Tort Law Run Amok - $750,000 for a shoplifter

[barbos]

I prefer my brain over $750k, of course we don't know initial brain conditions of that shoplifter.

 

[Derec]

I prefer my brain over $750k, of course we don't know initial brain conditions of that shoplifter.

He chose to shoplift some scissors. Can't have been too valuable a commodity. Certainly not worth $750,000.

 

[Derec]

The company should pay for his bad luck since such luck wouldn't have come about had people under the company's employ not caused it.

He chose to commit the crime of shoplifting. The LPOs merely tried to prevent his crime.
I do not see why he should benefit from his crime just because he got hurt while he did it.

 

[untermensche]

The company should pay for his bad luck since such luck wouldn't have come about had people under the company's employ not caused it.

He chose to commit the crime of shoplifting. The LPOs merely tried to prevent his crime.
I do not see why he should benefit from his crime just because he got hurt while he did it.

Do you understand that this court just ruled that these people acted illegally by throwing this man to the ground?

They used excessive force. A crime in itself.

 

[Derec]

Do you understand that this court just ruled that these people acted illegally by throwing this man to the ground?

They used excessive force. A crime in itself.

No, they ruled that the store must pay the shoplifter $750k. No more than that. US tort law is fundamentally broken.

 

[untermensche]

Do you understand that this court just ruled that these people acted illegally by throwing this man to the ground?

They used excessive force. A crime in itself.

No, they ruled that the store must pay the shoplifter $750k. No more than that. US tort law is fundamentally broken.

Of course there was more than that.

They awarded the money because these violent idiots used excessive force.

They are criminals as much as the guy stealing scissors.

Nothing is broken here except the normal sense most people have when excessive force is used.

 

[barbos]

I think shoplifters should be able to steal small items without being beaten to death.
So $750k ruling is fine with me.

 

[Ford]

I'm still waiting for Derec to post the link to the place where he gets all these stories. Is there a "news you should be angry about" aggregator? Or does he track down each of these stories individually, get all huff, and then post them here?

Because if it is the latter, then that's a niche that could be filled. Might have to broaden the scope beyond "wronged" white men, but I'm sure such a site could get a lot of traffic. What with social media, there's a market for stories that anger people who don't bother to read too much in detail.

 

[untermensche]

I'm still waiting for Derec to post the link to the place where he gets all these stories. Is there a "news you should be angry about" aggregator? Or does he track down each of these stories individually, get all huff, and then post them here?

Because if it is the latter, then that's a niche that could be filled. Might have to broaden the scope beyond "wronged" white men, but I'm sure such a site could get a lot of traffic. What with social media, there's a market for stories that anger people who don't bother to read too much in detail.

These are right-wing talking points.

They are a slant on the news that is supposed to generate anger in the faithful. The faithful are just a bunch of mindless dogs that need to be told what to think.

There are many many so-called "think tanks" and other right-wing sources that put out this crap on a regular basis.

It is the rich that want to destroy the tort system in the US. It is a minor check on power.

So stories like this are supposed to make people think there is something wrong with the tort system.

When really what is wrong with it is it too ineffectual. Rich corporations are not hindered very much by it. They do cost some money though.

 

[Axulus]

Why does someone stealing a small item of yours give you the right to slam them to the ground and cause them severe brain injury?

About the only time the law authorizes you to injure someone is in self defense or in the defense of another, and only the amount of force that is necessary to stop the person from assaulting you or someone else.

 

[Derec]

Of course there was more than that.

Yes, the unofficial deep pockets doctrine of US tort law.

They awarded the money because these violent idiots used excessive force.

No, they awarded the money because the perp got hurt while stealing from corporation with deep pockets. The two bolded phrases is all US juries want to hear, unfortunately.

They are criminals as much as the guy stealing scissors.

They were not found guilty of any crime, they weren't even indicted. Hell, they weren't even sued individually.

Nothing is broken here except the normal sense most people have when excessive force is used.

I see no evidence excessive force was used. Serious injury can result from normal level of force + bad luck.

 

[Axulus]

They awarded the money because these violent idiots used excessive force.

Got hurt due to the actions of the LPOs. And it wasn't just a little boo boo, it was a serious injury. Why do you omit that crucial part?

