City employee hits her own car; sues city

[Purpelia]

As far as I am concerned. When a car accident happens the person that caused it should newer get any compensation. That should be his punishment for being bad.

So full coverage on a vehicle is bad.

Wow. This is new!

I consider a lot of things in the modern capitalist world to be bad. As they all breed a culture of consumerism and displacement of action from responsibility.

[Galloism]

So full coverage on a vehicle is bad.

Wow. This is new!

I consider a lot of things in the modern capitalist world to be bad. As they all breed a culture of consumerism and displacement of action from responsibility.

So many things are bad.

Accident insurance in general, for starters. Most of things AFLAC pays for.

So many things.

[Dooom35796821595]

As far as I am concerned. When a car accident happens the person that caused it should newer get any compensation. That should be his punishment for being bad.

So full coverage on a vehicle is bad.

Wow. This is new!

There is a difference between claiming on you insurance and sewing the owner of the vehicle. So shouldn't it just be paid by the councils insurer and the employee have their duties and or pay restricted where necessary?

[Galloism]

So full coverage on a vehicle is bad.

Wow. This is new!

There is a difference between claiming on you insurance and sewing the owner of the vehicle. So shouldn't it just be paid by the councils insurer and the employee have their duties and or pay restricted where necessary?

If it is legal to do so in that state, yes. That would be the logical outcome - city's insurance would pay, employee could be disciplined as necessary and legally allowed.

[Greed and Death]

There is a difference between claiming on you insurance and sewing the owner of the vehicle. So shouldn't it just be paid by the councils insurer and the employee have their duties and or pay restricted where necessary?

If it is legal to do so in that state, yes. That would be the logical outcome - city's insurance would pay, employee could be disciplined as necessary and legally allowed.

Most governments self insure.

[Galloism]

If it is legal to do so in that state, yes. That would be the logical outcome - city's insurance would pay, employee could be disciplined as necessary and legally allowed.

Most governments self insure.

In that case, logic would dictate the city would pay.

[Nadkor]

So full coverage on a vehicle is bad.

Wow. This is new!

I consider a lot of things in the modern capitalist world to be bad. As they all breed a culture of consumerism and displacement of action from responsibility.

Person A saves a deposit, figures out that they can afford the monthly payments, and buys a new car. Loss of this car would be a major problem for then - not only would they have to find and pay for a replacement car, but they'd still have to pay for the car that's beyond repair. So they insure themselves against this possibility with a company that has presumably done some variety of risk analysis and decides they are happy to provide insurance to cover any loss of the vehicle. A year later Person A accidentally comes off the road and hits a tree. The car is beyond repair. The insurance company provides them with the money for a new car, they still only have one car to pay off, and next time round the insurance company charges them a bit more for the same cover due to an increased perceived risk but otherwise both Person A is just as before, and the insurance company already accounted for a certain number of write-offs that year anyway. Everybody's fine.

Person B saves the same and buys the same car, but they don't bother with insurance because they think that they're an excellent driver. A couple of months later they put it into a tree. So now they have to find the money for a new car while paying off the old one, and all of a sudden their rent is looking very expensive and they're eating spam and smash for dinner four times a week.

Which one is being irresponsible, again?

[Galloism]

I consider a lot of things in the modern capitalist world to be bad. As they all breed a culture of consumerism and displacement of action from responsibility.

Person A saves a deposit, figures out that they can afford the monthly payments, and buys a new car. Loss of this car would be a major problem for then - not only would they have to find and pay for a replacement car, but they'd still have to pay for the car that's beyond repair. So they insure themselves against this possibility with a company that has presumably done some variety of risk analysis and decides they are happy to provide insurance to cover any loss of the vehicle. A year later Person A accidentally comes off the road and hits a tree. The car is beyond repair. The insurance company provides them with the money for a new car, they still only have one car to pay off, and next time round the insurance company charges them a bit more for the same cover due to an increased perceived risk.

Person B saves the same and buys the same car, but they don't bother with insurance because they think that they're an excellent driver. A couple of months later they put it into a tree. So now they have to find the money for a new car while paying off the old one, and all of a sudden their rent is looking very expensive and they're eating spam and smash for dinner four times a week.

Which one is being irresponsible, again?

Sometimes, you have a hell of a way of putting things.

