Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 19:45

---

Honestly AR? Fuck off. Seriously.

I treated him nicely because he wasn't popping off like a tard. If you were paying attention, you'd note that I've been pretty consistent in that regard.

So kindly take your net-mommy condescension and shove it up your ass, mmkay?

Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 22:48

---

Indeed. And when you pull the keyboard out of your vagina, you'll realize that your "contributions" here were entirely unwarranted.

I like you Andy, but you're being a twat here for no reason.

Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 23:57

---

Rightfully so. And maybe the city's lawyers were too timid, but that's a jdugement call, and not a flaw in the legal system. The system ain't going to be perfect, but it's a balancing of bad outcomes at the extremes. Paying this guy off is the bad outcome at this extreme (99% victim's fault, microscopically the defendant's fault).

But the alternative leads to even more unjust outcomes at the other extreme (99% defendant's fault, microscopically the victim's):

[INDENT] Imagine someone getting pushed onto the tracks by a cop running to catch a suspect. The victim was wearing slippery shoes and standing too close to the edge of the platform. The subway driver says "Ahh, fuck it, that lump of clothes in front of me ain't nothing. I'm going to speed through it and see if I make it fly through the air" and cuts both his legs off in spite of having plenty of time to stop.

Under contributory negligence, the mere fact that the guy had slippery shoes and was standing too close to the edge could be considered partially his fault. In spite of the fact that he got pretty much fucked by city employees at every turn, and really did nothing out of the ordinary, the city would have a complete defense at law because of the "contributory negligence" of the victim.[/INDENT]Which is more unjust? Which is more likely to occur?

demagogue on 16/12/2009 at 00:21

---

The city lawyers (probably) aren't entirely stupid though. It's still a pretty calculated decision when you're talking about $100Ks. (The theory says you pick a settlement number that's the least amount to make the plaintiff go away that's <= [(chance of verdict * size of damages) + costs (in time, in reputation, fees, discovery, etc)], in which case it's "cheaper" to go to trial. They know how juries think and what makes plaintiffs go away -- And remember they have access to facts that we don't know about. For all we know the train driver could have been a pot smoker or had a few cold ones before his shift or really did take a long time to brake, and they didn't want that stuff to go public -- that alone could have thumbed the number up. At any rate, they felt their case wasn't a great automatic-move-to-dismiss candidate, and that means they felt there was some kind of hook somewhere (which is more a problem with getting laws to work well in the real world than the lawyers or plaintiffs themselves, who are just playing by the rules).

And yeah, as far a social good goes ... the alternative of letting the defendant completely off the hook for plaintiff fault leads to much worse results. Then cases like this you have to think are the graft that we tolerate for the better "comparative negligence" approach.

But you know, I wouldn't doubt that after this case the MTA added some new guidelines or safety features to deal with (let's face it: inevitable) jumpers, which much weakens the appearance of comparative fault (juries like it when there are already guidelines in place and the driver followed them to the tee), at the very least put together a clear policy on it, which makes it easier to deal with future claims. Then you have to think society actually does get something out of these kinds of things, even though the benefits are usually buried somewhere behind the scenes.

CCCToad on 16/12/2009 at 02:41

---

go flame somebody else, harpy.