The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Come join us for some hoppy ale and hopped up conversation.
Last week Gen. Wesley Clark dropped in unannounced… this week, who knows? The folks from Simple Majority will be there telling us why we should all vote Yes on 4204, and writer, pundit, activist Ari Melber (formerly of Seattle, now of The Nation) plans to drop by to slum with us bloggers in the political backwater he left behind.
Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.
What happened to the Drinking Liberally Podcasts?
If only 4204 was for strictly reducing car tab license fees instead of school levies I would be for it. roof roof.
@3 I’m for raising car tab fees to pay for mandatory obedience training for all doggies in King County. We have too damned many lawbreaking dogs around here.
Roger Rabbit rarely attends DL because I don’t want to get rabies from the GOP operatives sent to spy on the HA crowd.
@4 Rodent:
At least be honest-you don’t attend because food stamps are not acceptable payment for taxi-fare.
R-67 TV Ad Star Tells Insurance Companies to Shove It!
The insurance industry-funded Reject 67 campaign is demanding that pro-67 forces pull the TV ad featuring Tiffany Forslund, daughter of late Puyallup fire battalion chief David Potter. In the ad, Forslund criticizes the city’s insurance carrier for delaying approval of her father’s treatment until the day after his death.
According to the P-I, insurance industry shill Dana Childers says “using Potter’s case was a dishonest attempt by greedy lawyers to exploit viewer emotions. ‘The trial lawyers who will reap hundreds of millions from this expensive law hope that the public will be so impacted by this tragic story they won’t ask whether the ad is true,’ Childers said.”
Forslund responded, “It is sad that the insurance industry continues to attack our family after all it has done.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....nce09.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Funny they should bring up “dishonest” and “exploit[ing] viewer emotions,” considering that’s exactly what the insurance industry did in their dishonest and emotional “Harry and Louise” ads (remember those?) — and is doing in their currently-airing anti-67 ads featuring an actress playing a waitress.
Since THEY brought up the subject of dishonesty, let’s talk about the dishonesty of THEIR ad, starting with the claim that “trial lawyers … will reap hundreds of millions from this expensive law.”
That’s entirely up to the insurance companies.
R-67 won’t cost insurance companies a cent if they pay the claims they promised to pay when they accepted their policyholders’ premium payments. They’re on the hook for treble damages only if trial lawyers prove to a court that they defrauded their customers.
There’s already ample precedent in our laws for treble damages. Treble damages for timber trespass — stealing someone else’s trees — has been part of our code since Territorial days. Treble damages in consumer protection cases have been part of state law for decades. R-67 merely extends the treble damages provisions of our consumer laws to the insurance industry, which is regulated separately by a distinct insurance code. (In the U.S., insurance companies are regulated at the state level, with very little federal oversight or involvement.)
Under these laws — and under R-67 — no honest business has ever paid, or ever will pay, treble damages.
Treble damages in consumer fraud cases serve several purposes: (1) They reimburse consumers for the often onerous costs of seeking legal relief when they’ve been defrauded; (2) they deter fraudulent behavior; and (3) they make it possible for consumers to obtain legal representation by giving lawyers an incentive to accept individual cases which otherwise often have too low a dollar value to make going to court financially feasible. The most important impact of R-67 will be its deterrent effect.
It’s also dishonest for the insurance companies to claim in their ad that R-67 will result in higher insurance rates. This would be true only if you assume that (1) insurance companies will expose themselves to treble damages by engaging in fraudulent behavior, and (2) insurance companies will engage in collusion in setting premium rates.
Absent (2), market competition will work this way: Honest insurance companies that don’t pay treble damages won’t experience any increase in costs, and therefore won’t have any reason to raise rates; only dishonest insurance companies that fraudulently deny valid claims will end up paying treble damages to their policyholders and their attorneys — and if THEY raise their rates, they will price themselves out of the market.
The insurance industry ad seems to assume that ALL insurance companies will cheat their customers and get stuck with higher costs; either that, or they’re planning to get together and illegally rig premium rates if R-67 passes.
