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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pray for Salvation. Don’t sue it.
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!
Attorneys are involved. The bottom scratchers get VERY SLEAZY!!!
That’s disgusting. I hope it gets thrown out.
Seriously, 2 people don’t think this is disgusting and hope it doesn’t get thrown out???
Some people are unclear on whether the Like/Dislike buttons are for the comment or the person leaving the comment.
Gotcha. I do have some haters out there, don’t I?
Libby, I disliked that because it drives me nuts that people don’t like you because your opinions differ from theirs.
Thanks, NE.
We Westerners have to stick together!
Or they could just be lawyers.
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.
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.
Sue the attorney for bringing a frivilous suit in the first place!
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??
The article explains the lawyer’s reasoning for naming the Salvation Army. They failed to put a tarp over the roof!
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.
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.
Oh, OK, it makes more sense now why the store was open that day.
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