Comments for Overlawyered Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:15:54 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Idaho Hitching Post case by IceTrey Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:15:54 +0000 Dana Chilton,
So as a Libertarian/Conservative you recognize that a private business should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason, or no reason, they want.

Comment on Pa. jury: inadequate curve signage partly at fault by Allan Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:04:24 +0000 1. Apparently, the boy’s (parents’) insurance paid $300,000 to the family (the amount of the policy).

2. I have read a few articles on the case. Most of them say that the girl was ejected. They do not mention a seatbelt issue. However, she was in the back seat. Could you please cite to an article indicating she was not wearing a seatbelt? Do you think not wearing a seatbelt in the back seat is negligent? Was there any evidence that she knew the boy did not have an actual license? And, finally, do you think this 15 year old girl acted negligently and, if so, why?

Comment on Idaho Hitching Post case by dana chilton Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:37:20 +0000 Mr. Olson,

I grew up Libertarian/Conservative and I understand your views on non-discrimination ordinances. That said, you must know that when you say that you hope this couple wins an exemption it means that this couple wins a victory striking down the entire law as unconstitutional and a violation of the states “religious freedom” act. The ADF isn’t invoking the power of their FOX news god and galvanizing their faithful at the FRC just to win a victory for this couple alone. Their biggest wet dream is to have SCOTUS constitutionalize their religious freedom schtick guaranteeing that all people (in private business, major corporations, or as representatives of the government) can use the name of a deity to discriminate against us.

Comment on Idaho Hitching Post case by BobN Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:03:47 +0000 If you compare their marketing literature from before and after their “religious conversion”, you’ll clearly see that they have routinely offered weddings performed by contractors or employees, people other than the Knapps themselves. In their complaint, they make clear that NOW those occasional contractors/employees are NOT ALLOWED to perform SSMs even if they wanted to. Cuz the religious beliefs of the owners supersede the religious beliefs of both underlings and customers…

Comment on Idaho Hitching Post case by Todd Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:44:33 +0000 Your “Libertarian” case can’t stand-up to scrutiny on this issue simply because a theoretically pure Libertarianism can not exist in a world comprised of a spectrum of people with specifically anti-Libertarian ideals.

Extremist Republicans and religious fanatics are just as far away from Libertarian ideals as Marxists and left-wing Socialist extremists.

The hypocrisy and pandering to people that have zero respect for Libertarian ideals that I see from so many self-professed “Libertarians” is embarrassing.

Comment on Pa. jury: inadequate curve signage partly at fault by gitarcarver Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:22:37 +0000 Can we all agree that the victim (or her family) should be compensated?

No. We cannot agree.

Furthermore, as you note later the devil is in the details as it matters who is doing the compensation.

Not every stupid act results in a need to be compensated. In this case, the 15 year old daughter got into an SUV with a kid who had a learner’s permit for 6 months and who was driving under the influence. The 15 year old “victim” was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected from the vehicle which caused her death.

At the trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked the driver if additional signage would have stopped him from speeding and missing the corner. His unequivocal reply was “no, it would not have made a difference.”

I hate the idea that because someone or multiple someones are stupid and act in an irresponsible manner that someone else has to pay for their stupidity.

More than anything, it seems that the jury latched onto the idea that “someone has to pay” and since the person who caused the accident won’t ever have the money to compensate the victim’s family, the jury looked elsewhere and despite testimony, found the Pennsylvania DOT.

We should not celebrate or be happy with taxpayers being on the hook for the irresponsible actions of at least two teenagers.

Comment on It’s an emotional-support alpaca, so let us in by Walter Olson Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:52:07 +0000 Thoughts from blogger Coyote:

Comment on Idaho Hitching Post case by Robert Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:53:05 +0000 Thanks for clearly explaining this. Some “conservative” websites that I generally like get their knickers in a bunch over cases like this, without understanding what’s really happening.

The Gay Community (whatever that is) really isn’t launching a war on “Christians” (whoever they are).

Comment on Scorched-pew litigation: Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons by Idaho Hitching Post case - Overlawyered Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:15:09 +0000 […] framing efforts, which via Starnes set off a predictable panic about dangers to religious liberty (see also, last week, on the Houston pastors subpoena). In this instance, those efforts amount to something […]

Comment on Dr. White Coat on the pink-panties case by Eric Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:59:08 +0000 I don’t know how one would demonstrate loss of earning capacity, but one of the linked articles notes that in order to collect any damages he will have to show this, so I assume it was a claim he has to make in order to file the suit at all. Perhaps he missed some work afterward that he attributes to this, to embarrassment or harassment or some such, since he was an employee there. (His employer better hope there are not other incidents of coworkers dumping on him that come to light).

As one of the attorneys quoted in a linked article noted, how did the defendants ever let this get to a lawsuit and out in the press?

Of course the real issue is a breach of integrity by the medical staff. This was a stupid and unprofessional prank to pull, and yes someone deserves to take a hit for it. The fact that the panties were probably put on in recovery long after the procedure itself was over with is irrelevant. It demonstrates a “these people don’t take their job seriously” kind of vibe, and that is not good for reputation.

Will people trust themselves or anyone in their family to somebody who clowns around during procedures? One of the defendants has already dissolved its practice, so I guess they have belatedly realized this might not have been so funny after all.

The staff and organizations involved better hope that the patient does not come up with any condition that could remotely have been detected by a colonoscopy, or that he might come up with some injury that could be attributed to the staff not monitoring him properly while in recovery while he was under anesthesia, because they will have a hard time proving to a jury that they did a thorough, professional job during this one.