The insurance company ad also seems to presume that the insurance companies are ENTITLED TO A PROFIT. That’s bullshit; in a free market — you know, the “free market” touted by the conservative, pro-business, anti-government, anti-consumer, anti-legal rights crowd — companies can LOSE MONEY if they’re inefficient or poorly managed. The insurance boys may think they’re writing cost-plus contracts with their customers, and they certainly do their best to structure the insurance business that way, but the fact remains they’re operating in a competitive free market in which profits have to be EARNED, and are NOT an entitlement.
An example of an insurance company that might lose money through inefficiency and poor management is one that denies too many valid claims, resulting in lawsuits, judgments, legal expenses, and treble damages against the company.
If honest companies keep their premiums competitive, and dishonest companies are unable to compete because of their high judgment costs, the dishonest companies will get driven out of business. GOOD!!! That’s the way the market is supposed to work.
Let’s briefly review how the insurance industry works. They have only two sources of revenue, premium payments collected from policyholders, and investment returns on the money from premium payments. When investment returns are low, they tend to raise premiums. When they’re making lots of money in the investment markets, premiums may fall to loss-leader levels to compete for customers, because they can’t make money from high investment returns if they don’t have premium cash flowing in.
So, insurance companies need two things to make profits — policyholders, and investment returns. Whether they make a profit also depends on the cost side of the ledger. Their costs include marketing, administrative overhead, and claims payments. They don’t get very far by shaving marketing expenditures because that results in fewer policies sold and less premiums coming in, and like other bloated bureaucracies, they have serious difficulty controlling A&O. In fact, the health insurance industry in particular, has a particularly bad record in controlling A&O costs, being 50 times less efficient than the federal government’s Medicare program.
So, as you can see, there’s a whole lot of temptation in this business to save money on the claims side of the business by fudging payments. In fact, they have waaaaay toooooo muuuuuuch incentive to deny valid claims. R-67 helps level the playing field for their customers by imposing costs on the companies for that behavior. This creates a financial disincentive against such behavior.
And that’s exactly what we, the consumer public, want and need.
R-67 is similar (if not identical) to laws already existing in 45 other stats. That’s right, we’re one of only 5 states that do not have such a law. If we pass R-67, will the insurance companies stop doing business here? We certainly can hope the dishonest ones will leave! But what about the industry as a whole … where will they go … to the other 4 states? Do they expect us to believe they don’t (and won’t) do business in the 45 states that have already enacted laws similar to R-67? That’s bullshit.
The R-67 TV ads are dishonest, all right — depending on which ads you’re talking about. Childers, the full-of-shit shill for the greedy insurance companies, has got it backwards. Forslund is telling it like it is; the actress-pretending-to-be-a-waitress is lying through her teeth. If any ad should be pulled, it’s that one.
Now, where is Stefan? We have a waitress who needs to be fired.
@5 I don’t need a taxi. The Great Mother Rabbit Spirit equipped me with a pair of powerful hind feet that work better than any taxi.
@ 1 Goldy got a real job. So, no more podcasts.
Seems like you stalinists just can’t win. The surrender thing isn’t working, so now you’re off telling lies about the economy.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/....._Poll.html
Twenty-two percent of those with a high school education or less named the economy as the country’s worst problem, compared to eight percent with college degrees.
Let me get this straight: there’s something wrong with the economy when people with no marketable skills can’t get jobs?
I suppose this is why you also embrace socialism… so you fucking losers can vote to have The Producers pay the price of your bad choices.
Hey Rabbit – Yes or no… do you want “free” healthcare.
Just answer the fucking question.
If so, I want you to do a little experiment for me…
Good piece on “The Factor” tonight about how crazy lawsuits have become. An 18-year-old employee at a Kentucky McDonald’s let herself be strip-searched by her store’s manager on the authority of some degenerate who pretended to be a cop and called the Mcdonald’s, directing the strip-search of the 18-year-old. The girl was stripped naked and searched, all on the authority of some bogus phone call. Eventually, she was forced to blow the manager’s boyfriend in the deal. Well, a numb-nuts jury awarded her $6.1 million in punative damages, against McDonald’s! Can you fucking believe it? How low will these trial lawyers go in their quest to steal hard-earned money? They should all be put to death in paniful fashions!
Why don’t we just get rid of health insurance and have every one pay cash when they need medical care?
