JIB in the News

[merithyn]

Without the benefit of the trial record, one would have to speculate.  However, if the parking area is on JiB owned or leased premises, and JiB failed to follow its own SOPs in say informing the police about disrurptive activites on the premises, then they could potentially be on the hook.

Thanks, Minsky. That's what I assumed, but it still seems like a really high amount for the amount of their involvement (or lack thereof).

[crazy canuck]

Without the benefit of the trial record, one would have to speculate.  However, if the parking area is on JiB owned or leased premises, and JiB failed to follow its own SOPs in say informing the police about disrurptive activites on the premises, then they could potentially be on the hook.

Thanks, Minsky. That's what I assumed, but it still seems like a really high amount for the amount of their involvement (or lack thereof).

If they are found to be liable the amount is determined by the measure of damage which has nothing to do with JIB and everything to do with the extent of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff,  his cost of future care and JIB's apportioned share of those damages (based on their percentage of liability not dollar figures).

[Malthus]

Without the benefit of the trial record, one would have to speculate.  However, if the parking area is on JiB owned or leased premises, and JiB failed to follow its own SOPs in say informing the police about disrurptive activites on the premises, then they could potentially be on the hook.

Thanks, Minsky. That's what I assumed, but it still seems like a really high amount for the amount of their involvement (or lack thereof).

I assume it's an outcome caused by 'joint and several liability'.

In some (most?) jurisdictions, if a bunch of folks are guilty of causing damage, the court will assign or apportion liability to everyone so found. However, the responsibility to pay is ultimately the group of tortfeasors as a whole - meaning if someone can't pick up their "share" of the "tab", everyone else has to.

In this case, obviously the lion's share of responsibility belongs to the punks who did the beating. Thing is, these punks very likely have no money. They certainly are unlikely to have $20 million lying about.

JiB has the deep pockets, so even if they are only 1% liable, they end up footing more or less the entire bill aside from the percentage assigned to the plaintiff himself, simply because they are the only ones who can pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

[merithyn]

I assume it's an outcome caused by 'joint and several liability'.

In some (most?) jurisdictions, if a bunch of folks are guilty of causing damage, the court will assign or apportion liability to everyone so found. However, the responsibility to pay is ultimately the group of tortfeasors as a whole - meaning if someone can't pick up their "share" of the "tab", everyone else has to.

In this case, obviously the lion's share of responsibility belongs to the punks who did the beating. Thing is, these punks very likely have no money. They certainly are unlikely to have $20 million lying about.

JiB has the deep pockets, so even if they are only 1% liable, they end up footing more or less the entire bill aside from the percentage assigned to the plaintiff himself, simply because they are the only ones who can pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

Thanks, Malthus. That clarifies it for me.

[Admiral Yi]

That's a law that needs to change.

[Razgovory]

That's a law that needs to change.

[Admiral Yi]

It's bullshit.  It's unjust.

[Malthus]

That's a law that needs to change.

From the wiki article:

Opponents of the principle of joint and several liability note that its use (instead of proportionate responsibility) has led to cases in which a party with a very minor part of the responsibility unfairly shoulders the burden of damages. The classic example is the uninsured drunk driver who injures someone; the plaintiff will sue both the insolvent drunk driver and the state highway department (or automobile manufacturer), hoping to hold the latter 1% or 2% responsible, thereby forcing them to pay the entire award. Joint and several liability, reform supporters argue, leads to lawyers searching for "deep pockets" to sue (in the expectation that they will settle rather than risk trial), even though those defendants may only be remotely related to an incident.

The original notion was that the plaintiff should not have the burden of litigating proportions of liability among tortfeasors (under joint & several, the tortfeasors have that burden among themselves). However, obviously, J & S now results in a hunt for someone, anyone, with deep pockets to have even some trifling responsibility.

[Razgovory]

It's bullshit.  It's unjust.

Anything that could possibly harm a business is unjust in your book.

[Ideologue]

It's bullshit.  It's unjust.

Concur.  Joint and several is terrible.  It's radically unfair.

[The Minsky Moment]

Missouri is a UCATA state, and tort damages are several only unless the defendant is more than 50% at fault.

So either the jury found a huge amount of damages, and the $20 million is a fraction of that, or JiB was found to be more than 51% at fault.  Either seems odd, but when you go to a jury, you takes your chances.

[Ideologue]

They should have had a JIB employee swing by and shoot him in the head.

What's the present discounted cost of Ali Aziz' life?

[Admiral Yi]

Anything that could possibly harm a business is unjust in your book.

You've been trying now for about eight years to convince others, or possibly myself, that I am so hopelessly biased that my opinions are meaningless.  By my estimation your success has been scant.  That might be a signal to you to re-evaluate either the ends you are seeking, or the means you are employing.

[Razgovory]

Anything that could possibly harm a business is unjust in your book.

You've been trying now for about eight years to convince others, or possibly myself, that I am so hopelessly biased that my opinions are meaningless.  By my estimation your success has been scant.  That might be a signal to you to re-evaluate either the ends you are seeking, or the means you are employing.

But I haven't.  I'm just amused by your predictability.

[Malthus]

Missouri is a UCATA state, and tort damages are several only unless the defendant is more than 50% at fault.

So either the jury found a huge amount of damages, and the $20 million is a fraction of that, or JiB was found to be more than 51% at fault.  Either seems odd, but when you go to a jury, you takes your chances.

Okay, now *that* doesn't make any freaking sense.