Wish me luck...

Jarod said:
Thanks, its a LARGE nationwide store... while we may get several million out of it, it will not put them out of business.
Click to expand...

I think the company and driver should sue your client for being in the way. How ignorant do you have to be to get run over by a forklift? Did your client not see or hear it? How fat and slow must one be to not be able to get out of the way? They should fire your client for being too lazy to move.


;)
 
Superfreak said:
I think the company and driver should sue your client for being in the way. How ignorant do you have to be to get run over by a forklift? Did your client not see or hear it? How fat and slow must one be to not be able to get out of the way? They should fire your client for being too lazy to move.


;)
Click to expand...

My client never worked for them, he was a customer. He was looking the other way, at a display, and was bending over for a closer look, when the forklift came up behind him and ran him over.
 
Jarod said:
My client never worked for them, he was a customer. He was looking the other way, at a display, and was bending over for a closer look, when the forklift came up behind him and ran him over.
Click to expand...

and he didn't HEAR the forklift coming? I think your client is a con artist. Probably bent down out of sight so that he could get tapped by the forklift and con a foolish lawyer into stealing millions from the stores insurance company.
 
Superfreak said:
and he didn't HEAR the forklift coming? I think your client is a con artist. Probably bent down out of sight so that he could get tapped by the forklift and con a foolish lawyer into stealing millions from the stores insurance company.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm sure your right; that he intentionally let himself get runover by a forklift :rolleyes:
 
Superfreak said:
and he didn't HEAR the forklift coming? I think your client is a con artist. Probably bent down out of sight so that he could get tapped by the forklift and con a foolish lawyer into stealing millions from the stores insurance company.
Click to expand...

If you saw his injuries you would not say that. Noone would intentionally inflict such damage on themselves.

Plus... The driver admited he was moving forward when he could not see what was in front of him.

If you truely believe what you are saying, you are not very bright. I think you are merely playing the fool and trying to make any argumetn you can, which is what I hope the defense does. It will make the jury mad!
 
The defense is entitled to make any argument they want... Thats why we are having a trial, instead of just having the judge say what they owe us.

I hope they claim our client jumped in front of the forklift
 
Jarod said:
If you saw his injuries you would not say that. Noone would intentionally inflict such damage on themselves.

Plus... The driver admited he was moving forward when he could not see what was in front of him.

If you truely believe what you are saying, you are not very bright. I think you are merely playing the fool and trying to make any argumetn you can, which is what I hope the defense does. It will make the jury mad!
Click to expand...

Just trying to help prep you for the case. That said, some people are masochistic.
 
Jarod said:
Both, at least in Florida... The employer of a negligant individual is responsable for the actions of the employee if he was acting in the corse and scope of his employment.
Click to expand...
Clearly he wasn't acting in that course and scope if he was breaking policy by his action. Nobody can reasonably be expected to be able to control all employee activity and prevent every action they may make against the policy.
 
Damocles said:
Clearly he wasn't acting in that course and scope if he was breaking policy by his action. Nobody can reasonably be expected to be able to control all employee activity and prevent every action they may make against the policy.
Click to expand...


According to the law in Florida, he was acting in the course and scope of his employment, by driving a forklift with mulch on it. The standard is if the employee was doing an activity that was part of his job and but for the negligance that activity was benefiting the interests of the company. If a guy was on the clock and he took a forklift into the parking lot to fool around with it, he would not be acting "within the course and scope". THats not what was happening, this guy was moving mulch from one part of the store to another.


If we used your standard, They could, and would, say... "Its not Home Depots policy to cause injuries to customers" and thus avoid liability for all injuries employees caused to customers.
 
The point being.........

Yes people should have and need attorneys to represent their case...however in most incidents the attorneys receive more compensation than those who were injured! A catch 22 I suppose...but by no means fair!...The client gets medical care and a small amount to live on while the attorneys get a really great vacation house and maybe a little vacation cruise!


This reminds me of the movie...'The Devils Advocate'
 
Battleborne said:
Yes people should have and need attorneys to represent their case...however in most incidents the attorneys receive more compensation than those who were injured! A catch 22 I suppose...but by no means fair!...The client gets medical care and a small amount to live on while the attorneys get a really great vacation house and maybe a little vacation cruise!


This reminds me of the movie...'The Devils Advocate'
Click to expand...

Its what the attorney does for a living, so if he/she does well he should not be alowed to make enough money to take a vacation?