If the guy was running away with the stolen goods and tripped due to his own clumsiness the store would not be liable.

 

[untermensche]

They awarded the money because these violent idiots used excessive force.

Got hurt due to the actions of the LPOs. And it wasn't just a little boo boo, it was a serious injury. Why do you omit that crucial part?

If the guy was running away with the stolen goods and tripped due to his own clumsiness the store would not be liable.

What?

Store employees brutally assaulted the man.

Of course the store has responsibility. They were acting on the behalf of the store.

A store can't employ goons and absolve itself of responsibility.

 

[Axulus]

Got hurt due to the actions of the LPOs. And it wasn't just a little boo boo, it was a serious injury. Why do you omit that crucial part?

If the guy was running away with the stolen goods and tripped due to his own clumsiness the store would not be liable.

What?

Store employees brutally assaulted the man.

Of course the store has responsibility. They were acting on the behalf of the store.

A store can't employ goons and absolve itself of responsibility.

Did I say otherwise? Although if the store can show it took reasonable precautions to train these LPOs to not touch anyone suspected of any crime and did a background check to make sure they don't have a violent past, isn't it unfair to make them liable? That is like punishing the store for the sins of another. The store doesn't have mind control over their employees. The employees aren't shackled like slaves. If the employees commit crimes on their own accord, and the store took reasonable precautions to prevent it, why should it be liable?

 

[untermensche]

What?

Store employees brutally assaulted the man.

Of course the store has responsibility. They were acting on the behalf of the store.

A store can't employ goons and absolve itself of responsibility.

Did I say otherwise? Although if the store can show it took reasonable precautions to train these LPOs to not touch anyone suspected of any crime and did a background check to make sure they don't have a violent past, isn't it unfair to make them liable? That is like punishing the store for the sins of another. The store doesn't have mind control over their employees. The employees aren't shackled like slaves. If the employees commit crimes on their own accord, and the store took reasonable precautions to prevent it, why should it be liable?

But this is not the case here. From the article;

At trial this week, Shopko defended the actions of its employees.

 

[Axulus]

Did I say otherwise? Although if the store can show it took reasonable precautions to train these LPOs to not touch anyone suspected of any crime and did a background check to make sure they don't have a violent past, isn't it unfair to make them liable? That is like punishing the store for the sins of another. The store doesn't have mind control over their employees. The employees aren't shackled like slaves. If the employees commit crimes on their own accord, and the store took reasonable precautions to prevent it, why should it be liable?

But this is not the case here. From the article;

At trial this week, Shopko defended the actions of its employees.

Then I'm OK with holding them liable for not properly training their employees to their job within the confines of the law, although I'm not sure if the $750,000 is reasonable or not.

 

[untermensche]

But this is not the case here. From the article;

At trial this week, Shopko defended the actions of its employees.

Then I'm OK with holding them liable for not properly training their employees to their job within the confines of the law, although I'm not sure if the $750,000 is reasonable or not.

For a traumatic brain injury?

 

[Axulus]

But this is not the case here. From the article;

At trial this week, Shopko defended the actions of its employees.

Then I'm OK with holding them liable for not properly training their employees to their job within the confines of the law, although I'm not sure if the $750,000 is reasonable or not.

For a traumatic brain injury?

How traumatic? How severe is the ongoing damage? How much should be paid out for such injuries?

 

[untermensche]

But this is not the case here. From the article;

At trial this week, Shopko defended the actions of its employees.

Then I'm OK with holding them liable for not properly training their employees to their job within the confines of the law, although I'm not sure if the $750,000 is reasonable or not.

For a traumatic brain injury?

How traumatic? How severe is the ongoing damage? How much should be paid out for such injuries?

There was just a trial and people deliberated over this.

 

[Axulus]

But this is not the case here. From the article;

At trial this week, Shopko defended the actions of its employees.

Then I'm OK with holding them liable for not properly training their employees to their job within the confines of the law, although I'm not sure if the $750,000 is reasonable or not.

For a traumatic brain injury?

How traumatic? How severe is the ongoing damage? How much should be paid out for such injuries?

There was just a trial and people deliberated over this.

Yes, it seems the store and the employees in question got proper due process. I'm not fretting about it.