[TheInedibleHulk]

doesn't this board have a politics forum?

This thread is about closing a ski resort to downhillers and related issues, sounds like a good one for the DH forum to me. The political debate forum is for name calling and amendment violating.

 

[xc skier]

If we had national healthcare we'd be like Europe: super-high unemployement, over 50% of your income would go to taxes, and if you did have a job you'd buy your own personal health insurance (using what little money you have left) because the national care is so lousy that no one with a job uses it.

Wow I didn't know that over 50% of my income would go to taxes
My tax rate is 25% and accident insurance that covers private doctor fees cost about 80 Euros :nuts:
And if you have a job you can use health care offered by employer that is free also

 

[Ridemonkey]

Hi, first post

This whole mess just highlights why tort reform is so badly needed in our country. Face it, our country is full of people who will live "fast & recklessly" until something bad happens. When it comes time to face the consequences of their choices its ALWAY$ someone else's fault........

Best first post ever.

 

[BMXman]

It seems to me more people should be mad at the system that allows this type of lawsuit than the actual person bringing on the lawsuit. I myself can't say in all honestly with no doubt that I wouldn't do something similar if I were paralyzed for LIFE.....D

 

[LukeD]

It seems to me more people should be mad at the system that allows this type of lawsuit than the actual person bringing on the lawsuit. I myself can't say in all honestly with no doubt that I wouldn't do something similar if I were paralyzed for LIFE.....D

that's who i blame...along with society in general. it makes me sick here in boston a hill just got banned for sledding because "it's too dangerous and too much of a liability" sickening...everything is too dangerous and everyone is too sue happy. i'm not blaming the person involved in the accident, that's terrible what happened. for all we know he wasnt the one who sued...could have been the insurance company. whatever the case, its a sick world we live in where everyone is out to make a fortune off of everyone else and can't take responsiblity for jack sh!t.

 

[Zark]

drc, let me say RM is right, best post ever.

Are there already existing organizations for tort reform that can help lobby it in congress? It seems funny that a recreational sport needs to argue for the basic reforms that society so badly needs.

Ever since this problem has arised I've been bothered sick about it. It unsettles me that this incident illustrates a larger problem with America. Thanks for the post I learned a lot.

Now I what can we do as a collective MTB community to do about this? What you say is true, we need to contact our legislators. Is IMBA a way to do this? They can hardly keep the trails open. Organiztion is needed though, it seems like many of us are concerned enough to put in some effort, I am at least.

 

[Big Digger]

I disagree. You look before you leap. You do not hit a bridge at high speed unless you have looked at it in advance. IE: even in yoru scenario, it was rider error in a dangerous sport. NEXT.

Great, then if you get hurt and permanently disabled as the result of someone else's negligence, you be sure and cover all the costs yourself. I assure you that if it was you in this guy's spot, you'd be tripping over yourself trying to find a lawyer.

 

[TYM]

This Dick Kun guy is something else

======================

from VeloNews
Kun also pointed to the number of illegal trails being built on the mountain, which he said could be almost exclusively pinned on the downhill/freeride set.

"Guys were just riding everywhere in the woods," said Kun. "The Forest Service was really pissed off with what was going on and it probably wasn't long before they shut it down anyway."
=======================

Whatever Dick!

Well, unfortunately the dominos have begun to fall. Expect to see your favorite local trail closed within the next 5 - 10 years.

 

[Big Digger]

Hi, first post

This whole mess just highlights why tort reform is so badly needed in our country. ....

Here are some ideas:

Loser pays: If you bring a lawsuit and you lose, you pay the other party's legal expenses. Currently there is no penalty for filing a baseless lawsuit. The cost to defend yourself against such a suit can often exceed the cost of settling out of court even if you know you can win. These settlements are paid by insurance thus driving up the rates. If the person suing you has to pay your attorney fees if they lose, less frivolous suits will be brought.

Contingency Fee restrictions: If I want to sue someone, I can hire a lawyer for no $$ up front; instead they'll take 20-30% of the awarded/settled amount. This is bad for two reasons. First, the suing attorney has a direct interest in the settlement award... the more they can win, the more they can take home ($25M = $8M payday for the attorney). Second, the suing party again has no risk if they lose the suit... they owe their attorney nothing! Now if you're getting sued, you have to retain an attorney and pay them by the hour. Big difference, hence the desire to settle early to minimize your own legal costs. (again this goes away if the loser is force to pay). The maxium allow able contingency fee should be limited to 5-15% or capped at a certain $$ amount (say $500K-$1 M)

Punitive Damage Limitations: Punitive damages are meant to punish the offending party for doing something grossly wrong (such as knowingly concealing a defect). They are not meant to be a windfall for the suing party and their attorney. Punitive damage judgments should not be subject to contingency fees or be paid to the suing party. Instead, they should be paid to a charity or non-profit group. In this particular case, any punitive damages should go to further spinal cord injury research. (discretion should be left up to the judge)

Three-strikes style system for lawyers: There is currently no punishment for lawyers who repeatedly file frivolous claims. If a judge determines a case to be baseless and tosses it, the lawyer who brought the case should get a "strike". Any lawyer who acquires 3 strikes should be permanently dis-bared. (Florida just passed a similar system for Doctors and mal-practice).

drc

Here is why these are all foolish ideas:

Loser pays:
This is the same thing as "only the wealthy can take advantage of the legal system." Loser pays has the effect you desire all right--fewer suits filed. It also has the effect of making people unable to bring legitimate suits when they have been screwed because any lawsuit, no matter how righteous, can fail for reasons completely outside their merrits.

