Another Nail In The Coffin Of A Once Great Nation...

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by HS Cult Leader, Jan 10, 2015.

  1. HS Cult Leader

    HS Cult Leader Elite Member Gold

    Reputations:
    101,075
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Messages:
    13,065
    Likes Received:
    18,315
    Sledding on ice: Fear of lawsuits makes Dubuque latest city to ban winter rite

    By Lauren Blanchard

    Published January 10, 2015

    [​IMG]



    DES MOINES, Iowa – Yet another city is pulling kids from city-owned sledding hills and slapping hefty fines on anyone trying to use the public property, but it might be more for fear of lawsuits than for kids' safety.

    The City Council in Dubuque, Iowa, voted Jan. 7 to ban sledding in 48 of its 50 public parks. The new ordinance, which council members acknowledged was put in place to protect the city from expensive lawsuits, provides for $750 fines for repeat offenses.

    According to council members during the Monday night meeting and an editorial in U.S. News and World Report by Dubuque Mayor Roy Buol, sledding injury lawsuits are real concern for the city. A lawsuit in Boone, Iowa, cost that city $12 million after a woman hit a concrete block on public property and claimed negligence on the part of the city. And in Omaha, Neb., a sledding collision with a tree paralyzed a young girl and cost the city $2 million. Still another case, in Sioux City, Iowa, saw a man win a $2.75 million settlement after he struck a city sign and sued.

    Buol said the city did not want to restrict sledding, but was forced to because state lawmakers have not moved on legislation that would protect cities from what he called frivolous lawsuits. In Iowa, someone cannot sue a city if they are injured while doing activities like biking on public property. But sledding is not covered under that law and leaves cities open to lawsuits.

    In his editorial in U.S News and World report, Buol wrote, “Our legal counsel advises us we limit our liability for negligence, which is the failure to exercise reasonable care to maintain a park safe for sledding…Safe sledding areas require inspections, ongoing evaluation and maintenance throughout the season, and we do not have the resources to do that for our other 47 parks.”

    According a report that looked at sledding injuries from 2000-2007 by the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 20,000 children are injured in sledding incidents each year. These could be injuries from minor scraps, to broken bones and more serious injuries.

    In a counter editorial piece in U.S. News and World Report to Buol’s, Nicole Kaeding of the Cato Institute says kids should be allowed to be kids, which includes getting bumps and bruises.

    “The quest for safety doesn’t mean that we eliminate all the fun in childhood. Kids should be kids. As parents, we should teach our children to look, understand, listen and access their surroundings,” wrote Kaeding, adding, “Banning sledding is just another absurd item fostered by overzealous safety experts.”

    Cities all over the country are banning sledding on public property. And others, like Des Moines, are trying to avoid all-out bans by posting signs that warn sledders of the risk. However, it doesn’t completely get cities legally off the hook.

    The Mayor and City Council said that if anyone has a problem with the new ordinance they should direct their frustration towards their state-elected officials in the capital. Who they say, can enact laws that would cut down on the lawsuits. The Mayor also wrote in his editorial that if more funding becomes available, they can ensure safety at more parks and open more hills for sledding.
     
    1Vegasgirl likes this.
  2. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    70,467
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    13,957
    Fucking lawyers.

    The only way to fix this mess is to go to the British system where the loser in a lawsuit has to pay the winners legal fees
     
    Smartguy, Lester, The Snork and 10 others like this.
  3. Ingens

    Ingens VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    28,065
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,342
    Likes Received:
    6,944
    Lawyers are a drain on society.

    [​IMG]
     
    Lemmy, reno, Barry Soetoro and 3 others like this.
  4. freder28

    freder28 Shit mult Banned User

    Reputations:
    1,027
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    35
    It doesn't work because the wealthy can hire a fleet of the finest educated lawyers vs. us. Right or wrong -we'd lose and be in debtor's prison with that bill! -The real result would be to deny the poor a day in court for the fear of losing and the financial ruin. On the other hand, the Insurance/Banking industry (as well as the ultra wealthy) would love the idea.
     
  5. greyt

    greyt Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    11,008
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    we just slap one of these up around here. what's the problem?


    [​IMG]
     
  6. chapped

    chapped Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    384,616
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    55,632
    Likes Received:
    61,906
    that sucks..... this is going to bankrupt every sled company in my home town...


    I am from San Diego
     
    Brokenbad likes this.
  7. goldtopper

    goldtopper Well Known Heterosexual Gold

    Reputations:
    307,229
    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    17,065
    Likes Received:
    43,317
    Yay! Another non-nanny nanny state!
     
  8. 1Vegasgirl

    1Vegasgirl Well-Known Member VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    448,521
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    32,484
    Likes Received:
    45,890
    Another law, less liberty.
     
  9. 1Vegasgirl

    1Vegasgirl Well-Known Member VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    448,521
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    32,484
    Likes Received:
    45,890
    The face on Kardashian really says it all.
     
