questioning a system you might not fully understand?
It's not that I'm afraid of it. But it's a symptom of a system that isn't doing what it's supposed to do. Admittedly, that may be difficult for somebody in your position to see. But to anybody who doesn't live in your world, the notion that a contractor who properly installed a machine in 2011 would pay $15K to a guy who stuck his arm in it in 2019 would sound absurd. And that's because it is absurd.
Also, in this case, I'm pretty sure that everybody who was sued wouldn't have said it was another defendant's fault. Every single one of us -- any rational person, really -- would've said it was the plaintiff's fault. That said, I'm sure that isn't always the case. I certainly understand finger pointing and that many cases wouldn't be as cut-and-dried as this one was.
Ultimately, I fault the courts for not doing a better job at weeding out frivolous lawsuits like this. But if they aren't going to do it, then we need to pass better laws to raise the costs for lawyers who try to bring them. It needs to be discouraged -- and driving up the risks is probably the best way to discourage it.
If it were so absurd, wouldn’t the market punish your insurance company?
That's because few other economic actors claim to be in the profession of delivering justice, Brad. We don't operate in the "justice system."
But it's not about justice. If it was, it would look a great deal different than it does. That's the reason I use the term the "tort industry." It's a racket -- operating under the guise of justice.
I wish I didn't have this view of what tort lawyers do. But it's what they do that leads me to have this view.
It's absurd because the outcome was reached because it's cheaper...not because it's right. And that seems to be the case pretty regularly.
Call me a romantic, but I think a justice system ought to be about having outcomes that are just.
Eh the guy lost an arm. It’s not unreasonable for a plaintiff lawyer to spend his own money to find out why.
Most tort cases are car crashes and some states do beat the racket via pip and other shit. A typical pip system is that you don’t file suit against the at fault party. You can’t. You file a claim with your own carrier and they pay your lost wages and meds. In order to sue you have to meet a permanent injury threshold. So only serious shit goes to court. Most work injuries are comp.
I just don’t see an issue. Especially when a lawyer has to bear the risk of time and money. Again my view might be colored.
Let me offer another recent example. But one that's very different in nature. I'm sure I'll get some of the details wrong, but that's because I'm not going to go back an examine them all in detail to make my point.
In ~2018, Tesla shareholders approved a stock option compensation package for Elon Musk. Because of the stock's appreciation, these options eventually grew to a value of ~$50B. Some lawyers got together some Tesla shareholders to sue on the basis that the value (which, again, was due to the stock's appreciation) was excessive and not fair to shareholders. And the Delaware courts agreed and blocked the exercise of the options package.
Well, guess what happened after the verdict? The lawyers sought to be paid $6B worth of Tesla stock for having represented the plaintiffs. And I just thought that was a chef's kiss to that whole debacle. Of course they did.
In ~2018, Tesla shareholders approved a stock option compensation package for Elon Musk. Because of the stock's appreciation, these options eventually grew to a value of ~$50B. Some lawyers got together some Tesla shareholders to sue on the basis that the value (which, again, was due to the stock's appreciation) was excessive and not fair to shareholders. And the Delaware courts agreed and blocked the exercise of the options package.
Well, guess what happened after the verdict? The lawyers sought to be paid $6B worth of Tesla stock for having represented the plaintiffs. And I just thought that was a chef's kiss to that whole debacle. Of course they did.
To find out why a guy who stuck his arm in a powerful machine lost his arm? That's like trying to make a case that not only is Milwaukee Tools responsible for a guy who jams an 18V drill bit into his face, but so is the power company for giving it the electricity it needed to operate.
The lawyer wasn't interested in finding out why. Everybody knows why the guy lost an arm: he was a dumbass who stuck his arm in a machine. The lawyer was interested in finding ways to make money -- primarily for himself.
All due respect, the outcomes you posit seem absurdly unjust to me and the people who called for and enacted these systems.
I’ll add that med mal does have what you want. To file suit you have to file an affidavit from a doctor in that specialization opining that in his expert opinion malpractice occurred. The other side can challenge it and the judge will conduct a review to basically screen the matter before it goes any farther
Welcome to life in a capitalist system.
Are you complaining about the VC’s decision?
Consider it not as a lawyer, but just as a well-informed and intelligent citizen.
The whole idea of a stock option package is that you incentivize management to be successful and grow the stock's value. If the stock's value doesn't grow, they get nothing. The options would then be worthless. The package was put to a vote of TSLA's shareholders and approved. But some court decided basically that it was too rich -- but it was as rich as it was only because the stock had appreciated so significantly.
The verdict itself seems ridiculous on its face to me. But that wasn't so much my point -- as much as the irony of the lawyers seeking to get $6B for themselves as the result of it. Basically the idea being: we saved you guys a net of $50B...you should be thrilled to pay us!
It’s even worse in Indiana. I think you have to go before some review board first. Lots of meritorious suits aren’t brought.
Well, that's great. I don't know why they wouldn't do this for all lawsuits involving technical matters that judges and lawyers don't fully understand.
“Some court?” It was a Delaware VC!
They know more about corporate governance, finance, etc. than any judges in the nation, maybe the world.
Yeah...the court's intervention pretty much took this whole thing out of the capitalist realm.
I would not call what tort lawyers do "capitalism" -- because that involves mutually willful and mutually beneficial transactions. What they do is more akin to redistribution -- especially when outcomes bear zero resemblance to actual justice. If a verdict is actually just, I'll defend it as loudly as I'm condemning the other ones.
They struck down an options package that was voted on by shareholders...essentially on the basis that the stock had been too successful.
I don't care what they "know." Anybody who does that is an idiot where I come from.
And I should point out: Tesla shareholders reapproved a new package to take its place after Tesla wisely relocated to Texas.
So, apparently this court knows better about what's right for shareholders than....the shareholders themselves?
I don't call having to pass muster with a review board "worse." But, clearly, we view this from polar opposite perspectives....which I guess shouldn't be surprising.
If you’re open to changing your mind, I’ll review the opinion and discuss it with you.
I get 1/3 the value of your enlightenment, though. 40% if I have to try it.
Explain what you mean by this.
You think it's absurdly unjust for me to say that my insurance company (which is ultimately me: our insurance is in an offshore captive) shouldn't have had to shell out $15k for a guy who stuck his arm in a machine?
If we laid out the basic facts of this case to 1000 reasonable people, how many of them do you think would take my side of it?
I believe the legal argument was that Musk had too much influence over the board and it wasn't really independent. Not that it was too rich. He had his personal divorce attorney on the board, etc...