Why do republicans appear on debates moderated by Chris Mathews on MSNBC (More snotty nonsense by commies) when dems wont debate on Fox? Oh, that is right, dems are pussies. Nevermind. roof roof
@12
Some doctors are doing that for little simple things and using an HSA is somewhat like that. There was a Doc. in the Puyallup area that stopped taking insurance and was charging around 50 bucks for things like sinusitis and kids sports physicals.
Good luck paying cash for prostate cancer or a broken leg.
Maybe you wingnuts can ‘splain somethin’ to me, ’cause there’s a part of your argument on the whole Graeme Frost thing that I don’t quite understand. You people are pointing out that the Frosts live in a rather nice house worth about $400K (the amount various from wingnut to wingnut). They bought the house in the early 90’s for $55k (nice appreciation, that).
But what, exactly, does the value of their home have to do with their ability to pay for individual health insurance? It sounds like Daddy Foster is supposed to come home and say, “I got good news and bad news. The good news is we now have health insurance. The bad news is that we’re now homeless.” Is that your argument? Is this the Republican notion of living the American Dream?
@15
I thought conservatives were all about staying out of other peoples business?
‘Oh wait the conservatives have, mostly, morphed into fascists. Forgot about that for a sec.
Give ’em hell Sara!
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2.....rt-ii.html
# 17 michael
Thanks for a great blog commentary. Saved it to my favs.
One Sis came out of the closet about 20+ yrs ago. Stanch religious other Sis decided Gay Sis shouldn’t have unsupervised contact with her own 2 kids, didn’t want her to have any contact at all. Huh? Nevermind that Gay Sis had taken the kids on so MANY adventures, fishing, gold panning, camping, Disney, teaching them how to cook and clean. Had paid mucho bucks for school trips to Washington DC & New York & California, and school fund raisers, just to make sure the nieces experienced everything possible (same as her own kids), knowing their folks couldn’t afford. She sure wasn’t going to do ANYTHING to harm their sexual identity, because she knew how difficult it was being gay herself!
When I asked religious Sis WHY? The only ‘difference’ about Gay Sis was what they now knew about her, she hadn’t changed and was the same person they had always known. Only diff was that they suddenly knew now that she was gay. She wasn’t flaunting her relationships or doing anything untoward.
All these years later, it doesn’t matter. Religious Sis finally wised up. Gay Sis has stepped in to help everyone in the family, actually become the primary bulwark of the entire family. Seriously taken care of Religious Sis with her health needs (and the death of her husband) more times than I can count. The link michael provided was heartwarming that other religious people are FINALLY getting a clue.
@10 Let’s start with my getting the healthcare I pay my insurance company for, and work forward from there.
P.S., pay your past-due gambling debt, welsher!
@11 Only $6.1 million for that degree of negligent supervision of its store managers? An employer has a duty to its employees to provide a safe workplace, and is liable for gross negligence in failing to do so. If I were on that jury, it would have been $12 million.
#20 RR
Yeah, I agree. For that young woman spending the REST of her life having flashbacks at being so violated, “Only $6.1 million” was chump change!!!
@11 (continued) This young woman has been traumatized for the rest of her life. She will never trust anyone again. Her abilityy to have normal relationships has been destroyed. Sex will be repugnant to her, consequently she will not get married, bear children, or have grandchildren like other people. She will spend the rest of her life in social isolation because she will be afraid of everyone. She will be too fearful of workplaces to hold a job and is now unable to work or support herself. After her lawyers get their 40% cut, she will get only $3.6 million which is barely sufficient to provide her basic needs for the next 50 years and doesn’t begin to compensate her for the pain and suffering that McDonald’s carelessness has cost her. Ronald McDonald should be shot.*
* Just kidding! Wingnut humor ripped off from Ann Coulter Jokes, LLP, no royalties paid — if Coulter doesn’t like it, she can sue me!
RR, knowing how you feel about pooches and all, do I dare share this link? That you can share with your bunnies and all. Pretty funny, some of the poor critters looked so embarrassed I thought. What a hoot!
Why Dogs Hate Halloween
http://humor.beecy.net/animals.....x.aspx?n=0
@11 (continued) The jury actually didn’t award $6.1 million against McDonald’s. The total verdict was $6.1 million, and the jury held McDonald’s only 50% responsible, so McDonald’s will pay $3.05 million.
