In Vegas, they had a pothead fall asleep at the wheel and run into a group of inmates cleaning the highway. She killed about a half dozen inmate serving time for minor, non-violent crimes. Now they are no longer allowed to use inmates to clean the highways.
So someone broke a law and killed some people and now the citizens are punished. Another reason I have no need to go to Vegas.
How again are the citizens being punished in this case? The crux of the problem would be liability for any future injuries/deaths as a result of the use of convict labor whether voluntary or not.
No the citizens are being punished because a cost effective penal plan is stopped because someone else broke the law. Tort reform would fix the liability issue, but I prefer "Can't Do the Time, Don't Do the Crime!"
Doing the time does not include a death sentence on a highway though. How would tort reform fix the liability issue exactly?
Well better not get on the highway because you never know when a meteor may hit. Limits on the money that are paid to the lawyer and oh yeah the "victim's" family. If the criminals did not violate the law they would not have been there. See the point above about meteor's.
You do understand the concept of probabilities, right? The key is the known probability of death or injury and the forcing of that risk upon someone. Just as your employer takes on that liability so does any governmental agency that puts anyone to work, including criminals. How would that prevent a wrongful death suit in any way? Or for that matter several wrongful death suits? This is not connected to the problem at all. Not a valid legal defense though. Death or injury are not part of their punishment under the law. Thus, placing them in a position of known risk to life and limb then becomes the liability of whomever puts them in that position without adequate safeguards, such as training, equipment, and the like. And the reply to it. :lol:
Yep, what is the probability of 6 prisoners getting killed by a versus a meteor? The liability and wrongful death suit should be on the driver, but enough greedy ambulance chasers will take the case on contingency hoping to get money out of somebody. They would probably include the manufacturer of the vehicle as well. That is why we need tort reform.
The probability is a little difficult to explain since I am using data given in two separate forms. http://www.udel.edu/ccr/risk/jayjock/risktext.htm For example, you will see that the risk of dying in an automobile is between 10-1 and 10-2. The risk to smokers of smoking related disease is greater than 10-1. The risk of being killed by a meteorite is 10-11. The probability of being struck and killed by a meteorite is 1:100,000,000,000, which is pretty high and does nto change regardless of location, which is very important. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a1.htm During 1992--2005, highway incidents remained the leading cause of fatal occupational injury, with rates that remained nearly constant, from 0.96 per 100,000 workers in 1992 to 1.0 in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a1.htm#tab http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a1.htm#fig1 The probability fo being struck and killed while working on the road is about .6 in 100,000 based on these 2005 figures. This is specific to a workplace only but shows there is about a 600,000 greater chance of a single person being killed while working on the highway than being killed by a meteorite. No, the state would bear some liabilty as well as they put them into an area with a known higher risk of death and injury, especially if the act was mandatory. It has nothing to do with ambulance chasing at all. It is clear law. No, this is not related at all to the situation.
but you did not compare probabilities for 6 people dying on the side of the road versus a meteor.:mrgreen: Does the state also bear some liability if a tornado struck the jail and those 6 died? It is mandatory because they broke the law and there should be consequences. You have more faith in ambulance chasers than I do. The way the contingency works is they go after whoever they think they can make a dollar on. Perhaps you should review the Award winning bad lawsuits. I personally think #4 reflects the possibilities of suing the manufacturer in this example.
No, that would be an even higher figure and I did not want to confuse you ... :lol: :lol: No, because there is no probability of such an occurance happening in any particular area over another. No, I am speaking of the merits of the case not of ambulance chasers. The case would have merit with any attorney regardless. You can sue anyone to an extent, but you cannot win in many cases. In any case this is far outside the situation of liability for the government.
Just to be clear, I am well aware of problems with the civil courts, probably more than you can imagine. There are suits that should never be brought and in many states the attorney has a duty to ensure the claim is valid, which is sometimes very poorly handled.
The Stella Awards give no citations to actual cases, so there is no way to determine whether they are real cases or not, and what the actual facts of the cases might be. For another view, see: http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx
Would not confuse me. I like how you are trying to confuse people. The probability of 6 people dieing on the side of the road are not as likely hence making that one closer to the chance of by a meteor. Given that a good attorney for the government could argue based on your response below in reference to the tornado. You have been the one stating the government would be liable and hence they should not allow prisoners to clean up trash on the side of the road.
No, as the figures were normalized to the individual level, which resulted in a lower figure to compare. The odds of six people being struck and killed by a meteorite is FAR higher than that of an individual because it limits the size of the meteorite to one large enough to kill six people at one time. That removes the impacts of a smaller one which could still kill an individual. The odds of six people being killed by a car are less because the data was provided on a per person basis and the number of people would increase the odds since a vehicle can kill one or six easily with the same impact. They could argue but they could not win, which would be the important point. The odds of being struck by a tornado or meteorite does not change within a limited geographic area but the odds of being struck by a car while working does. I have stated they were liable yes, and they are just as is every employer has a level of liability for every employee. The additional liability for the government comes from the greater restriction on the ability of the person to make an individual decision.
That site only rebukes the naming of the Stella Awards. Personally I have been meaning to spill a large cold drink in my lap and following her case. Mental anguish and all. For $7 you get all the facts for those cases.
We could be here all day advancing our differing opinions. My hypothesis is that inmates should be cleaning up litter on the right of ways without regard to the liability or consequences due to the actions of one individual and thus continuing a very effective penal punishment.
Why should I pay $7.00? There is a uniform system of citation for all cases that have gone to any state or federal appeals court, that could easily be shown following the case name, if they are in fact real cases. That site belongs to the Academy of Trial Lawyers of America, and gives a great deal of information about the law and legal cases. If you scroll down the page, you will see that it debunks earlier "Stella awards" cases, although it doesn't include the current crop.
because they are trying to make money. It's a capitalist thing. They did the research and by providing the uniform citation it would be easier for you to get court facts without paying them $7.00 for the research and also they may include other documents that were not filed. Personally I do not care and would not pay the $7.00 I just love reading them urban legend or not. Now that is a fair and informative unbiased site(much like Foxnews). Lawyers are very similar to politicians in my mind.....wonder why so many lawyers are politicians? One of the best things they do in law school (for lawyers) is remove common sense from the students brain. It helps the lawyers make more money that way
