Comments on: Jury agrees: crashes of cars into stores are stores’ fault

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 17:19:34 +0000

I guess they sued the business because they felt a jury wouldn’t fall for another “sudden acceleration” claim against the car manufacturer.

I feel very bad, of course, for the innocent person who was injured, and I may have been advised to and done the same thing had I had the same misfortune.

But the outcome will be all stores will become fortresses like embassy buildings, and there will be the lawsuits, too, from people who hit into the bollards and get injured.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:02:39 +0000

Juries don’t think about the long term impact of their decisions.

In this case, person/people got hurt. That is sad, we feel sorry for them. Someone should pay them money for their injuries. No one involved has any money. Hey look the business has money. Make them pay.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:26:01 +0000

In reply to bob.

“Our tort system is a joke.”

It isn’t very funny.

Our entire court system, civil and criminal is FUBAR.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:34:28 +0000

then the bollards are the cause of an ADA suit. Then someone gets pinned between the bollards and an errant vehicle and sues. Our tort system is a joke.

By: ras

ras — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:38:50 +0000

What’s a few thousand dollars of someone else’s money?

/the whole truth

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:02:08 +0000

In reply to David C. I think you are being a bit optimistic. I give it about 6 months.

By: Allan

Allan — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:35:53 +0000

An interesting discussion. But I think it raises a most basic policy issue: whose responsibility is it to insure against loss of life and limb? If we had universal health care, we could take care of medical bills. But the loss of life may well cause severe financial strain to families.

Perhaps life insurance is the answer. After all, if you think your life is worth $3,000,000 to your family and you have no insurance, why should society pick up the slack?

By: David C

David C — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:36:22 +0000

Next up: suing the car companies for not installing automatic braking. I give it about 2 years.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:37:06 +0000

In reply to Allan.

The problem is that the company had complied with all of the safety requirements Allen.

They are getting hit for something that was not mandated.

Secondly, those bollards are not there to protect people or to increase the safety of anyone. They are there to protect the store from being robbed by “crash and dash” thieves who would take an old beater vehicle, crash it through the front door, grab merchandise and cash, and then take off.

The bollards are not safety related.

This is another case where a company did nothing wrong and are being forced to pay for the actions of another person.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:22:24 +0000

So what happens when the bollards stop the car, but, kill the driver and/or passengers? I’ll lay odds that the store gets sued again. Damned if you do……………….