VisorCentral.com - no sense of humour? sue!

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- no sense of humour? sue! (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=23257)

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-15-2002 07:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
If they settled it for the cost of a Toyota, that's on par with losing.

Well, it's an economic decision. Taking a case to trial typically involves weeks of depositions, trial preparation, and time in the courtroom. A defendant can easily rack up much more in legal fees than the case may be worth just to try it. Further, my guess is that Hooter's insurance carrier stepped in, much as happens for restaurants, grocery stores, individuals who get sued for car wrecks. Typically, an insurance policy gives the ultimate right to decide on settlement to the carrier, not the Insured. And to the carrier, it all comes down to cost/benefit.

quote:
Settling = plea bargaining.

Not usually. Usually the Release or other Settlement Agreement specifically states that the parties are settling to halt litigation costs and that they are specifically denying liability. In a plea bargain (except for in cases of nolo contendre or here in South Carolina under the Alford doctrine--I think Alford is right--) the Defendant must specifically acknowledge his/her guilt. Very very different.

quote:
I wonder how much beer they sold compared to the winner. I think the amount of effort would show how seriously they took it.

I agree--I've seen waitresses at restaurants try to win the margarita selling contest, or whatever, and it seems to be a real pain in the butt. If she busted it to win the contest, then I think she has been injured and deserves to be compensated. I don't know that I think the level of compensation should be equal to a new Avalon, however.

Posted by Toby on 05-15-2002 07:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
[...] My original comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

So was my example.

quote:
However, I also think that it maybe should be considered "humiliating" to agree to wear scant attire to get a job.

Yes, lifeguards should be allowed to wear parkas or trenchcoats.

quote:
At least it would to me. Then again, the most humilitating thing I think I have ever seen was in a photograph that made the e-mail rounds after last year's Mardi Gras. All of which goes to prove that some women will do anything for money, or even for free in the case of the photograph.)

Well, you'd probably be surprised what people would do for cheap trinkets on Mardi Gras.

Posted by Toby on 05-15-2002 07:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
[...] Not usually. Usually the Release or other Settlement Agreement specifically states that the parties are settling to halt litigation costs and that they are specifically denying liability. In a plea bargain (except for in cases of nolo contendre or here in South Carolina under the Alford doctrine--I think Alford is right--) the Defendant must specifically acknowledge his/her guilt. Very very different. [...]

Not really. They could just as easily claim that they really didn't do it in certain cases, but were just taking a plea to be able to get on with their lives.

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-15-2002 07:49 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Not really. They could just as easily claim that they really didn't do it in certain cases, but were just taking a plea to be able to get on with their lives.

They might say that later, but while they are in the Courtroom in front of the Judge they have to vocalize that they are "Guilty." In other words, they have admitted their guilt, at least that once. Settling civil defendants DO NOT admit their guilt and, in fact, typically specifically deny guilt.

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-15-2002 07:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Well, you'd probably be surprised what people would do for cheap trinkets on Mardi Gras.

I was shocked to see what this girl was doing in this picture...and for free, or so her T-Shirt said.

Posted by Toby on 05-15-2002 07:59 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
They might say that later, but while they are in the Courtroom in front of the Judge they have to vocalize that they are "Guilty." In other words, they have admitted their guilt, at least that once. Settling civil defendants DO NOT admit their guilt and, in fact, typically specifically deny guilt.

And ultimately that's irrelevant. I'm not talking about the artificial construction of law. I'm talking about the pragmatic implications. I couldn't care less about 'laws' when it comes to determining the 'rightness', 'wrongness', or reality of a situation. Yes, technically in a legal sense, they are different, but in many cases they are the same. An example would be a local oilfield waste treatment facility (which made 60 minutes and may one day make SuperFund). They settled with the residents who claimed all sorts of afflictions due to the noxious fumes and whoknowswhat chemicals leaching into the ground. Now, I'm sure that some fictitious legal document makes the claim that they did nothing wrong or aren't legally liable for anything, but the fact of the matter is that they paid a lot of money and agreed not to do certain things which they were doing before. That sounds like a plea bargain to me.

Posted by Toby on 05-15-2002 08:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
I was shocked to see what this girl was doing in this picture...and for free, or so her T-Shirt said.

Do you usually take such things at face value?

