God help America

[red750]

This is the scariest thing I've seen in years.....

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Crazy!
Maybe it’s the lead all those people have been breathing in.

[onetrack]

That's straight-out child abuse and people should be jailed for teaching their toddlers how to handle firearms. He still lives in fantasy world, where you point fingers and sticks and go, BANG!, BANG!, and the other kid pretends to drop down dead. But one day, he'll pull the trigger on a family member and expect them to jump up again. There's plenty of stories involving American kids shooting other family members with firearms they found. What's the bet she'll be on the receiving end of a round from him one day? - just like the dopey mother of that Sandy Hook nutter.

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by onetrack

[facthunter]

Conditioned from an early  age.  S&W will be happy. Stark raving MAD.  I don't even believe in giving them toy guns. Most stuff on Netflix is psycho's, extreme violence, blood and guts.  Nev

[red750]

You were saying???

 

 

https://au.yahoo.com/news/mother-charged-2-old-uses-033027011.html

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, red750 said:

You were saying???

 

 

https://au.yahoo.com/news/mother-charged-2-old-uses-033027011.html

Beat me to it.

[spacesailor]

My daughter wouldn,t let her kids have ' nasty ' toys.

BUT

They fell in love with that violent video game, " Grand theft auto ", were you steal a car then kill anyone in your way.took to it like ducks to water.

spacesailor

[Old Koreelah]

This gem belongs here: this woman caught a venereal desease while bonking in a car, so she’s sueing the car maker. Only in America!

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61763333

[facthunter]

Was it such a good "Chick Magnet"? You have to be  joking.  Maybe the sales people should check  their customer's health status? Nev

[octave]

16 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

This gem belongs here: this woman caught a venereal desease while bonking in a car, so she’s sueing the car maker. Only in America!

 It is actually not the car maker but the car insurer and it will most likely be overturned in an appeal.   

 

Car insurer Geico may have to pay $5m after woman contracts STI in a vehicle

[facthunter]

It's not compulsory to use a car for this purpose but you would expect to pay extra to cover the risks. (User Pays).  Nev

[onetrack]

Did the rental company inform the woman renter of the high risk of contracting an STI in their vehicle? Obviously not. So they failed in their duty of care. Judgment given against rental company and its insurer. Case closed. I think I'd make a great Philadelphia lawyer!

[willedoo]

Most of my cars were clapped out.

[old man emu]

In American, if a crazed gunman don't get ya, a gun lawyer will.

[pmccarthy]

The mile high club will be sued for high poxia.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 07/06/2022 at 10:03 AM, facthunter said:

Conditioned from an early  age.  S&W will be happy. Stark raving MAD.  ...

They may be, but ol' Mrs Winchester had some guilt in her head about her hubby manufacturing guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House. I had visited the house in my first trip to the US.

 

12 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

This gem belongs here: this woman caught a venereal desease while bonking in a car, so she’s sueing the car maker. Only in America!

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61763333

Well, as octave says, the car insurer is being sued, as they indemnify the owner for most liability of losses arising from their car. The car manudfacturer may have been in hot water if, for example, the back seat gave way and the poor lady had some unimaginable injury festooned upon her. But, in this case, the car's owner, using the car as a means of supporting the STI transmission medium as well, as the passing of the STI baton actually taking place in the car.

 

I didn't do insurance law, but, in the US, the civil law is as much about punitive awards, as it is about restorative awards. So, while penalty clauses are illegal in the UK, and limited in most states of Aus, penalty clauses in contract are enforced according to the wording. Damages in tort in the UK are about compensating the loss and pain and suffering, in the US, they use punitive (punishing) awards disproprtionately. So, the US looks more to the wording of the agreements, than the fair judgement of what to do in the circumstances.

 

But, this may not be as clear cut as we think. There will generally be limitiations of liability based on the car being used in a way it was not designed for. Clearly, most normal cars are not designed for the act of copulation, despite most yank tanks being more than capable of housing such primal acts. However, inserting (pardon the pun) a clause such as "Our liability is limited to events that occur solely in connection for uses the car is designed for", would probably be ruled unenforceable for being too wide - otherwise, all cars could have a stated use of being driven only in sunny weather, when the sun can't block the eyes, or otherwise impede visibility, and when driven less than 10mph.

 

So, the insurance clauses usually refuse liability when the vehicle is used illegally (e.g. druink driving, exceeding the speed limit, with an unlicenced driver, no valid RWC (if required), etc. And there may be specified limitations as well - e.g. outside normal design paramters, e.g. taking a Nissan Micra on the Oodnadatta track or some such thing. And often, they will specifically include liability, such as for theft or fire, or other losses while the car is parked legally and in accordance with other liability provisions.

 

So, you see where I am going.. the wording of the insurance policy may be that, for example "We will cover losses incurred while your car is parked legally and, if unattended by you, locked in accordance with the manufacturer's hand book.".. or some such thing. Clearly, the clause is about if something is stolen, or someone slams into the car, or it spontaneoulsy combusts, or something and does not intend the transmission of STIs, or the failed crop of mushrooms, or whatever, but unless there is a suitable limitation, then, well, the wording of the policy is the wording of the policy.

