Columbine Lawsuit Dismissed

Judge Dismisses Columbine Suit Against Media (thanks HomeLan Fed) is a follow-up to the story on the lawsuit (story) against several media companies brought by the family of the teacher slain during the shootings at Columbine High school in Littleton, CO. Saying "courts around the United States have rejected similar claims brought against media or entertainment defendants," in dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock went on to comment: "the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death."
View : : :
110.
 
Re: Common sense
Mar 12, 2002, 11:09
Re: Common sense Mar 12, 2002, 11:09
Mar 12, 2002, 11:09
 
Well, either the plaintiffs withdraw their claims, or the business being sued pays cash out of court, guessing that paying off the plaintiff will cost less than the legal expenses incurred in a court case. In fact, most companies have a fund (and insurance) specifically set aside for just such an event. I used to work for a firm which dealt with Property and Casualty insurance, so I'd see these sort of cases all the time. In the long run, the money only ends up coming from the taxpayer- as it's covered by higher insurance costs, higher product or service costs, or higher taxes (for government related cases), or reduced wages or layoffs for companies badly stricken by these sort of cases.

As a footnote to how bad the cost problem can get, there's a rapidly developing shortage of doctors in Nevada; due to a sharp rise in the cost of malpractice insurance, many doctors can no longer afford to work there.


This comment was edited on Mar 12, 11:13.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@208.1
2.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@208.35
3.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@165.91
7.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
20.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
25.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
   Re: 9/11
anon@209.133
28.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
    Re: 9/11
43.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
     Re: 9/11
anon@209.133
51.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
      Re: 9/11
53.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
      Re: 9/11
54.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
       Re: 9/11
4.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
13.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
5.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@216.23
6.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@65.89
9.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
11.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
14.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
39.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
42.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
     Re: Good News
17.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@65.89
46.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
55.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
     Re: Good News
anon@65.89
40.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
8.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
10.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@63.231
12.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
15.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
16.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
18.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@128.229
19.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@209.20
21.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
22.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
23.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@213.1
24.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
    hehe
34.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
     Re: hehe
anon@128.229
36.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
      No subject
41.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
      Re: hehe
48.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
      Re: hehe
anon@216.175
33.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@128.229
26.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@68.6
27.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@68.2
29.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@63.231
30.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@62.255
31.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@62.255
32.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@62.255
35.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
37.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@194.82
38.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
47.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
58.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
71.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
85.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
101.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
108.
Mar 10, 2002Mar 10 2002
109.
Mar 12, 2002Mar 12 2002
      Re: Common sense
anon@24.76
 110.
Mar 12, 2002Mar 12 2002
       Re: Common sense
44.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
45.
Mar 5, 2002Mar 5 2002
anon@65.66
50.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@63.198
49.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@203.146
52.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
72.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@203.146
74.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
   Re: Good
75.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
    Re: Good
anon@65.107
83.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
     Re: Good
87.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
      Re: Good
80.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
    Re: Good
81.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
     No subject
82.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
      Re: No subject
anon@216.26
86.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
      Re: No subject
104.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
       Re: No subject
84.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
    Re: Good
anon@203.146
89.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
     Re: Good
91.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
      Re: Good
anon@203.146
56.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
57.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
60.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@192.246
78.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@62.253
59.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@216.26
67.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
68.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@216.26
73.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
79.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@216.26
96.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
100.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
61.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@66.126
62.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@216.229
63.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@66.188
77.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@63.24
64.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
65.
Mar 6, 2002Mar 6 2002
anon@216.26
69.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@66.169
70.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
   Re: usa
76.
Mar 7, 2002Mar 7 2002
anon@63.231
88.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
anon@172.158
90.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
92.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
93.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
94.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
95.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
97.
Mar 8, 2002Mar 8 2002
98.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
anon@63.231
99.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
102.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
  Re: me
anon@62.253
103.
Mar 9, 2002Mar 9 2002
anon@63.231
105.
Mar 10, 2002Mar 10 2002
anon@64.218
106.
Mar 10, 2002Mar 10 2002
anon@62.253
107.
Mar 10, 2002Mar 10 2002