Posted by Yorick on 05-16-2002 01:39 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Am I wearing a thin-white T shirt stretched tightly across my perky chest with orange shorts that conform to my bottom?

hmmm, I think I'll have to linger over that mental image for a while ...

... okay, I'll move on now. Thanks!

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by ToolkiT on 05-16-2002 04:00 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

I was shocked to see what this girl was doing in this picture...and for free, or so her T-Shirt said.

If you are talking about the same picture I saw, she still called it a 'job'

even though she didn't get paid

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by dampeoples on 05-16-2002 04:41 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
If you are talking about the same picture I saw, she still called it a 'job' even though she didn't get paid

*insert snide comment

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-16-2002 02:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Now, I'm sure that some fictitious legal document makes the claim that they did nothing wrong or aren't legally liable for anything, but the fact of the matter is that they paid a lot of money and agreed not to do certain things which they were doing before. That sounds like a plea bargain to me.

But it's not the same. There is an inherent difference in that in a true plea bargain, the criminal admits his guilt. In a settlement, the civil defendant does not. You might call it ficticious, but it is a difference.

Further, as I previously pointed out, most insurance policies that provide a civil defense also have the right to settle out of court, regardless of what the Insured thinks. NO ONE, however, can make a criminal defendant plead guilty but him/her self.

Since examples are being bandied about, how about a small business owner who is in an automobile collison and gets sued. (And I've seen cases where the person who ran the red light has actually done the suing). Regardless of how defensible the claim is, how likely the defendant is to win, and how much he wants to defend himself and his driving abilities in court, he might want to settle after spending a couple of days in depositions, selecting the jury, etc. For some people, right v. wrong is less important than "if I don't settle, can I pay the light bill this month." You are seeing things in shades of black and white and that's simply not the case.

Your initial point was "settling=plea bargaining" but I do not believe that to be true. I understand your point that a big company who pays money and agrees to refrain from doing something might appear to be "guilty" (or liable to use the closest civil term), but that example does not necessarily apply to all the other nuances of civl litigation.

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-16-2002 03:10 PM:

Yorick-
Happy to oblige!

ToolkiT-
Yep, that's the one. Looked like a lot of work...er, never mind.

Kelley

Posted by Toby on 05-16-2002 05:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
But it's not the same.

I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind here. We're looking at it from rather different perspectives.

quote:
There is an inherent difference in that in a true plea bargain, the criminal admits his guilt. In a settlement, the civil defendant does not. You might call it ficticious, but it is a difference.

It's ultimately only a difference in that same court of law. O.J.'s innocent BTW.

quote:
Further, as I previously pointed out, most insurance policies that provide a civil defense also have the right to settle out of court, regardless of what the Insured thinks. NO ONE, however, can make a criminal defendant plead guilty but him/her self.

Please. That's like the old salt about even having a choice when you're being robbed at gunpoint. Sure, you can choose to die instead of handing over your wallet, but that's not usually a viable option.

quote:
Since examples are being bandied about, how about a small business owner who is in an automobile collison and gets sued. (And I've seen cases where the person who ran the red light has actually done the suing). Regardless of how defensible the claim is, how likely the defendant is to win, and how much he wants to defend himself and his driving abilities in court, he might want to settle after spending a couple of days in depositions, selecting the jury, etc. For some people, right v. wrong is less important than "if I don't settle, can I pay the light bill this month."

I don't see how that's much different from the example of someone pleading to a lesser charge which will get them off on time served versus trying to compete against unlimited resources of 'the system'.

quote:
You are seeing things in shades of black and white and that's simply not the case.

No, I'm seeing things in Living TechniColor�.

quote:
Your initial point was "settling=plea bargaining" but I do not believe that to be true. I understand your point that a big company who pays money and agrees to refrain from doing something might appear to be "guilty" (or liable to use the closest civil term), but that example does not necessarily apply to all the other nuances of civl litigation.

Are you suggesting that there aren't just as many nuances to criminal litigation? Not everyone who's 'guilty' is always guilty, and not everyone who's 'not guilty' is necessarily not guilty. People weigh their options and outcomes, and make their decisions.

Posted by K. Cannon on 05-16-2002 06:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Are you suggesting that there aren't just as many nuances to criminal litigation? Not everyone who's 'guilty' is always guilty, and not everyone who's 'not guilty' is necessarily not guilty.