Over a period of roughly 10 years, from 1995 to 2004, approximately 70 prank phone calls were made to restaurants in 30 states in which the caller pretended to be a police officer and persuaded managers to conduct strip searches of employees. These incidents were well known to the restaurant industry, but McDonald’s failed to warn its managers about them.
Consequently, when the McDonald’s in Kentucky where Louise Ogborn worked received what turned out to be the last of these prank calls, the assistant manager went along with the hoax, which in this case included the caller getting the employee to perform oral sex on the assistant manager’s boyfriend. Ogborn’s ordeal lasted 3 1/2 hours. The jury awarded $1.1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive (not “punative”) damages, divided equally between McDonald’s and the prank caller. This trial did not determine the caller’s identity. A Florida man prosecuted for the incident was acquitted in a criminal trial, but he was not a party to Ogborn’s civil lawsuit and therefore is not liable for the other $3.05 million.
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....QD8S3KK6O0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S....._Call_Scam
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The purpose of punitive damages is to deter wrongful conduct in the future. Some states allow punitive damages, others do not. Washington is among the states that do not allow punitive damages.
Roger Rabbit Poll
Which of the following court decisions that occurred this week is the most outrageous?
[ ] 1. A Kentucky jury’s $3.05 million award against McDonald’s to a former employee for negligently failing to warn its managers about prank strip-search calls that had plagued the restaurant industry nationwide for 10 years; or
[ ] 2. A federal court’s decision dismissing a $74,000 compensation claim brought by an innocent German citizen who was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA in a mistaken identity case on the grounds that allowing him to sue the CIA might jeopardize “state secrets” about U.S. “rendition” and interrogation practices.
As the CIA case shows, what America really needs is greater rights to sue, not fewer lawsuits.
@23 That reminds me, I need to call the costume rental shop and reserve a prison jumpsuit for Jane Balogh’s dog.
@23 The costume in that pic isn’t as ridiculous as you might assume. The function of the wings should be obvious. You stand the dog on the edge of a cliff, then push him off it to see if he can fly.
Vote “Yes” on R-67
Remember, R-67 is a referendum ratifying a bill passed by the Legislature, so a “yes” vote from the people is needed for the bill to become law. The insurance industry wants you to vote “No.” That’s why they’re calling their campaign the “Reject 67” campaign.
Both Governor Gregoire and Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler say the law is needed and they will vote “yes”.
Carl,
If this isn’t in next week’s TWIBS, I’m demanding a refund:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7433.html
Did Richard McIver happen to drop by last night?
@Too many to count…RR…
Portland’s Multnomah Park is looking for your kind…Contending that the energy used to operate the mechancial versions contribute to the over abundance of green house gases in the atmosphere, the Park is scrapping them in favor of the natural kind.
Given that you and your kin proliferate and breed like…rabbits…I’ve been asked to recruit several hundred of your friends and family for the position. Your resume up to date?
The Piper
The girl was an idiot, Roger Rabbit. Who in their right mind would take their clothes off on the authority of a phone call? Also, when was the last time a real policeman forced someone to give a blowjob to somebody else’s boyfriend? People are allowed to be idiots, Roger, and this girl proved she definitely was one. McDonald’s should simply tie this thing up with appeals until she’s dead from old age. I have no sympathy for those who act like asses and won’t accept the consequences.
If this had involved a small, struggling diner with no insurance, do you think these scumbag lawyers would even be involved in this case? There wold have been no lawsuit in the first place and the phone caller would be doing time. Istead, it turned into a trial lawyers’ banquet with their “sue the guys with the deepest pockets” mantra.
This abuse of the legal system is a perfect reason to vote against R67.
I have no sympathy for those who act like asses and won’t accept the consequences.
Like McDonalds?
@18
Sara and Dave over at Orcinus are smarter than the rest of us kids in the sandbox do some wonderful reporting.
@25…RR…and @33…PI…
McDonald’s may get stuck with the entire damage award, per comments from plaintiff’s attorney quoted in the article linked by RR. Without knowing the complete facts and Kentucky law, my guess is that the damage awared was against both McDonald’s and the un-named, unknown caller jointly and severally, which means plaintiff has the absolute right to go after either or both for some or all.
In this case, since not only is it McDonald’s that’s the defendant with deep pockets, so far as anyone knows, it’s the only one with pockets.
