Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim
I thought this kind of crap only happened in the US. It's really sad that people sue to cover for their own stupidity. Suck it up, buttercup.
|
No offense, but I think it's far worse when people make snap judgements without knowing all of the facts.
This might well be a frivolous lawsuit--stranger things have happened; but as troutman points out, it is also possible that she has a legitimate claim. The courts aren't cash machines, and lawyers know this. Most personal injury lawyers work on contingency, which means that the chances of success (or at least of a decent settlement) have already been assessed by someone with more knowledge of the law than you or I have, and who also has access to all of the facts in the case.
Does that mean this
isn't a frivolous lawsuit? Heck, no; I don't know the answer to that any more than you do. But you can rest assured that courts in Canada aren't eager to compensate people for injuries (even severe injuries) that are caused by their own stupidity. For instance, take a look at their decision in Hanke v Resurfice, where they didn't compensate a zamboni driver who was severely burned after putting water into the fuel tank of his zamboni.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200.../2007scc7.html
It would be interesting to look at the pleadings in this case...