You are mixing up issues. Someone who plea bargains, by definition, says they committed the crime. Sure, not everyone who is "guilty" is committed the crime, but some people who are "guilty" admitted that they were and some were found that way by the judge/jury. Yes, criminal law(litigation refers to civil law) has many nuances BUT your original comment was that "settling=plea bargaining." Sure, there may be some similarities, but your initial assertion was an oversimplification which implies that everyone who settles a case admits liability.

quote:
Sure, you can choose to die instead of handing over your wallet, but that's not usually a viable option.

I think pleading "Not Guilty" when you're Not Guilty is certainly a viable option. Further, in most states you have a no contest-type option. (Besides, I carry a purse!

)

quote:
People weigh their options and outcomes, and make their decisions.

Not if their insurance company makes it for them.

quote:
I don't see how that's much different from the example of someone pleading to a lesser charge which will get them off on time served versus trying to compete against unlimited resources of 'the system'.

The difference is someone "pleading to a lesser charge" says "I committed the crime of X." Someone who settles a wreck case says "I didn't do anything wrong, but my insurance company says it would be cheaper to pay this ambulance chaser $1000 bucks than pay for discovery, depositions, and trial--and then maybe draw a jury that likes the Plaintiff for whatever reason and awards a big verdict on top of defense costs."

quote:
It's ultimately only a difference in that same court of law.

? Civil and criminal are not in the same court of law. (Maybe I misunderstand your point.)

Civil and criminal cases are apples and oranges. Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Liable vs. Guilty. Depositions and Discovery v. Rule 5 Disclosures.

I would hazard a guess (although I may be wrong) that you have never been sued before.

Posted by Toby on 05-16-2002 08:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
You are mixing up issues.

No, I'm not.

quote:
Someone who plea bargains, by definition, says they committed the crime.

I evidently am using a different connotation, but I think I already said that we were looking at it from different perspectives.

quote:
Sure, not everyone who is "guilty" is committed the crime, but some people who are "guilty" admitted that they were and some were found that way by the judge/jury.

Yes, and is it beyond the bounds of reality to even say that there are probably some people who said that they were guilty to a lesser charge even though they may not have been and may not have believed themselves to have been in order to simply 'get on with their lives' and avoid a costly and potentially futile and more endangering criminal process? That's rhetorical by the way. I know for a fact it happens.

quote:
Yes, criminal law(litigation refers to civil law) has many nuances BUT your original comment was that "settling=plea bargaining."

Yes, and you've still yet to convince me that in the real world the two aren't the same. They're only different within the 'legal' world.

quote:
Sure, there may be some similarities, but your initial assertion was an oversimplification which implies that everyone who settles a case admits liability.

If they're making a payment to someone else for an alleged wrong, then regardless of what the documents say, they've functionally done just that.

quote:
I think pleading "Not Guilty" when you're Not Guilty is certainly a viable option. Further, in most states you have a no contest-type option. (Besides, I carry a purse! )

Ahh...but who said that the prosecutor always offered a nolo plea or that they didn't offer an irresistable guilty plea just to increase their conviction rating?

quote:
Not if their insurance company makes it for them.

Or their public defender.

quote:
The difference is someone "pleading to a lesser charge" says "I committed the crime of X." Someone who settles a wreck case says "I didn't do anything wrong, but my insurance company says it would be cheaper to pay this ambulance chaser $1000 bucks than pay for discovery, depositions, and trial--and then maybe draw a jury that likes the Plaintiff for whatever reason and awards a big verdict on top of defense costs."

No, that's what they fool themselves into thinking. Functionally, they've admitted that the person making the suit had enough evidence to make a case more costly than it would take to just say, 'ok you win. here's some money'.

quote:
? Civil and criminal are not in the same court of law. (Maybe I misunderstand your point.)

I think you do. I'm referring to the court system in general, not a specific jurisdiction.

quote:
Civil and criminal cases are apples and oranges.

Reality isn't, though.

quote:
Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Liable vs. Guilty. Depositions and Discovery v. Rule 5 Disclosures.

And those are all created out of whole cloth.

quote:
I would hazard a guess (although I may be wrong) that you have never been sued before.

Yes, I have. My insurance company settled. I'm also gearing up for jury duty in a couple weeks.

