As sick as I am of these insufferable tabloid disappearances in which the spouse, invariably, is the culprit and everybody in American knows it, but the media continue to press on as if there's genuine mystery involved, I have to comment on the latest development in the cruise-ship, honeymoon disappearance story. No matter how the case ends up, all parties involved sue the nearest deep pockets for as much cash as they think they can get away with...
Family of Missing Honeymooner (finally) Files Suit; Bride Settles Separately
Now that the family of George Smith -- the missing honeymooner whose trip on Brilliance of the Seas last summer ended in tragedy -- has finally filed the lawsuit it's been threatening against Royal Caribbean for what seems like eons, get ready for a new spate of stories on the subject.
According to media reports, the Smith family, which has been oddly hostile to their daughter-in-law through the whole process, is filing the lawsuit because of emotional distress resulting from Royal Caribbean's "shocking" and "atrocious" behavior. They also allege that Royal Caribbean contaminated the crime scene.
I think both the widow and the family should be ashamed of themselves. First, why is it the fault of Royal Caribbean that a drunken husband, angry at his wife, either falls off or is pushed off the boat in the middle of the night? Tell me how is the boat responsible for that?
Then tell me how in the process of investigating and defending itself, Royal Caribbean caused emotional distresss for the family? Their emotional distress probably stems from the knowledge that their daughter-in-law probably whacked that guy in the head with something and then pushed him over the railing. All that "emotional distress" is nothing but a bunch of jury-tested, legal terminology guaranteed to reap the biggest reward, that some trial lawyer told them to say. And how does a pile of money that you didn't earn help you get over the loss of your son?
And Royal settled with the daughter because it's probably cheaper than defending in court. That's why we need in this country, a loser pays civil legal system. It would greatly deter lawyers from encouraging people to sue the you-know-what out of each other. As it stands now there is no penalty for bringing and then losing firvilous law suits. A guy can sue left and right without penalty until he finally gets a jury or judge stupid enough to award them something. If the loser had to pay all court costs and the defendants legal costs, you would see the number of ridiculous law suits clogging up the courts reduced by 90% I would be willing to bet.
Infliction of emotional distress...gimme a break!
2 comments:
I totally agree with your take on this story. I am reminded of situations in which cigarette smokers who get cancer sue tobacco companies for the bad decision they made. Ditto for the drunken couple.
Nobody who turned 16 before say 1970 can claim they didn't know that 1-nicotine is addictive, 2-cigarette smoke contains nicotine, and 3-cigarette smoke contains about 60 other known or suspected carcinogens, and can cause cancer among other diseases. Every one of those cases should be thrown out because at some point, people have to take responsibility for their own health and safety. Stupid decision-making on their part does not constitute liability on the part of the tobacco company whose product they chose to consume with the knowledge of the risks.
It's about grabbing money that doesn't belong to them.
Post a Comment