As to the merits of the suit, in all honesty a reasonable claim can be made that the corporation, fully aware that this scam takes place since others of its stores had been the target of it in the past, had a duty to warn managers and employees not to fall for such hoaxes, and that it breached that duty in the case of the individual plaintiff herein. There is a case to be made here…
What is outrageous is that the manager who ordered the strip search and whose boyfriend did the dirtybadnasties on the plaintiff was also awarded over $1mm. Now THAT is a clear abuse of the legal process.
Honestly, PI, the “deep pockets” theory of damages has existed since tort-day one such that a plaintiff with an absolutely legit and airtight case who seeks to sue a judgment proof defendant is usually advised by the attorney who declines to take the case that, “Into every life a little rain must fall.”
AND…that’s a reason why in a negligence action, juries are not entitled to know of the existence of insurance on the theory that they’ll then simply find for plaintiff because every wrong deserves a remedy irrespective of liability.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s become of too much of personal injury and other tort law these days. Just stick it to the insurance company irrespective of the facts of the case because the poor plaintiff is injured (plaintiff’s oft times stupid contributing conduct notwithstanding), the insurance company is rich, and the rich should always pay, ergo screw the insurance company.
Generally, between the trial bar and insurance companies, it’s a case of the devil you loath and the devil you loath just a scintilla more.
Given that there are already way too many laws on the books for just about everything, that legal remedies do, in fact, exist within the State of Washington to address insurance company midbehavior, and that I have zero interest in lining the pockets of any more trial lawyers, I will vote NO on R-67…
BTW…on the theory that the truly dumb deserve what comes their way (not really, but in a “rough justice” – nod to Lee – sort of way), anyone who’s dumb enough to buy insurance from Allstate deserves all the grief they get.
The Piper
@31…Eric…
Only if he made bail…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....er10m.html
I didn’t realize there was a dedicated domestic violence seat on the seattle city council (Mayor Quarters has decreed that capital letters may not be used in any reference to that bunch).
Hmmm…too bad McIver’s seat isn’t on the ballot…might provide another opportunity for Richard Pope.
Speaking of whom…instead of out campaigning, he was blogging over at Sound Politics last night! And it sounded as though he’s in favor of I-25…
I still say he should be out campaigning instead of engaging in recreational (right, Darryl?) blogging. Serious candidates campaign seriously.
The Piper
@11
“Good piece on “The Factor” tonight about how crazy lawsuits have become. ”
You can’t make that claim using only one example.
Piper,
Generally, between the trial bar and insurance companies, it’s a case of the devil you loath and the devil you loath just a scintilla more.
Allow me to commend you on an awesomely contorted piece of logic, ironicly appropriate coming in a discussion on torts. It completely dispenses with any examination of what the law actually does, and arrives at a conclusion based on whom you hate the least. I truly appreciate the insight into how we’ve come to find ourselves suffering through the second term of the worst President in the history of the United States.
But, just for grins, let’s take a look at what the law actually does, and think about the implications of that, shall we? It allows plaintiffs to sue for treble damages in cases where the insurance companies have denied legitimate claims.
Now, the relevant ontology is purely binary. Either insurance companies are denying legitimate claims, or the insurance companies are not denying legitimate claims. In the latter case, this law is a complete no-op. It cannot cost insurance companies a penny, because there are no legitimate claims for which they would be subject to treble damages.
Therefore, the only incentive insurance companies have for opposing this law is if they are, in fact, denying legitmate claims. And, given the amount of money they’re willing to spend on this campaign, it would seem they’re denying quite a few legitimate claims.
Now, suppose the law remains in effect. Insurance companies have an equally binary choice: to continue this practice of denying legitimate claims or they can simply always pay up on legitmate claims. And, the only way trial lawyers can possibly benefit from this law is if insurance companies continue their practice of denying legitmate claims.
Except that the incentives created by the law would seem to induce insurance companies to pay up on legitmate claims. If they don’t, they incur a substantially increased risk of having to pay treble damages plus all the legal expenses associated with litigating the issue.
In other words, the effect of the law would most likely be to increase the instances where insurance companies pay up on legitimate claims, which would leave trial lawyers rather out of the loop.