Posted by thorin on 05-16-2002 09:39 PM:

ayayaygg!!! laywer fight! *takes cover*

__________________
-thorin

I have a webcomic. You should read it, or I may do something rash. <b><a href=http://driveby.keenspace.com/>Drive-by Loitering</a></b> is updated every monday, wednesday and friday.

<!img src=http://www.frontfly.com/myrouter/vcsig2.gif alt="Soundsgood is too elite for the punks."><img src=http://www.frontfly.com/vcsig.gif ><!img src=http://www.frontfly.com/myrouter/vcsig2.gif alt="Soundsgood is too elite for the punks.">

Posted by Toby on 05-16-2002 10:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by thorin
ayayaygg!!! laywer fight! *takes cover*

Now look here! I understand that you're having some motivational troubles in school, but that's no reason to get insulting! ;�~~~~~

Posted by Madkins007 on 05-17-2002 05:15 PM:

Ah... one could almost wish that this case had not been settled. Then we could maybe get some of the questions we are quibbling (fighting seems too strong a word) over answered.

Personally, I still don't see how a person could think they were going to win a car just for selling beer for a couple months*. If there really are places that give out prizes that big that for contests that small, I wanna work there!

The 'big prizes' where I work run in the $3,000 range (annual company award for excellent performance), and we are a pretty financially healthy company. The restaraunt my daughter works at gives free dinners for two for wine sales contests or a paid day off for a dessert promotion and it is a very successful business.

(*- What IS the mark-up on beer, and what does it cost at Hooters? If it is selling for $5, and is marked up 50% then the store makes $2.50 per bottle, gross. It probably nets about 15% of that as profit- about 37.5 cents per bottle. I'll be generous and figure it for 50 cents a bottle.

Let's say the car would have been worth $7,000 (discounts, promotional consideration, etc.). You would have to sell 14,000 bottles of beer to make that kind of profit. In a two month period (which we do not know it to be), that is 233 bottles of beer a day. For one person to make that, working a 40 hour week, you would have to sell about 58 bottles an hour- about a bottle a minute- and this is above and beyond the usual sales figure because you still need the profit from the regular sales level to run the business on.

Now, divide this bottle a minute over the entire wait staff (what would that be, 5-10 people?) and it is *almost* concievable- but the purpose of such a contest is more to boost profits than to provide incentives for staff- so you generally only give out prizes worth a small fraction of the total profit increase. I don't know- it still does not sound very likely to me.)

__________________
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!

Posted by Toby on 05-17-2002 06:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Madkins007
Ah... one could almost wish that this case had not been settled. Then we could maybe get some of the questions we are quibbling (fighting seems too strong a word) over answered.

Yep, _I'm_ certainly not fighting here. Bantering seems a fair word too.

quote:
Personally, I still don't see how a person could think they were going to win a car just for selling beer for a couple months*.

That's where details would help. What if the manager drove a 5 year old Toyota and was looking at getting a new car?

quote:
If there really are places that give out prizes that big that for contests that small, I wanna work there!

That's the thing. We have no idea how big of a prize they were led to believe it was.

quote:
The 'big prizes' where I work run in the $3,000 range (annual company award for excellent performance), and we are a pretty financially healthy company.

That's enough to buy a decent enough Japanese used car.

quote:
(*- What IS the mark-up on beer, and what does it cost at Hooters? If it is selling for $5, and is marked up 50% then the store makes $2.50 per bottle, gross. It probably nets about 15% of that as profit- about 37.5 cents per bottle. I'll be generous and figure it for 50 cents a bottle.

I have no idea what it costs at Hooters. I've only been to one once, and I didn't pick up the tab. I do know, however, that when I used to have access to a local wholesaler/retailer, that I could buy a case of 'premium domestic' brand beer for $12-13 per case for longnecks. That's around $0.50 a bottle to any Joe off the street for a small order of a case or two. At that same time, bars and restaurants were charging $2-3 per bottle for the same thing. I'm sure that margins are still comparable today.

Posted by thorin on 05-18-2002 06:32 AM:

what you're missing is that the prixe winniner need not necessarily sell enough beer to cover the cost of the car-- the fact that hundreds of waitresses are all trying to sell a much beer as possible in order to win is what pays for it.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page