Art, do you think this situation is severe enough to warrant an investigation? It seems like there's a lot of work to do to figure out who's fault it was, but at this point, the guilty party is likely aware of it. The chances of a second incident are pretty slim. Doesn't our court system have better things to do?
I don't know. When it comes down to it, the guilty party in most suits knows who or she is, and it typically takes a long time to root that out because the guilty one doesn't want to be found out.
As for the chances of a second, similar incident ... if the court were to throw out the case, or the plaintiffs wised up and dropped the suit because it's possibly going to be more trouble than it's worth, one could just as easily argue that it will happen again because the guilty party feels he "got away with it" and therefore "it's no big deal."
Corporations pull a lot of stunts because they can get away with it, government doesn't have the manpower to catch them, and their deep pockets enable them to buy their way out of a lot of complaints brought by injured parties, too.
Going to court expresses both the highest ideals of American justice and the worst aspects of a poker game or crap shoot. It's gambling, simply put, and the players have to decide for themselves how much they're willing to risk and for how long, on the chance of winning big.
Personally, I'd feel pretty awful if this happened to my family, but I don't think it'd be worth going to court over. Which is why I suspect the plaintiffs are hoping for a quick and quiet (and, they hope, lucrative) settlement. It's not so much an issue of obtaining justice for a clear tort as one of seeking compensation for embarrassment on the part of the defendants and emotional distress for the plaintiffs.
David Loftus, a free-lance writer and actor, is the author of AMERICAN CURRENTS. A native Oregonian who has lived on the East Coast and traveled much of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa, he makes his home in Portland with his wife Carole and toy fox terrier Pixie. David reads more than a hundred books a year and watches an average of less than two hours of television a week. He does not own a car, has no children, and pretty much avoids meat. Click the photo for more by David.
Art, do you think this situation is severe enough to warrant an investigation? It seems like there's a lot of work to do to figure out who's fault it was, but at this point, the guilty party is likely aware of it. The chances of a second incident are pretty slim. Doesn't our court system have better things to do?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. When it comes down to it, the guilty party in most suits knows who or she is, and it typically takes a long time to root that out because the guilty one doesn't want to be found out.
ReplyDeleteAs for the chances of a second, similar incident ... if the court were to throw out the case, or the plaintiffs wised up and dropped the suit because it's possibly going to be more trouble than it's worth, one could just as easily argue that it will happen again because the guilty party feels he "got away with it" and therefore "it's no big deal."
Corporations pull a lot of stunts because they can get away with it, government doesn't have the manpower to catch them, and their deep pockets enable them to buy their way out of a lot of complaints brought by injured parties, too.
Going to court expresses both the highest ideals of American justice and the worst aspects of a poker game or crap shoot. It's gambling, simply put, and the players have to decide for themselves how much they're willing to risk and for how long, on the chance of winning big.
Personally, I'd feel pretty awful if this happened to my family, but I don't think it'd be worth going to court over. Which is why I suspect the plaintiffs are hoping for a quick and quiet (and, they hope, lucrative) settlement. It's not so much an issue of obtaining justice for a clear tort as one of seeking compensation for embarrassment on the part of the defendants and emotional distress for the plaintiffs.