Go Away Money

[hr for me]

One example I would give is I was the VP HR for a property management company that owned an apartment complex with a pool. A non-resident toddler with her non-resident 14 yr old babysitter (who was claimed by others at the incident to be drinking alcohol underage and "lifting her shirt") were visiting the babysitter's relative who lived on property. There were warning signs of no lifeguards, swim at your own risk, etc. The toddler drowned. Of course we were sued for millions of $s. Our insurance ended up paying over $2M only because they knew that any baby death going in front of a jury and in my state, at least to my understanding at the time, even if they found us slightly 1% negligent at all, the jury could decide to count the full judgment against us. And so the insurance company's attorneys chose to settle the case.

Were we guilty of negligence? I'd argue NO! Well, we had all our maintenance and cleaning records, the pool gates were locked, our signs were up, etc. But in the end it was decided that the court battle wasn't worth it. So yes, you can get millions in "go away" money, especially if the insurance company or defendant think they have a strong case but know they could still lose a whole lot more. That doesn't mean that there is not negligence in other drownings in "public" pools.

In the end, our attorneys knew that the jury would go for the deep pockets. This 14 yr old had nothing....her relative had nothing.... Our property management company filled in every swimming pool on every property they owned after this incident.

I don't remember you posting about your case (and I am surprised you even would...most attorneys would tell you not to do so especially since it is still active --- we were basically under a self-imposed gag/confidentiality order through the whole case/time I referenced above) .... Who knows whether a jury in the referenced case vs yours would feel the same when the "deep pockets" are paid for through taxpayer funds.... And every case's details are different as are the judge and jury and yes, unfortunately while jurors try to be unbiased, they aren't always....

[jk]

I am not going to conjure up my old thread but I will discus it a bit, it still being an active case.

Of course the two accidents are not identical. What two accidents are? However, they are strikingly similar. Similarities: Professional road workers were in the bike lane doing work. They blocked/closed the bike lane. In my case they did not put up any advanced warning devices like cones, signs, flagman, flares, a taper, etc. Just a dimly lit arrow board above the truck instructing bikes to merge into the #2 lane with 70mph traffic to go around the work truck. The edge of the flatbed truck protruded into the #2 lane making the necessary swerve harder to make. In this recent case in San Diego the road workers blocked the bike lane AND the #2 lane with what I assume were cones that formed a taper/merger. The cyclist disregarded the cones by driving through them into the designated work area and rode into an open ditch. I believe other riders were also injured.

So you tell me, knowing what you and jk know, how can you BOTH say that I was mostly at fault and would have a hard time getting compensated while saying this guy was likely not at fault? Explain for yourself, not jk.



Read the court documents linked in the article. They explain the legal process the plaintiff used to argue the case. Two legal terms were used that I doubt anyone here has ever heard of. So it is not as simple as "if you run into something from behind it is highly likely your fault." Of course I am not quoting you, I am quoting the general responses I got from the EL Clique who are mysteriously silent now.

This case should be a lesson and a wake up call to the frontline hacks that post here, but I'm not holding my breath.

so you are privy to all the details of the bicycle accident where the guy was given 20 million?
Somwhere did you get those details?

I am not going to conjure up my old thread but I will discus it a bit, it still being an active case.

Of course the two accidents are not identical. What two accidents are? However, they are strikingly similar. Similarities: Professional road workers were in the bike lane doing work. They blocked/closed the bike lane. In my case they did not put up any advanced warning devices like cones, signs, flagman, flares, a taper, etc. Just a dimly lit arrow board above the truck instructing bikes to merge into the #2 lane with 70mph traffic to go around the work truck. The edge of the flatbed truck protruded into the #2 lane making the necessary swerve harder to make. In this recent case in San Diego the road workers blocked the bike lane AND the #2 lane with what I assume were cones that formed a taper/merger. The cyclist disregarded the cones by driving through them into the designated work area and rode into an open ditch. I believe other riders were also injured.

So you tell me, knowing what you and jk know, how can you BOTH say that I was mostly at fault and would have a hard time getting compensated while saying this guy was likely not at fault? Explain for yourself, not jk.



Read the court documents linked in the article. They explain the legal process the plaintiff used to argue the case. Two legal terms were used that I doubt anyone here has ever heard of. So it is not as simple as "if you run into something from behind it is highly likely your fault." Of course I am not quoting you, I am quoting the general responses I got from the EL Clique who are mysteriously silent now.

