Comments on: My Favorite Lawsuit

By: TC

TC — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:38:34 +0000

“We always have issues with employees who honestly believe that the courts are supposed to act as a grievance and appeals board for job terminations. I can’t even describe the large percentage of employees we terminate for cause who call me and tell me they are going to sue.”

Can I state again how glad I am that I work in a right to work state. NEVER do I can somebody for cause beyond yourservices are no longer needed! End of Line! Justification of the termination leads to court around here.

This “guest” needs a visit from Guido! Seems they see more clearly after such.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:45:54 +0000

“It is possible that the visitor never signed a refusal of treatment document.”

Of course, they can also refuse to sign your “refusal of treatment” form as well as refusing treatment…

By: jb

jb — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:01:15 +0000

He’s having a hard time nailing people. Of course there’s a connection.

I echo Barry’s comment, and hope you stay in business. As an avid camper, I want to be able to indulge in my hobby long into the future. (Don’t worry, I won’t sue).

By: abayrat

abayrat — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:55:13 +0000

Max,

It is possible that the visitor never signed a refusal of treatment document. In the mid 1990’s my old NY Volunteer Fire Department’s EMS company would have victums signed a refusal of treatment doc to protect the department’s and village’s butt from lawsuits (This was a state wide policy). You can not sue for if you refused treatment.

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:51:38 +0000

Do Acts of God Still Exist?

No, I don’t mean to start a discussion over the existence of a deity or whether that entity intervenes in the material world. I am sure Walter would permanently disown me for starting such a…

By: Max Lybbert

Max Lybbert — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:48:32 +0000

I can’t figure out how the case can continue given that treatment was offered and refused. It’s hard to see what he would rather your predecessor have done (“I should have been forcibly placed in a stretcher and hauled to the hospital”). Especially since there is a common law right to refuse treatment.

I guess he’s saying the nail shouldn’t have been there in the first place. But even so, he’s only entitled to being placed where he was before stepping on the nail, which goes back to refusing treatment. I can’t see how he’s kept this alive.

By: Barry Sheridan

Barry Sheridan — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:15:09 +0000

Warren, how on earth do you remain sane with so many false claims being levelled at your business. Whatever happened to a sense of honour, not that its any better here in the UK. Keep up the good work.