Salvation Army to Be Named in Philadelphia Building Collapse Lawsuits

August 16, 2013

  • August 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
    reality bites says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 26
    Thumb down 4

    Pray for Salvation. Don’t sue it.

  • August 16, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Big Mike in CA says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 2

    SERIOUSLY?! How sleazey can you get? Going after the Salvation Army because persons inside the store died from the building being crushed, no-DECIMATED by a collapsing next-door high-rise is just about the lowest form of ambulance chasing yet!

    • August 16, 2013 at 4:55 pm
      C'mon, Big Mike says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 20
      Thumb down 2

      Attorneys are involved. The bottom scratchers get VERY SLEAZY!!!

  • August 16, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 3

    That’s disgusting. I hope it gets thrown out.

    • August 19, 2013 at 1:26 pm
      Libby says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 0

      Seriously, 2 people don’t think this is disgusting and hope it doesn’t get thrown out???

      • August 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm
        youngin' says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 17
        Thumb down 0

        Some people are unclear on whether the Like/Dislike buttons are for the comment or the person leaving the comment.

        • August 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
          Libby says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 13
          Thumb down 1

          Gotcha. I do have some haters out there, don’t I?

          • August 21, 2013 at 9:07 am
            Nebraskan says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Libby, I disliked that because it drives me nuts that people don’t like you because your opinions differ from theirs.

          • August 21, 2013 at 9:27 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Thanks, NE.

          • August 21, 2013 at 9:28 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            We Westerners have to stick together!

      • August 19, 2013 at 1:47 pm
        youngin' says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 0

        Or they could just be lawyers.

  • August 16, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    Rusty says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 0

    Wow, is this plaintiff attorney trying to establish a new legal precedent for vicarious liability where everyone would bear responsiblilty for something someone else does wrong, if unlucky enough to be located even within earshot of the wrongdoing? Egad, what a world we live in! We need to amend our legal system enought to discourage frivolous claims like this. There have been stories of people suing for mental anguish from being on a sidewalk and witnessing injuries from a car accident on the adjacent road. People have nothing to loose when they are able to find an attorney willing to bring a frivolous claim and we need to make them put some skin into that game – like having plaintiffs and their attorneys paying costs if their lawsuit is dismissed on the basis of frivolity or lack of merit.

  • August 16, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    InsGuy says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 0

    There will be nothing useful done to derail frivolous lawsuits without attorney sanctions. I say, “Loser Pays” and so does the “Loser Attorney”. Make the plantiff pay the defendant, and make the plantiff attorney pay the defense costs.

    • August 16, 2013 at 4:58 pm
      And after that says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 0

      Sue the attorney for bringing a frivilous suit in the first place!

  • August 16, 2013 at 3:28 pm
    Hmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    Since it appears Salvation Army was a tennant — do we know if SA knew of the activities of the day?? Were they warned of the danger??

  • August 19, 2013 at 9:30 am
    youngin' says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 0

    The article explains the lawyer’s reasoning for naming the Salvation Army. They failed to put a tarp over the roof!

  • August 19, 2013 at 9:39 am
    youngin' says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    Seriously though – when they are about to blow up a building, is it common for tenants of adjacent buildings to maintain their normal operations? Isn’t there usually a radius around the building that is kept clear, just to avoid these exact sort of tragedies? I know this is 20/20 hindsight but it seems like a good idea.

    • August 19, 2013 at 11:21 am
      Big Mike in CA says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 0

      You’re correct in that assertion, Youngin’, if the demolition involved explosives; this one was a “manual” demolition, for lack of a better term. They were using bulldozers and backhoes to tear the building down brick-by-brick, to minimize the impact on surrounding businesses and residents…no pun intended.

      • August 19, 2013 at 1:26 pm
        youngin' says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 0

        Oh, OK, it makes more sense now why the store was open that day.

  • August 19, 2013 at 10:04 am
    M. Prankster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 1

    Does it appear to be safe to have employees working right next to this demo activity?

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/City-Warned-About-Potential-Dangerous-Conditions-at-Building-Site-210411591.html



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features