![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
. .. I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled solely for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well as I do. SNIP The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the reason for the settlement. He has indicated, to my satisfaction, that the reason behind the settlement was similar to the "preservation" information expressed by a previous poster. That clearly is not something that reasonable people would argue constitutes a "lose" situation. One could argue that the plaintiff also "lost" since they did not get the huge settlement that they felt a jury might award. I guess the old adage that there are no winners, only losers in court probably applies. (Yes, I know, someone will argue that there are winners - the lawyers. However, I am thinking only of the plaintiff and defendant.) Everyone else remarking about the "reason" behind the settlement (summarized as win/lose, or, perhaps not-lose/lose) is simply speculating about things not directly knowable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must take Chuck at his word. Enough folks have expressed similar experiences that clearly demonstrate "preservation" is a very strong motivator in settling, not fear of losing because the facts are against the defendant. Michael Pilla |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Pilla" wrote in message ... The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the reason for the settlement. So is the side receiving the settlement, Michael. He has indicated, to my satisfaction... No, he has suggested it. He knows he can't prove it. But he knows he can rationalize it. If you're satisfied with that, that's your prerogative. I'm satisfied with the fact the I've proven that he's been succesfully sued, contrary to what he's implied. Juan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Latest Pipistrel Motorglider Newsletter Uploaded | Michael Coates | Home Built | 1 | September 16th 03 06:04 PM |
so what is the latest word on Sport Pilot ??? | Gilan | Home Built | 12 | September 7th 03 11:14 PM |
Latest Ripon & Fisk (OSH) Updates | Jim Weir | Home Built | 4 | July 20th 03 10:59 PM |
Latest Newsletter | Michael Coates | Home Built | 3 | July 15th 03 10:04 PM |