In a message dated 8/27/01 9:53:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
mlupynec@globalserve.net writes:
> Here's a small non partisan suggestion. I can see the need to
> punish a large corporation. But after the pain and suffering
> component, the punitive component of these ridiculous awards could
> be distributed to a larger common good (instead of going to the
> plaintive). And the contingency lawyer will still get his cut.
>
> Mike L(living in Perfect Canada)
>
SAY WHAT????THE NEED TO PUNISH???? In each of the instances, why and where
was there a NEED TO PUNISH a large corporation? Why would a large
corporation be more liable to punishment for some individuals stupid mistake?
Are you only upset that you didn't get a share?
Print this message and re-read it after you graduate middle school.
Corporations, big, small, or middle-sized to not have a pool of money to pass
out to needy idiots. Everytime some simple minded jury of peers gives out
millions of dollars, the cost falls to the bottom line and YOU and I pay for
it in increased prices.
Guess what one of the reasons for re-locating manufacturing plants to Mexico
is? No crazy letigious society that thinks Corporations owe them a present.
Sorry if I am sounding off a little loudly about all of this, but I think if
people don't start taking some responsibility for their own actions...we are
all headed for h*ll in and handbasket.
R Houston
Be more concerned about your character than about your reputation,
because your character is what you really are, while your reputation
is merely what others think of you.
"Remember, there is no lifeguard in the gene pool." GGLiddy
|