[Sdaeriji]

Seems like she's filing an insurance claim against the city, not suing. That seems fair. It was a city vehicle that damaged her car. I imagine the fact that she didn't report the accident to her supervisors or to the city's insurance will result in her termination.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Even though this sounds greedy and, to some, ridiculous, had she hit any car other than her own the city would have paid to have the car fixed without asking their employee to pay back the deficit. Very interesting case.

The principle is, that when you are an employee engaged in company business driving a company vehicle, you are acting as that company's agent. As the company's agent, the company generally holds most liability (exceptions exist for things that are intentional, and either illegal and against company policy and practice). This would logically extend even when you are the victim of your own mistake.

And this is where I feel the line needs to be drawn. No one should be protected from the consequences of their own negligence. It breeds complacency and stupidity among people.

Complacency and stupidity are perfectly acceptable trade-offs if it means avoiding situations of homelessness or generational poverty, thanks.

[Northwest Slobovia]

From the OP's linked article:

City officials say they have not yet reviewed the details of her claim, but a number of initial concerns stand out. The supply van had been rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and neither Campbell nor the rental agency reported damage to the van after the Aug. 4 crash, said parks department spokesman Brad Meyer.

Campbell's claim maintains that the van, a Chevy Express, sustained a scrape and a popped tire.

I love the smell of insurance fraud in the morning. It smells like... somebody's greedy ass is fired.

[The Two Jerseys]

From the OP's linked article:

City officials say they have not yet reviewed the details of her claim, but a number of initial concerns stand out. The supply van had been rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and neither Campbell nor the rental agency reported damage to the van after the Aug. 4 crash, said parks department spokesman Brad Meyer.

Campbell's claim maintains that the van, a Chevy Express, sustained a scrape and a popped tire.

I love the smell of insurance fraud in the morning. It smells like... somebody's greedy ass is fired.

It does sound suspicious. How the hell do you pop a tire, drive away from the accident scene on a flat tire, and not have anybody notice that you've blown a tire?

Even if it isn't insurance fraud, she's going to get reamed for not reporting the accident to her supervisors, and that's even if it's not upped to a hit-and-run.

[Pope Joan]

If the insurance company can get on the legal defense team for this suit, she's doomed. Subrogation or something, I forget. But here's an example: A county fair had a storage barn where exhibitors could keep their gear which was not in use. On the doors, the storage receipt, and the containers and wrappers in which the gear was kept were the words "Storage at owner's risk! Fair accepts no liability. Insure your property." Big red block letters.

So the guy insured his stuff, there was a fire, Aetna insurance sued the Fair and won, saying that under the UCC no warehouseman may exclude all liability in advance. This despite the fact that the state had passed legislation explicitly authorizing just this sort of disclaimer for county fairs.

Money is power.

[Northwest Slobovia]

From the OP's linked article:



I love the smell of insurance fraud in the morning. It smells like... somebody's greedy ass is fired.

It does sound suspicious. How the hell do you pop a tire, drive away from the accident scene on a flat tire, and not have anybody notice that you've blown a tire?

...and not have the rental car company notice you've blown a tire.

Even if it isn't insurance fraud, she's going to get reamed for not reporting the accident to her supervisors, and that's even if it's not upped to a hit-and-run.

That too. The early bird gets the worm, but the greedy bird gets nailed to the perch.

[Pope Joan]

Centuries ago, under common law, a frivolous lawsuit could earn the plaintiff a stiff fine.

Ah, the good old days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_%28common_law%29

[Northwest Slobovia]

Centuries ago, under common law, a frivolous lawsuit could earn the plaintiff a stiff fine.

Ah, the good old days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_%28common_law%29

There are tort reformers who argue for similar things. My feeling is that frivolous small claims torts are not worth worrying about, and for larger suits, it's the plaintiff's lawyer who needs the spanking. They are supposed to know better. (IIRC the model legal ethics codes.)

[Rebellious Fishermen]

I picked three because this is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be allowed.

[Ardoki]

She should win as there was damage done to her vehicle by a city employee engaged on official city business.

The city should then garnish the wages of the worker who caused the damage to the tune of any damages awarded and their legal costs in defending the case.

Seems fair to everyone involved.

This.

[Koopaville]

Fire her dumb ass, then have the city sue her for negligence. Stupid cow...

[Infected Mushroom]

Megan Campbell was driving a supply van back from a city storage building on the city's West Side when she turned a corner, causing serious front-bumper damage to a parked car.

The damaged 2001 Nissan Pathfinder in question wasn't just anybody's vehicle. It was her own.