This case should be a lesson and a wake up call to the frontline hacks that post here, but I'm not holding my breath.

so you are privy to all the details of the bicycle accident where the guy was given 20 million?
Somwhere did you get those details?

and I never said this guy was likely not at fault. I said there wasn’t enough info to make any determination.

as to not hearing from el clique. If you include me, well, I work 72 hours a week so I don’t have all the time you do to hang out on the Internet.

[Taxing Matters]

I am not going to conjure up my old thread...

Then I cannot comment on what I said before since I need to see what you said in that thread and exactly what my response was. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to trust your characterization of what I said. Your memory of it may not be any better than mine, for all I know.

Of course the two accidents are not identical. What two accidents are? However, they are strikingly similar.

That's the point, not all are the same and the differences can be important. You've mentioned similarities here, but not what may be different. In any event, the information I have on the two accidents in this thread are incomplete so I all I can say from the information here is that there isn't enough information to make a firm conclusion regarding liability of the construction crews in either. Maybe you have a great case, I really don't know. If you have a lawyer representing you that lawyer would know far more about the facts than I do and he or she would be in a far better position to tell you how good or bad the case is and what kind of judgment you might expect if you took it to trial.

Two legal terms were used that I doubt anyone here has ever heard of.

What legal terms in it do you think no one here has heard of?

[Chuck77]

[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]



What legal terms in it do you think no one here has heard of?

I only have time to respond to this right now, but I will respond to hr for me and jk later.

Peculiar Risk Doctrine

Non Delegable Duty Doctrine

Did you read the linked court documents? That is where they will be found.

...and I never said this guy was likely not at fault.

Yes you did right here.

I don’t necessarily see him at fault either.

[jk]

I only have time to respond to this right now, but I will respond to hr for me and jk later.

Peculiar Risk Doctrine

Non Delegable Duty Doctrine

Did you read the linked court documents? That is where they will be found.



Yes you did right here.

You really do have a reading comprehension issue, don’t you. Saying I don’t necessarily see the bike rider at fault doesn’t mean I see him as not being at fault. It means exactly what it says, which was in response to your statement that I would see him at fault. I responded with;

i dont necessarily see him at fault. That isn’t assigning an opinion of fault on either party nor is it dismissing the possibility of either party being at fault

[budwad]

Anyone that thinks 21 million dollars is going away money is delusional.

Assuming, argumentative, that all three defendants (and the insurance companies) had counsel equal to or exceeding in ability to those that post here, they settled the case rather than going to trial.

That says that a jury trial may have produced a much greater award in the minds of the attorneys and the insurance companies.

So despite all the speculation on who was at fault, all these lawyers agreed to the settlement.

And some of you can't figure out who was at fault? Mental masturbation.

[Chuck77]

One example I would give is I was the VP HR for a property management company that owned an apartment complex with a pool. A non-resident toddler with her non-resident 14 yr old babysitter (who was claimed by others at the incident to be drinking alcohol underage and "lifting her shirt") were visiting the babysitter's relative who lived on property. There were warning signs of no lifeguards, swim at your own risk, etc. The toddler drowned. Of course we were sued for millions of $s. Our insurance ended up paying over $2M only because they knew that any baby death going in front of a jury and in my state, at least to my understanding at the time, even if they found us slightly 1% negligent at all, the jury could decide to count the full judgment against us. And so the insurance company's attorneys chose to settle the case.

Were we guilty of negligence? I'd argue NO! Well, we had all our maintenance and cleaning records, the pool gates were locked, our signs were up, etc. But in the end it was decided that the court battle wasn't worth it. So yes, you can get millions in "go away" money, especially if the insurance company or defendant think they have a strong case but know they could still lose a whole lot more. That doesn't mean that there is not negligence in other drownings in "public" pools.

In the end, our attorneys knew that the jury would go for the deep pockets. This 14 yr old had nothing....her relative had nothing.... Our property management company filled in every swimming pool on every property they owned after this incident.

I don't remember you posting about your case (and I am surprised you even would...most attorneys would tell you not to do so especially since it is still active --- we were basically under a self-imposed gag/confidentiality order through the whole case/time I referenced above) .... Who knows whether a jury in the referenced case vs yours would feel the same when the "deep pockets" are paid for through taxpayer funds.... And every case's details are different as are the judge and jury and yes, unfortunately while jurors try to be unbiased, they aren't always....