So, even if we want to decide this issue based on whom we hate the least, it still doesn’t make sense to vote NO on R 67. The only way an emotion-based NO vote on R 67 makes any kind of sense is if you happen to actually like insurance companies more than you like innocent victims of their ill-gotten gains.
Or, we could simply dispense with emotion altogether, at which point a YES vote on R 67 is the obvious choice.
@33 “The girl was an idiot, Roger Rabbit. Who in their right mind would take their clothes off on the authority of a phone call?”
What we should do is conduct a Milgram experiment here in Seattle and get you to participate in it.
Roger Rabbit made an unannounced drop-in visit to DL last night.
@32 I can supply rabbits at a rate of 5,000 per week. How many do you need? I’ll need a day or two of lead time to make some phone calls to female rabbits of my acquaintance. Allow 31 days for gestation and another 2 to 3 days for delivery to Portland via Federal Express Ground or UPS.
@33 (continued) What would you do if your boss told you to take your clothes off and you needed the job?
(Note: Thanks to trial lawyers, bosses don’t ask their female employees to take their clothes off anymore, and women workers no longer have to comply with such demands.)
@36 Well, I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head, but the news articles I read said the jury assigned 50% fault to McDonald’s. Most states, including ours, have comparative fault statutes; and, under such a statute, partial responsibility results in a partial award. I’ve read nothing in the news to suggest either the jury or the court found joint and several liability in this case, but I’m unfamiliar with the details so I won’t rule that out at this time.
@36 “What is outrageous is that the manager who ordered the strip search and whose boyfriend did the dirtybadnasties on the plaintiff was also awarded over $1mm. Now THAT is a clear abuse of the legal process.”
I was mystified by that at first, too, and had to re-read the story to figure it out … but it makes sense when you look at the details of the case. Namely, both the manager and the employee were victimized by McDonald’s failure to warn. However, I think a good lawyer could make a persuasive argument that the manager should pay McDonald’s an equal and offsetting emolument for doing her the favor of ridding her of that boyfriend of hers for the next 5 years.
If insurance companies can afford to give outgoing CEOs $28 million severance packages (see, e.g., Mike McGavick), then they can afford to give their customers the coverage the customers paid for.
Wingnut foamers are now going after a 12-year-old disabled kid. http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_.....0000000001
Have this people no shame?
these not this
Let’s try that again.
Have these people no shame? No shame at all?
What a bunch of low-life scumsuckers.
Re #47,
Welcome to the party:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3538#comment-698699
@44…RR…
From the above cited article:
“In setting the compensatory damages, the Bullitt County Circuit Court jury put half the blame for the incident on McDonald’s and the other half on the unnamed caller. (Plaintiff’s attorney, Ann) Oldfather told reporters that she would argue that McDonald’s should be held liable for the entire $6.1 million.”
Sounds like joint and several to me…But a thorough review of the pleadings in the case and a knowledge of Kentucky law on the subject is necessary before coming to a definitive conclusion.
Comparative negligence wouldn’t be applicable here since that doctrine allows a jury to compute on a percentage basis whether plaintiff bore any responsibility for her injuries, and then off-set by the same percentage damages against defendant. It has no application to the apportionment of liability or damages between defendants.
That the plaintiff was 18 at the time of the incident weighs very heavily in her favor.
I’m still irked, though, that the manager was awarded damages especially since it was her boyfriend who was on the receiving end of the dirtybadnasties plaintiff was persuaded to perform. Given that it all took place in Kain-tuck, I’m surprised plaintiff’s daddy didn’t take after the low life with his deer rifle!
BTW…R-67 would not be applicable in the above entitled action despite HA consumations devoutly to be wished…
The Piper
@53 How do you extract joint and several liability from that? As for the boyfriend, he was awarded 5 years of free room and board in a separate trial.
@54…RR…
Attorney Oldfather’s statement that, “McDonald’s should be held liable for the entire $6.1 million.” Tells me that she thinks she can get it all from one defendant.
Are you sure the free room and board weren’t because he was an early winner in this year’s Monopoly give-away promotion at the participating McDonald’s? I only needed Ventnor Ave. to win that prize myself, but with only Atlantic Ave. and Marvin Gardens, I’m lost…
BTW…get all four railroads and you’re allowed total open season on rabbits.
The Piper