    Turkeyneck, Shortwave98 and AuntDolly like this.
  10. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    70,467
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    13,957

    Yeah, you're an idiot. The rich don't sue the poor, theres no gain in it. Right now you have the poor suing the rich for BS issues and being represented by lawyers on contingency fees, which include all expenses,looking to shake down corporations, doctors and their insurance companies. They clog the dockets with bullshit cases that insurance companies settle rather than bear the cost of litigation that even if they win, it costs a fortune to defend. The scumbag contingency and class action lawyers then take virtually all of the settlement and give the victims virtually nothing.
     
    jake206 and 1Vegasgirl like this.
  11. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    70,467
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    13,957

    There are four lawyers in that photo. Since that verdict, these have been their fates:

    F. Lee Bailey: disbarred for misuse of his attorney trust fund.
    Robert Kardashian: Dead.
    Johnny Cochran: Dead
    Robert Shapiro: Son Brent dead of drug overdose.



    Karma.

    Oh, and OJ is rotting in jail.
     
  12. freder28

    freder28 Shit mult Banned User

    Reputations:
    1,027
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    35
    Spoken like a true Hannity viewer. It's the fault of the poor.
    If you didn't have those contingency fee lawyers you'd be operated on by drunk doctors and drive cars with exploding gas tanks.
    Oh and by the way genius- lawyers willing to work on a contingency fee means that they only get paid if they win which is EXACTLY what you advocate for in your first post. -Fuckin' moron.
     
  13. goldtopper

    goldtopper Well Known Heterosexual Gold

    Reputations:
    307,229
    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    17,065
    Likes Received:
    43,317

    So go live there, or any other socialist bullshit country where you can live your dream of supporting society's drains. How can you possibly believe that large corporations (ie banking and insurance) aren't huge job providers and community partners?
     
  14. Hugh Blowmont

    Hugh Blowmont Just be funny

    Reputations:
    70,467
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    13,957

    WRONG. Scumbag lawyers win through shakedowns, not actual litigation. They take shitty cases to get small settlements from insurance companies and small companies who make a business decision to settle. Just to respond to a frivolous suit costs at least $10,000. Scumbag attorneys rely on this to shakedown companies who offer the 10K to settle. The scumbag attorneys engagement letters specify a percentage of whatever funds obtained PLUS COSTS, it does not specify funds obtained in actual litigation judgements.

    The net effect is they use the downtrodden to enrich themselves, convincing every person who has ever tripped on a sidewalk that its the guy who's house they tripped in front of 's fault.

    REAL victims would be unaffected, in fact, they would benefit as they would get 100% of the award of cases with merit, not some pittance after their scumbag attorneys take virtually all of their "winnings".
     
    1Vegasgirl and Lester like this.
  15. greyt

    greyt Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    11,008
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,051
    Likes Received:
    2,576


    do you really think it's rich people suing when they bump their head tobaganning on public land or spill hot coffee on themselves at mcdonalds? seems more like a poor person thing.
     
    1Vegasgirl likes this.
  16. Pickle Jar

    Pickle Jar Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    55,255
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,492
    What a bunch of pussies. Next breathing will be banned.
     
  17. freder28

    freder28 Shit mult Banned User

    Reputations:
    1,027
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    35
    Did you even read what I wrote? I never said corporations aren't employers. The only point I'm (trying) to make is that they need to be able to be held accountable in court for defective products/services. Two major examples would be the Ford Pinto and Tylenol. If you make a rule that the loser of litigation pays the other sides cost what will happen is that the corporations will hire the best attorneys money can buy and either beat you in court (regardless of fault) or drag out the litigation for so long you'll go broke paying your 3rd tier attorney and have to quit. The wealthy would love the system -not middle Americans.
     
  18. freder28

    freder28 Shit mult Banned User

    Reputations:
    1,027
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    35
    I understand your point and it's valid. My reply is simply that if we give up our right to sue so quickly then there is no reason why the coffee really won't be 1000 degrees or the public land won't be full of used needles and razor blades.
     
  19. goldtopper

    goldtopper Well Known Heterosexual Gold

    Reputations:
    307,229
    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    17,065
    Likes Received:
    43,317

    Yes I did and by common tangental thinking, you're saying bankers, insurance cos and the ultra wealthy are to be blamed because they are above the system. They are not and it's been demonstrated repeatedly. They have twice the regulations and crucial eyes upon them than any small business could be afraid of. Why? Because they have twice the liability in terms of products and dependant employees to keep them at the top.
     
  20. freder28

    freder28 Shit mult Banned User

    Reputations:
    1,027
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    35
    With "twice the regulations and crucial eyes upon them" why didn't one of them go to jail for the financial collapse of 08. (period -it's rhetorical) If your answer is because none of them committed a crime then we need 4 times the regulations.