Two Black Women vs. One Black Man

[Berkut]

No - why would I want any?

Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.

Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.

So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?

Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.

[Ideologue]

At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.

Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.

Yeah, I misspoke in that statement earlier, "couldn't afford" should actually read more like "did not feel it worthwhile with the case against me at the time."  I could have easily covered actual economic damages in cash, assuming a reasonably normal ER stay for a broken nose (around $3000).  Actual non-economic damages are of course very hard to estimate.  I don't think punitive damages would have been in the off.

And, yeah, okay, he wasn't inept.  It's still a very near-run thing whether that plea deal was a good choice, though.  On one hand, the actual incident really did involve self-defense (you need not wait till the first blow has landed, and this guy had actually beaten the shit out of me twice beforehand in prior years; my apprehension was entirely reasonable).  On the other, there were some completely bogus charges involving assault with a deadly weapon (said I tried to hit him with my car), which is serious felony territory, and the associated charges were unsympathetic and entirely true.  On the minus side, I do have a violent misdemeanor on my record for-evah.

In any event, practical experience notwithstanding, I would have advised a client of possible civil ramifications, explained what judgment-proof meant and determined if I was, in fact, so protected.  Wouldn't you?

It is absolutely not worth it to sue for $3000.

I dunno.  If you had to conduct a fact-intensive trial, no.  With the issue precluded, it sounds not entirely unreasonable.  But you could be right.

[Barrister]

At the time I was actually very far from judgment proof.

Two house plants and a 1995 dodge neon hardly count as being worthwhile assets to pursue.

Yeah, I misspoke in that statement earlier, "couldn't afford" should actually read more like "did not feel it worthwhile with the case against me at the time."  I could have easily covered actual economic damages in cash, assuming a reasonably normal ER stay for a broken nose (around $3000).  Actual non-economic damages are of course very hard to estimate.  I don't think punitive damages would have been in the off.

And, yeah, okay, he wasn't inept.  It's still a very near-run thing whether that plea deal was a good choice, though.  On one hand, the actual incident really did involve self-defense (you need not wait till the first blow has landed, and this guy had actually beaten the shit out of me twice beforehand in prior years; my apprehension was entirely reasonable).  On the other, there were some completely bogus charges involving assault with a deadly weapon (said I tried to hit him with my car), which is serious felony territory, and the associated charges were unsympathetic and entirely true.  On the minus side, I do have a violent misdemeanor on my record for-evah.

In any event, practical experience notwithstanding, I would have advised a client of possible civil ramifications, explained what judgment-proof meant and determined if I was, in fact, so protected.  Wouldn't you?

It is absolutely not worth it to sue for $3000.

I dunno.  If you had to conduct a fact-intensive trial, no.  With the issue precluded, it sounds not entirely unreasonable.  But you could be right.

I should clarify that it is absoltely not worth it to hire a lawyer to sue for $3000.  If you think you can go through small claims by yourself, then great.

But even if liability is not an issue, assessing quantum can still be extremely expensive.

[Razgovory]

Your lawyer might as well talked about the risk of being struck by lightning on your way to the courthouse.

While no means common, a lawyer coming out of a court house is sixteen times more likely to be struck by lighting then a normal person.

[frunk]

I didn't notice many spotlights outside the courthouse where I had jury duty last week.  Maybe you don't if you aren't a lawyer.

[OttoVonBismarck]

No idea how it is in Canada but small claims is basically just to make you feel better and serves little practical purpose.

I played that game once a long time ago with a deadbeat that owed me money. Clearly documented etc etc (we were renting the starter home we moved out of many years ago, and tenants skipped out on last month's rent.) At the end of the day what you get is a judgment against someone and no help whatsoever in collecting, the court system will not aid or assist in any way.

So you can try to get a wage garnishment, but a lot of the people who do this kind of thing are only intermittently employed, unfortunately. You can try to get certain assets seized, but that's also a lengthy process and many, many assets are protected from such action due to various local laws designed to keep people from being rendered totally destitute over a civil judgment.

[Ed Anger]

And if the deadbeat is smart, he/she/it will empty their bank accounts(if they have any) before the court date so that they can't be garnished.

[jimmy olsen]

While no means common, a lawyer coming out of a court house is sixteen times more likely to be struck by lighting then a normal person.

[Malthus]

One female customer had a fractured skull that required surgery and a broken arm.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury ... did this women "deserve a break today"?

[Barrister]

No idea how it is in Canada but small claims is basically just to make you feel better and serves little practical purpose.

I played that game once a long time ago with a deadbeat that owed me money. Clearly documented etc etc (we were renting the starter home we moved out of many years ago, and tenants skipped out on last month's rent.) At the end of the day what you get is a judgment against someone and no help whatsoever in collecting, the court system will not aid or assist in any way.

So you can try to get a wage garnishment, but a lot of the people who do this kind of thing are only intermittently employed, unfortunately. You can try to get certain assets seized, but that's also a lengthy process and many, many assets are protected from such action due to various local laws designed to keep people from being rendered totally destitute over a civil judgment.

I cut my teeth as a litigator in small claims court.  It was actually a very valuable experience, and yes I even managed to win clients some money.

But of course the key is to early on assess whether the defendant had potential assets to go after.  This is why I was telling Ideo he had essentially zero risk of being sued.

[garbon]

No - why would I want any?

Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.

Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.

So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?

Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.

I think it would fail as an explanation if you have two markets (US and EU) where consumers are focused on price and yet one market puts up with a lot more crap from their airlines across the board.

[Berkut]

No - why would I want any?

Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.

Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.

So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?

Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.

I think it would fail as an explanation if you have two markets (US and EU) where consumers are focused on price and yet one market puts up with a lot more crap from their airlines across the board.

I stated American simply because that is what I have experience with. If you have more knowledge about how in Europe the consumers all focus on price, and yet their airlines ignore that and give them great service instead, please share it with us.

[garbon]

No - why would I want any?

Because your analysis would be irrelevant if, for instance, Europeans were also always looking for a bargain and yet don't suffer the same abuses that American carriers heap on their customers.

Oh, I see that Arky just spoke to what I was asking.

So you are saying that it is not blindingly obvious that if customers make decisions based solely on price, businesses will focus their attention on giving them the best possible price at the expense of other incentives, and you need "proof" before you will believe such crazy things?

Frankly, if you don't believe me, I don't really care.

I think it would fail as an explanation if you have two markets (US and EU) where consumers are focused on price and yet one market puts up with a lot more crap from their airlines across the board.

I stated American simply because that is what I have experience with. If you have more knowledge about how in Europe the consumers all focus on price, and yet their airlines ignore that and give them great service instead, please share it with us.

True, but I have noticed that with Ryan Air and EasyJet, you may not get many extra but I've always had a pleasant time flying with them. The service is reasonable; you won't get handed two small bottles of champagne for swapping seats with a pregnant lady (as I once did on a BA flight), but I've always found the European budget airlines to have courteous staff. When I once flew American Airlines (or one of the other carriers, can't remember), the staff were outright hostile to me. 

This surprised me, because I always associate American businesses with very good service.

That said - I won't ask you any questions anymore.

[Ideologue]

Oh, Warspite is Arkestra.  That's good.

[garbon]

Oh, Warspite is Arkestra.  That's good.

At least that is the impression I'm under.