I have never, ever heard of an attorney getting more than the client... I get 33.33% or 40%... they get 66.66% or 60%.
 
Jarod said:
According to the law in Florida, he was acting in the course and scope of his employment, by driving a forklift with mulch on it. The standard is if the employee was doing an activity that was part of his job and but for the negligance that activity was benefiting the interests of the company. If a guy was on the clock and he took a forklift into the parking lot to fool around with it, he would not be acting "within the course and scope". THats not what was happening, this guy was moving mulch from one part of the store to another.


If we used your standard, They could, and would, say... "Its not Home Depots policy to cause injuries to customers" and thus avoid liability for all injuries employees caused to customers.
Click to expand...
No, you couldn't. There is very specific policy that he was violating. "Don't pick up more than you can see over." Can the company be reasonably expected to know each and every moment what their employees are doing?

In this case, HD already stated they were in the wrong. Why did they allow an employee to drive a fork lift without proper training to begin with?

Anyway my questions are to the "reasonable" thing. All lawsuits must meet this standard.

Is it reasonable to expect a company to always know what an employee is doing to the point that no errors could ever occur? I say that it is not, nor would any jury say so.
 
Damocles said:
No, you couldn't. There is very specific policy that he was violating. "Don't pick up more than you can see over." Can the company be reasonably expected to know each and every moment what their employees are doing?

In this case, HD already stated they were in the wrong. Why did they allow an employee to drive a fork lift without proper training to begin with?

Anyway my questions are to the "reasonable" thing. All lawsuits must meet this standard.

Is it reasonable to expect a company to always know what an employee is doing to the point that no errors could ever occur? I say that it is not, nor would any jury say so.
Click to expand...

1) There was no policy against picking up more than the guy could see over.

2) According to Florida law, even if there was such a policy, the guy was still acting within the course and scope of his employment.
 
Damocles said:
No, you couldn't. There is very specific policy that he was violating. "Don't pick up more than you can see over." Can the company be reasonably expected to know each and every moment what their employees are doing?

In this case, HD already stated they were in the wrong. Why did they allow an employee to drive a fork lift without proper training to begin with?

Anyway my questions are to the "reasonable" thing. All lawsuits must meet this standard.

Is it reasonable to expect a company to always know what an employee is doing to the point that no errors could ever occur? I say that it is not, nor would any jury say so.
Click to expand...

Under Florida law its not about if its reasonable to expect a company to know what an employee is doing. It is about if that employee was doing something that would further the interests of his employer if it were not for the negligance. When a company undertakes an activity, they are responsable for any injury caused due to negligance incurred in the process of undertaking that activity.
 
Yup....

Jarod said:
Its what the attorney does for a living, so if he/she does well he should not be alowed to make enough money to take a vacation?

I have never, ever heard of an attorney getting more than the client... I get 33.33% or 40%... they get 66.66% or 60%.
Click to expand...



and most of the 60% goes to medical bills...the small remainder goes for lost wages...while you visit the Bahamas and the client sits at home with residual pain...yup...ya made your case counselor!
 
Battleborne said:
and most of the 60% goes to medical bills...the small remainder goes for lost wages...while you visit the Bahamas and the client sits at home with residual pain...yup...ya made your case counselor!
Click to expand...

Well that depends on how much they are awarded with relation to how much the medical bills are. You dont consider getting ones medical bills paid to be a benefit?

If before the verdict you owe $10,000 in medical bills and after you get your money you owe 0 in medical bills, do you not have a net worth increase of $10,000?
 
Jarod said:
1) There was no policy against picking up more than the guy could see over.
Click to expand...
Oh for fucks sakes, that is just common sense. Would you drive a truck where you couldn't see through the windshield? Do you honestly think truck drivers have that "policy" told to them? Ooooh if they don't just think about all those millions you could make.
This is why America is being ruined, by trial lawyers looking for millions in lawsuits over what used to be taken for common sense.

Sue the employee for plenty, leave the employer out of it.
 
OkeeDokee then.............

Jarod said:
Well that depends on how much they are awarded with relation to how much the medical bills are. You dont consider getting ones medical bills paid to be a benefit?

If before the verdict you owe $10,000 in medical bills and after you get your money you owe 0 in medical bills, do you not have a net worth increase of $10,000?
Click to expand...

counselor...the medical bills are paid...a plus...but then again the pain remains and the job is lost and the attorney has a holiday...and everything is mo betta?:rolleyes: and justified?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top