Now, Campbell has filed a claim against the city seeking $1,600 to $1,900 from public coffers for damage caused to her personal vehicle by a city worker -- herself.

"Because I was working for the city and driving the city vehicle, I feel they are responsible for paying for the damage done to my car," Campbell wrote in a "notice of claim" form received this week by the city clerk's office.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... car-rented

I was an attorney in general practice for ten years. I both prosecuted and defended tort cases. (with some success)
I believe in lawsuits, more than the general public seems to. I think they help keep honest who might otherwise be inclined to injure others just because they wouldn't care enough. Like doctors.

But come on, now! This plaintiff was a city employee driving a city vehicle, and she hit and badly damaged her own SUV. Now she sues the city? There's got to be a limit to this kind of thing.

Who knows, she might just win. I hope not.

It reminds me of an attorney in Warren County PA who went on to become judge of that county. He represented a man who was bitten by his mother's dog. No, the man did not hate his mother; she simply had homeowners insurance which indemnified her. He won the case, because it is illegal to mention insurance during a personal injury case (!!!)

So yeah, it's not about right or wrong, it's all about the money.

I hope if she wins the city fires her and then sues her for causing them this loss.

Let's have lawsuits, but not like this one.

she's not going to win (at least if it was Canada)

judges have a ton of leeway with the common law to award nominal damages. If they think you're lawyering in a tort suit, they'll try their best to cite precedent cases to make you lose and if they feel you have to win on principle, they'll award you nominal damages

its not a good investment for her to sue. She'll probably end up losing even more money...

[Galloism]

Megan Campbell was driving a supply van back from a city storage building on the city's West Side when she turned a corner, causing serious front-bumper damage to a parked car.

The damaged 2001 Nissan Pathfinder in question wasn't just anybody's vehicle. It was her own.

Now, Campbell has filed a claim against the city seeking $1,600 to $1,900 from public coffers for damage caused to her personal vehicle by a city worker -- herself.

"Because I was working for the city and driving the city vehicle, I feel they are responsible for paying for the damage done to my car," Campbell wrote in a "notice of claim" form received this week by the city clerk's office.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... car-rented

I was an attorney in general practice for ten years. I both prosecuted and defended tort cases. (with some success)
I believe in lawsuits, more than the general public seems to. I think they help keep honest who might otherwise be inclined to injure others just because they wouldn't care enough. Like doctors.

But come on, now! This plaintiff was a city employee driving a city vehicle, and she hit and badly damaged her own SUV. Now she sues the city? There's got to be a limit to this kind of thing.

Who knows, she might just win. I hope not.

It reminds me of an attorney in Warren County PA who went on to become judge of that county. He represented a man who was bitten by his mother's dog. No, the man did not hate his mother; she simply had homeowners insurance which indemnified her. He won the case, because it is illegal to mention insurance during a personal injury case (!!!)

So yeah, it's not about right or wrong, it's all about the money.

I hope if she wins the city fires her and then sues her for causing them this loss.

Let's have lawsuits, but not like this one.

she's not going to win (at least if it was Canada)

judges have a ton of leeway with the common law to award nominal damages. If they think you're lawyering in a tort suit,

I don't even know what this means. Everyone is "lawyering" in a tort suit. It's practicing fucking law.

they'll try their best to cite precedent cases to make you lose and if they feel you have to win on principle, they'll award you nominal damages

its not a good investment for her to sue. She'll probably end up losing even more money...

Well that's a hell of an endorsement for Canadian justice.

"Our judges decide cases based on their personal feelings instead of the law! Hurray justice!"

[Wisconsin9]

she's not going to win (at least if it was Canada)

judges have a ton of leeway with the common law to award nominal damages. If they think you're lawyering in a tort suit,

I don't even know what this means. Everyone is "lawyering" in a tort suit. It's practicing fucking law.

they'll try their best to cite precedent cases to make you lose and if they feel you have to win on principle, they'll award you nominal damages

its not a good investment for her to sue. She'll probably end up losing even more money...

Well that's a hell of an endorsement for Canadian justice.

"Our judges decide cases based on their personal feelings instead of the law! Hurray justice!"

Oh, thank God. I almost thought he posted something rational.

[Infected Mushroom]

she's not going to win (at least if it was Canada)

judges have a ton of leeway with the common law to award nominal damages. If they think you're lawyering in a tort suit,

I don't even know what this means. Everyone is "lawyering" in a tort suit. It's practicing fucking law.

they'll try their best to cite precedent cases to make you lose and if they feel you have to win on principle, they'll award you nominal damages

its not a good investment for her to sue. She'll probably end up losing even more money...