It is tragic that a toddler died in one of your pools, but let's look at the facts surrounding the death. You say the 14 year old was drinking, yet the police obviously interviewed her at the scene. Did they charge her with involuntary manslaughter or gross child neglect which would have shifted the blame to her? Was the child's life only worth $2M, or was it worth $50M and you were liable for only 4% of that loss? Was your policy limit only $2M so they settled the claim at your limit? Was a sign and a gate the only responsibility a pool owner has to exonerate a person from responsibility? I highly doubt it. Your company chose to put a deadly body of water in the middle of an occupied area for profit (attracting tenants and keeping them). Similarly: I am a contractor, and if I left a skillsaw unattended with a sign that says "do not touch," even with yellow take marking off the work area, if a person walked through the taped area and cut themselves with my saw, I know I'd be responsible. The pool is very similar. Besides, we are lay people who have never seen a case like this tried. Your insurance company has seen them litigated and they know how a skilled litigator can argue it. So when you say how you'd argue it, you are giving an inexperienced opinion of fault/liability.

Going after those with money is a fact of life. That is why we carry insurance, to protect our assets. I'd imagine if that 14 year old girl was worth $100M, she'd be getting sued too. But what attorney will go after a liable person that will never pay a dime.

You say you paid "go away money." But that assumes you'd win in a trial, yet you said you'd lose. Therefore it's not "go away money" by definition. It is taking the cheaper way out. And, a trial like this does not cost $2M to try.

In conclusion we offer opinion of these type of cases but know little of what tools a skilled litigator has in these cases. You looked at signs and gates to mitigate liability, which they likely did, but there is likely much more to argue than that.

In my opinion, your insurance company did not pay "go away money." "Go away money" is when the cost of a defense or trial exceeds the cost of the settlement. It also requires zero liability/fault of the defendant, which your insurance company knew could not be proven at trial.

Saying I don’t necessarily see the bike rider at fault doesn’t mean I see him as not being at fault.

WHAT? Learn how to write dude! Then learn how to proofread. And don't use double negatives...just say what you mean!

FYI, with 38,000 posts here, you are definitely one of the EL Clique.

[jk]

I wrote what I meant. Just because you don’t understand English, it’s not my fault.

21 million is; we don’t want go to court as we believe our exposure is great enough that we may end up paying for the defense and still end up paying a considerable judgment.

On top of that, agreeing to a settlement means there is no prior incident to be held against the defendants if something similar happens in the future. It’s a lot like the Stella Liebeck case where she actually won the case but when McDonalds appealed the case, they went into private negotiations. The settlement is unknown to all but a few and there is no preexisting incident to hold against McDonalds in any similar future incidents. They reached a settlement and liebeck dropped her suit.

Additionally, the settlement was split among several defendants so no single defendant paid out 21 million. If it went to court, any one of the defendants could have ended up paying the total settlement, whatever it was.

[Chuck77]

We know why both the pool death and the bike accident settled out of court, just like 97% of all personal injury suits do. The defendant feared a trial where their experience tells them they would pay a lot more.

As for the bike accident, if that guy came to EL and asked if he should sue for running through a row of traffic cones and ending up in a construction ditch, you guys would laugh and ridicule him, just like you did to me. Even your pros like Carl, Sniper and Tax said I had no case. So just imagine what they would say to this guy who actually disregarded the cones.

Do you wonder why the EL Clique is silent on this thread? It's because they just got schooled and are afraid to admit they are flat out wrong when it comes to personal injury cases, liability and negligence on and off the road. They are not willing to embarrass themselves by saying the highest litigators and insurance representatives are wrong and they are right. So they hide.

[cdwjava]

We know why both the pool death and the bike accident settled out of court, just like 97% of all personal injury suits do. The defendant feared a trial where their experience tells them they would pay a lot more.

As for the bike accident, if that guy came to EL and asked if he should sue for running through a row of traffic cones and ending up in a construction ditch, you guys would laugh and ridicule him, just like you did to me. Even your pros like Carl, Sniper and Tax said I had no case. So just imagine what they would say to this guy who actually disregarded the cones.

Do you wonder why the EL Clique is silent on this thread? It's because they just got schooled and are afraid to admit they are flat out wrong when it comes to personal injury cases, liability and negligence on and off the road. They are not willing to embarrass themselves by saying the highest litigators and insurance representatives are wrong and they are right. So they hide.

No, it's because I have nothing to say about a case or scenario I know nothing about. It ain't because I've been "schooled," or am "embarrassed". It's also because I came across this thread only recently and it was well on its way into being pointless. Nothing anyone says wil sway you from your opinion, and you refuse to acknowledge the logic or reason in arguments that do not mirror your paradigm. So, why get involved?

Have fun postulating, guessing, posturing, and accusing.