| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > But Tom... Under the system proposed by Larry, if your plane were to fall
> > > from the skies your loved ones would be able to tale the airlines to the
> > > cleaners. Is that not good enough for you?
>
> > Why the smiley? It's certainly good enough for me! What better to
> > avoid such disasters than the certainty that rapid and humongous
> > suits would follow?
>
> That's fine on paper, but I'm willing to bet that airlines will, in really
> short order, retain the most expensive and effective lawyers money can buy,
> far in excess of the ability of the individual to afford, even if a
> class-action suit is filed.
I'll take the other side of that bet in a heartbeat. As long as I get to set
the overall rules of the game, that is. You can even call me on whether they
conform to my principles or not.
> So when the airlines get off with a
> small-settlement-no-admission-of-fault sort of a judgment, what happens
> thereafter?
Won't happen... unless that's the right outcome. As long as I get to set the
overall rules of the game, that is. You can even call me on whether they
conform to my principles or not.
> Further, it would seem to me that airlines could make some argument like
> "crashed or not, it's our sovereign property" and thereby prevent a
> plantiff's attorneys from investigating the debris.
Won't happen. As long as I get to set the overall rules of the game, that
is. You can even call me on whether they conform to my principles or not.
> I'm not convinced that
> any case launched in the absence of federal regulation would have much
> chance of success or serious compensation.
Whereas I am convinced that it would, if it has merit. As long as I get to
set the overall rules of the game, that is. You can even call me on whether
they conform to my principles or not.
> Moreover, and bearing that in
> mind, does anyone doubt that airlines would undertake cost studies to
> determine a comfortable margin of liability and happily cut their financial
> losses at the expense of passengers' lives?
And so they should. And would, as long as I get to set the overall rules of
the game, that is. You can even call me on whether they conform to my
principles or not.
However, I sense you see that this would be a flaw. Demonstrate that this is
not actually the correct outcome, Dave! Lives do not have infinite economic
value, and pretending that they do gets you wrong answers.
Note that *getting* from here to there is non trivial, of course.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) That's fine on paper, but I'm willing to bet that airlines will, in really short order, retain the most expensive and effective lawyers money can buy, far in excess of the ability of the individual to afford, even if a class-action suit is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