Well that's a hell of an endorsement for Canadian justice.

"Our judges decide cases based on their personal feelings instead of the law! Hurray justice!"

It's just a fact of real life that judges are biased. If they don't like you or if they feel it only makes sense to reach a certain conclusion, they'll try their best to make the facts and the precedents fit where they want to go.

Judgments are always written as though the end result is the objective, comprehensive analysis of all sides of the arguments and all of the key cases, but I've read so many cases where it is clear they just wanted a certain result from the start.

You can think of judges as real life NSG Moderators, they are people without accountability who can do whatever they want so long as they themselves don't break the law. Yes decisions can be appealed but can you remove a lower judge? Not really. Not if he's writing reasoned judgments, no matter how much it might be apparent to a higher court that they just wanted to justify changing the law. Justice Denning was a good example of this, he was on the English appeal court and he introduced a whole bunch of new concepts of law in equity and tried his best to change the common law. No one could get rid of him even though people were frowning and many of his attempts to use ''precedent'' were very transparent...

Lawyering just means that you're applying the letter of the law to reach a result that would offend the common sensibilities of the public (and more likely, of the sitting judge). For example, you CAN technically under the common law sue someone who punched you in the face after you troll him on the bus in front of a large crowd non-stop with verbal abuses that don't invoke the Human Rights tribunals ('ex, you just keep calling him a loser and wave your middle finger at him). Under the common law, he's liable for damages because of assault and battery, you are NOT liable (trash talk is not actionable).

This goes before the sitting judge? He's likely to consider this lawyering. You're just here to make a profit from the lawsuit from your own bad behavior or else draw attention/publicity. You think the court is going to reach a favorable result for you by just applying the letter of the law?

Chances are, you'll ''win'' a nominal damage award of a few pennies.

This is the sort of thing the OP's post falls under, what I mean by lawyering. It's when you don't really have a legitimate claim and your claim, if followed by simply applying the letter of the law, is likely to offend common sensibilities.

[Nickel Empire]

This person is stupid.

[Galloism]

I don't even know what this means. Everyone is "lawyering" in a tort suit. It's practicing fucking law.

Well that's a hell of an endorsement for Canadian justice.

"Our judges decide cases based on their personal feelings instead of the law! Hurray justice!"

It's just a fact of real life that judges are biased. If they don't like you or if they feel it only makes sense to reach a certain conclusion, they'll try their best to make the facts and the precedents fit where they want to go.

Judgments are always written as though the end result is the objective, comprehensive analysis of all sides of the arguments and all of the key cases, but I've read so many cases where it is clear they just wanted a certain result from the start.

You can think of judges as real life NSG Moderators, they are people without accountability who can do whatever they want so long as they themselves don't break the law. Yes decisions can be appealed but can you remove a lower judge? Not really. Not if he's writing reasoned judgments, no matter how much it might be apparent to a higher court that they just wanted to justify changing the law. Justice Denning was a good example of this, he was on the English appeal court and he introduced a whole bunch of new concepts of law in equity and tried his best to change the common law. No one could get rid of him even though people were frowning and many of his attempts to use ''precedent'' were very transparent...

Lawyering just means that you're applying the letter of the law to reach a result that would offend the common sensibilities of the public (and more likely, of the sitting judge). For example, you CAN technically under the common law sue someone who punched you in the face after you troll him on the bus in front of a large crowd non-stop with verbal abuses that don't invoke the Human Rights tribunals ('ex, you just keep calling him a loser and wave your middle finger at him). Under the common law, he's liable for damages because of assault and battery, you are NOT liable (trash talk is not actionable).

This goes before the sitting judge? He's likely to consider this lawyering. You're just here to make a profit from the lawsuit from your own bad behavior or else draw attention/publicity. You think the court is going to reach a favorable result for you by just applying the letter of the law?

Chances are, you'll ''win'' a nominal damage award of a few pennies.

This is the sort of thing the OP's post falls under, what I mean by lawyering. It's when you don't really have a legitimate claim and your claim, if followed by simply applying the letter of the law, is likely to offend common sensibilities.

Well that's pretty fucking terrible that judges in Canada apparently quietly support assault and battery as an acceptable form of conversation.

Incidentally, "lawyering" means "the work of practicing law". You don't get to make up definitions.