 

I can state with some degree of certainty, in the UK (both English and Scots law), it would likely have been thrown out a long time ago, unless it was clear the policy meant unlimited forms of liability. However, to be honest, I am not so sure, depending on the wording of the policy, many states would throw this out in Aus.

 

My point is, it is definitely crazy, but the courts see fit (remember, we have gone past a jury now) due more to a tweak in in the interpretation of contracts/tort/insurance, rather than America is necessarily crazy. Which, in some respects, it is.. like in some respects, we are.. they are crazy in many more respects, however.

 

11 hours ago, octave said:

it will most likely be overturned in an appeal.

I wouldn't be so sure of it.. it will depend on what the law is and what the policy says.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

Here is a more detailed report.  Just to make it clear though I am not saying she should get the 5 mill.  Jeez I would catch a dose for significantly less than 5 mill.

 

Insurers Geico ordered to pay woman who caught STD having sex in car $5.2m

 

 

 

The woman accused the man of acting negligently and argued that the Geico policy which insured the car should cover her “injuries and losses” from the disease.

Geico denied coverage of the claim and rejected a settlement offer from the woman. Court filings say the woman and her boyfriend agreed to arbitrate her claims, the official overseeing that process determining the man “negligently infected MO” and awarding her $5.2m in damages.

The woman went to a state court in Jackson county, Missouri, and filed suit against Geico, aimed at confirming the arbitration award. That court ruled in her favor, prompting Geico to ask an appellate court to overturn the decision.

Attorneys for Geico argued that they never had a meaningful chance to contest the claim. The appellate court found Geico did get the chance, an opportunity it forfeited when it chose to simply deny coverage.

“We would note that [Geico] had every opportunity to enter a defense … but chose not to do so,” said the ruling, issued by judges Edward Ardini, Karen King Mitchell and Thomas Chapman. “Geico [has] no right to relitigate those issues.”

Geico and MO have a separate but related case pending in federal court. In that proceeding, the insurer contends that the policy in question “only applies to bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of the Hyundai Genesis.

 

Geico can still go to the state supreme court to seek a reprieve, and may get a more favorable ruling in a related federal case.

 

 

[facthunter]

Anything is possible in Genesis. but really, the CAR is not essential to the act. America's legal system is absurd. and ably illustrated by many such cases. The Insurance company is an easy target as it has the capacity to PAY. Lawyers crippled the Light aircraft Industry in the US years back. It all adds to the cost of doing business there. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

The basis on which the state case is being made is that the insurer gave up their right to defend the claim. This may be, actually correct, depending on the facts (of which I am sure not all are being reported).

 

Most insurance policies have a step in clause in the case of liability to a third party. This means that the insurer steps in as the insured to defend an action. If the insured decides to defend the action themselves, then the insurer is able to deny any liability on the basis they were not able to defend themselves. This is pretty well much standard insurance conditions and law (when there is a condition inserted).

 

This bit is key:

On 12/06/2022 at 12:10 AM, octave said:

Court filings say the woman and her boyfriend agreed to arbitrate her claims, the official overseeing that process determining the man “negligently infected MO” and awarding her $5.2m in damages.

Disregarding the quantum of the award, which undoubtedly contains a punitive component, the insured deciding off their own bat to enter into arbitration woulde relive the insurer from liability for adamages resulting from that arbitration. On the facts, they seem to rightly contend that they are not liable to that decision when they were not able to step in (or defend themselves). The fact they denied the claim would not be surrendering that right, as the claim denial is the first step in the whole process (they won't pay the claim and then seek to get the monies back, unless the law in that state has a material procedural divergence to other states). Given this has already gone to appeal and been affirmed for the plaintiff, it would seem that there is some material fact that is not being reported - or it is the law of that state. Maybe it can't be a simple denial of coverage, but ongoing claim investigation pending court action, so some such legal technicality.

 

On 12/06/2022 at 12:10 AM, octave said:

Geico and MO have a separate but related case pending in federal court. In that proceeding, the insurer contends that the policy in question “only applies to bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of the Hyundai Genesis.

Good luck with that one.. I do believe the car in question was in use at the time of the tortious action.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

Did the USE of the Genesis CAUSE the Injury.? Would any make of car or any provider make any difference or REASONABLY  could have or could have been used in a way to prevent it happening where the Participants alone made the decision to do what they did.  unprotected.? Nev

[onetrack]

Back to the thread heading .... only in America (from the Detroit Free Press .....

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2022/06/12/warren-house-bombs-ammo-guns-explosion/7604452001/

[red750]

What hope???    Question: Where do they get the money?

 

 

[rgmwa]

That’s appalling! What a sad place the US is these days.

 

[old man emu]

I can see the merit in collecting guns that are rare or show some facet of the evolution of firearms - much the same way as a museum collects artefacts, or a variety of firearms for different types of shooting contests, but to amass an armoury of commonplace firearms does seem ridiculous. Like collecting lots of the same Tupperware containers.

[Jerry_Atrick]

There are some good things about the US: