4 ms·

> Chances are its not going to change how the company operates any more than the tragedy already has. This seems so wrong to me. The death of a child (or mult

> Chances are its not going to change how the company operates any more than the tragedy already has. This seems so wrong to me. The death of a child (or multiple instances of it) is not going to change how a company operates. Neither will the trial and the force of law, and the public exposure. What is law for, then? I mean it rhetorically, of course, and not directed at you personally.

tldrthelaw 5y ago
This kind of law (tort) is for retroactively writing the contract that would get society to agree to terms to permit the action taken by the defendant -- in other words, literally: what would we demand of the plaintiff to permit it to continue to act in the way it did? On an individual basis for the victim's families there is no amount of money. But, unfortunately, as a society we regularly agree to a value.
tiahura 5y ago
I said that taking the case to trial - as opposed to settling now - isn't going to change how the company operates. A couple of points. First, there's no guarantee that you get more at trial. In most jurisdictions comparative fault would be an issue. Not to be cold, but the defense will be able to argue that a 2 year old shouldn't have been allowed to play around a trash truck, and that if parents or whoever had been doing their job this wouldn't have happened. And therefore, caregiver's negligence should offset their liability. Two, the death of a child very likely changed how the company operates. Companies are run and operated by people, and the death of a child affects everyone. Third, insurance is likely involved. Thus the idea that taking the case to trial is going to change behavior more than settling now, is unlikely. I suppose the bottom line is, the case has a value. Wrongful death cases get tried and the attorneys and insurance companies keep track of those results. If the submitter is being offered something close, he should take it. If not, either tell his attorney to negotiate for more or get a new attorney.

tldrthelaw 5y ago

This kind of law (tort) is for retroactively writing the contract that would get society to agree to terms to permit the action taken by the defendant -- in other words, literally: what would we demand of the plaintiff to permit it to continue to act in the way it did? On an individual basis for the victim's families there is no amount of money. But, unfortunately, as a society we regularly agree to a value.

tiahura 5y ago

I said that taking the case to trial - as opposed to settling now - isn't going to change how the company operates. A couple of points. First, there's no guarantee that you get more at trial. In most jurisdictions comparative fault would be an issue. Not to be cold, but the defense will be able to argue that a 2 year old shouldn't have been allowed to play around a trash truck, and that if parents or whoever had been doing their job this wouldn't have happened. And therefore, caregiver's negligence should offset their liability. Two, the death of a child very likely changed how the company operates. Companies are run and operated by people, and the death of a child affects everyone. Third, insurance is likely involved. Thus the idea that taking the case to trial is going to change behavior more than settling now, is unlikely. I suppose the bottom line is, the case has a value. Wrongful death cases get tried and the attorneys and insurance companies keep track of those results. If the submitter is being offered something close, he should take it. If not, either tell his attorney to negotiate for more or get a new attorney.