Posted On: February 13, 2006, 2:08 pm CST

Posted By: Mike from Boston

Hi Kathy -

The statement the plaintiff made in this article:

I fought enough that day for my life,'' Sells said. "Why am I having to fight to have money to live off of?'' "

...implies a direct cause-and-effect assumption (or expectation) between "fighting that day" and having "money to live off of." Seems pretty clear that she thinks since she had to go through this ordeal (and I agree that it was tragic and an ordeal), she feels she deserves some money. Otherwise, I would expect to hear her say something like "Now that I can't work (am injured, etc.), why am I having to fight to get money to live off of?"

Why did't she say something referencing her injury or inability to work? My guess is because her statement better reflects her state of mind - she really does believe that since she's been injured, she's entitled to something from somebody. That's the "entitlement" mentality that compman first pointed out.

Absent other evidence, the best interpretation of a written statement is usually based on a plain reading - not inferring she might be injured, not inferring there might be other factors, but sticking to what has been presesnted.

It may sound cynical, but my experience has been that there are a lot of people out in the U.S. who do have an "entitlement mentality." Many of them, in concert with their lawyers, feed off of our legal system, burdening the rest of us with the cost.

A plain English interpretation of this woman's statement indicates such a mentality. Could I be wrong? Of course I could, and actually would preferr to be wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think I am.

And while I am a member of the Bar, I don't litigate. Having gotten it right, I no longer need to practice law...