I suppose at some threshold, beyond which the victim is already compensated, the state should be the one collecting the award.
Is it still considered overcompensation if due to that negligence someone ends up unable to live the life they had prior to the incident?
Say the crossing gates and flashing lights don't activate at a train crossing and you have your radio up too loud to hear the train's horn. You survive the crash but lose your leg in the process. Do you think that paying you a hefty sum of money to have the required surgeries, replacement of your vehicle, and the ability to pay your bills while you're laid up in the hospital is overcompensating?
RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18
Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.
That's why I used the life they had prior to the accident instead of their job.
A person before the accident could have been a mountain climber, or a marathon runner, or any number of things that they would have to learn to do with one leg that they were able to do with two beforehand.
A case by case basis is likely what is already in place with pain and suffering added in as well. As Winter referenced the woman still has issues walking or sitting so even with the desk job she would still be in pain and would have to get up and move around often.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I love how everyone's attempting to have deep, meaningful, philosophical conversations about this. Good laughs all round.
She's in a supermarket, attended by thousands of people per day. Some who may have dropped a grape on the ground. Therefore they should have warning signs visible throughout the shop, BEWARE OF GRAPES THAT MAY BE ON THE GROUND, attendants at every corner handing out well-written training brochures with succinct information on how to best avoid fallen grapes, and, of course, voice-over instructions throughout the supermarket once a minute informing all customers that there may be a fallen grape on the ground and that they shouldn't step on it under any circumstances.
Give me a fucking break, pc shit like this makes me vomit.
Watch where you're walking. Astonishingly enough, people might actually drop things accidentally. Wowww did you see that, logic!?!? Man, crazy shit.
Last edited by Constraint; 2016-12-14 at 10:07 PM.
Can you verify it's just a "Booboo" and not prolonged soft tissue damage like the article says? There's a process involved when people get hurt at work or in a place of business and sometimes are required to visit physicians suggested by the company so that the person doesn't have their own doctor writing them up a bullshit claim.
Contrary to the movie Friday people are not going out to make a quick buck in an accident. There needs to be evidence that the person's injuries were sustained in the incident on site and not elsewhere and staged.
So what do you do for a living?
Im a professional slipper.
If this had happened in Finland, I would've laughed, if I witnessed it. After realising they hurt themselves, I would have phoned help, but then laughed more after that.
If they tried to sue me for ... whatever ... I would have laughed even more.
Slipping on ANYTHING in a store, should first and foremost be the fault of the person who dropped the crap on the floor. Owner of the premises can't be held accountable for everything. If no drop'ee can be found, then just bill the insurance. Then get far too much fucking money anyway.
"It's just like I always said! You can do battle with strength, you can do battle with wits, but no weapon can beat a great pair of tits!"
I know you're already having a glass of champagne in celebration of how cool ( even) you are, but if you bothered to actually read what @Themius tried to twist there in all his glorious illiteracy was my post about how the damages for such things should be high enough so that companies aren't in position to just shrug it off. And last time I checked (so 5 seconds ago), he hasn't edited that part of my post out and as such it was right there for you to see as well. Which makes your post the antithesis of Especially since I'm a social democrat.
There's nothing in the article about a medical report but that's usually what's required when an accident happens in a place of business. They'll send the employee or the shopper to one of the Company physicians to be checked out to verify the injury wasn't done elsewhere. A simple slip can do any number of damage depending on how she fell and if she hit anything while falling. Several years back we had a Yardmaster here get out of his car, step on an 8 oz water bottle someone decided to put the cap back on, and hurt his knee so badly he needed to have it reconstructed.
Is it possible she's exaggerating her injuries? Of course...but the same chance also exists she's being truthful and the Company's own doctors verified the severity of the injuries before she went seeking a civil case against the store.
While working as a teenager in a grocery store, we had a hurricane hit the area (Ivan; power-outages for 2+ weeks in some areas). We opened our store (with power having been out for at least a few days already, mind you) because we were the only store available within a fairly large radius, and people needed supplies.
Refrigeration units had thawed out, so there was water in various spots throughout the floor. The store was also poorly lit, only having windows at the front entrances. Despite having a few associates escorting customers to the worst parts of the store, a young man slipped and fell in a wet spot. Immediately some woman starts yelling "You can sue, you can sue!" I busted out laughing because of her, but the man thought I was laughing at him falling.
Should we have been open? Probably not, considering the risk. Could a person observe the situation and probably guess that they shouldn't walk in with flip-flops and not pay attention to where they were going? Definitely.
My store manager made us close right after the incident.
Wait, I'm endorsing communism because I believe people should be aware of their surroundings (dimly lit, 20,000-ish square foot store, without power, aware that we are escorting customers as we are available, and a stench from food thawing out, right after a hurricane and nobody in a 50-mile radius has power)?
Yeesh. Your world is scarier than mine.
Interesting case. Imo expecting a supermarket to be able to immediately clean up every single grape that falls to the floor (among all the other food in the supermarket) is as "unreasonable" an expectation as it is for Ms. Guru to be constantly watching the floor, as the judge claims. For all we know that grape could have fallen 2 seconds before Ms. Guru slipped on it. If the supermarket could prove they put reasonable effort into cleaning, then I think there is no one is at fault here. It's a freak incident with an unlucky victim, much like getting struck by lightning. BUT since that employee openly claimed she had neglected cleaning the area as she was on her tea break, he/she pretty much instantly took on the liability and the store can really no longer claim they were making the proper efforts to keep the area safe. Makes sense she won, but didn't get the 1 mill+ she was after.
Last edited by BananaHandsB; 2016-12-14 at 10:50 PM. Reason: typos