Further, the advancing the proposition that no penalty exists for filing frivilous suits is the mark of someone who does not know what they're talking about. If an action truly has no merit, a defendant may bring a malicious prosecution action once he/she/it has been vindicated. These actions can award large damages to those wrongfully sued, and further can cause the attorneys who brought them to be disciplined or even disbarred.

Contingency Fee Limitations:
Again, this is the same thing as "only the wealthy can take advantage of the legal system." In my experience, the persons most likely to be screwed are those who cannot afford an attorney (hint: that's WHY people screw them, they can't do anything about it).

This argument that they can sue at no cost because if they lose they pay the attorney nothing is absurd. It ignores the fact that attorneys will not take "frivolous" cases on contingency as the attorney has to advance the money and time (hundreds or even thousands of hours and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars) to prosecute the case. No attorney takes a case on contingency unless he believes it has merit. That's a simple business decision.

Further, the average contingency is between 33% and 45%. While that sounds like a lot, the more a claim is worth, the more work you'll do and the more risk you'll take. Less than that simply is not worth it. I'm sure you think that is BS, but that's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Punitive Damages Limitations:
This is a thinly disguised attempt to eliminate punitive damage claims. Were this the case, there would be no incentive to prove puni's because they do not go to plaintiff. Proving damages is expensive and time consuming and thus they would be effectively eliminated. The result of course, is that companies start concealing those defects and generally behaving badly, as they know they won't get hit with a punitive award. Oops.

Three-Strikes:
This is addressed above under the Contingency Fee Limitations heading.

In sum, what the tort reform people are trying to get you to do is give away your constitutional rights for the empty promise of lower insurance rates and cheaper stuff. The fact of the matter is, not one tort-reform law has EVER resulted in lower insurance rates. Further, personal injury accounts for less than 10% of all civil actions filed. The VAST majority is business suits, and if you want to talk frivilous, the most ridiculous suits you've ever seen are business v. business.

You are being played for suckers--pay attention.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Thats a pretty solid second post, a bit of taunting but all in all, pretty good. Whats going on here?? Newb's are only supposed to say stupid completely uneducated opinions as if they are empirical fact. Then everyone else is supposed to make fun of them. Get with the program guys.

 

[Transcend]

Great, then if you get hurt and permanently disabled as the result of someone else's negligence, you be sure and cover all the costs yourself. I assure you that if it was you in this guy's spot, you'd be tripping over yourself trying to find a lawyer.

No matter what you think, if it was a product of my own stupidity/bad luck, I can guarantee you that I wouldn't. I have a wrist that now functions at 50%, DH diva has a hand she will never use again...you don't see us suuing.

Granted this guys injuries were much worse, and I feel for him. But there is no excuse to sue when it was CLEARLY his fault. HE clipped the course marker, it didn't jump out and get him.

This is not the case of anyone else's negligence. This is the case of a guy riding too fast and too close to the tape. We all get close to the tape on occassions, hell i get wrapped up in it from time to time, but it is no one's fault but our own.

If you decide to leap first and ask questions later, this is no one's fault but your own. The only negligence is the agency of the rider, not that of the course buildinr, trail builder, mountain or anyone else.

Maybe it was because i was not brought up in the sue happy american culture where you can be a flaming idiot and hold a cup of steaming hot coffee between your legs and then sue mcdonalds when you scald yourself, but i just wouldn't do it. The only one i would be suuing is my insurance provider if they didn't cover it. That is what I pay insurance for in the first place.

Lawyer DO take on frivolous lawsuits, hate to break it to you. They take on lawsuits they think they can win, not that have merit. THAT is good business sense.

 

[narlus]

Granted this guys injuries were much worse, and I feel for him. But there is no excuse to sue when it was CLEARLY his fault. HE clipped the course marker, it didn't jump out and get him.

hypothetically speaking, would people's views change if he had impaled himself on the rebar and died? is that a reasonable outcome of a DH crash?

everyone loves to flog the McD's coffee suit as a frivolous one, but when you see the details underlying it, it's not so clear-cut, is it? i'm certainly no trial lawyer apologist either.

mcdonald's coffee lawsuit

 

[Echo]

Here is why these are all foolish ideas:

Loser pays:
This is the same thing as "only the wealthy can take advantage of the legal system." Loser pays has the effect you desire all right--fewer suits filed. It also has the effect of making people unable to bring legitimate suits when they have been screwed because any lawsuit, no matter how righteous, can fail for reasons completely outside their merrits.

Further, the advancing the proposition that no penalty exists for filing frivilous suits is the mark of someone who does not know what they're talking about. If an action truly has no merit, a defendant may bring a malicious prosecution action once he/she/it has been vindicated. These actions can award large damages to those wrongfully sued, and further can cause the attorneys who brought them to be disciplined or even disbarred.

Contingency Fee Limitations:
Again, this is the same thing as "only the wealthy can take advantage of the legal system." In my experience, the persons most likely to be screwed are those who cannot afford an attorney (hint: that's WHY people screw them, they can't do anything about it).

This argument that they can sue at no cost because if they lose they pay the attorney nothing is absurd. It ignores the fact that attorneys will not take "frivolous" cases on contingency as the attorney has to advance the money and time (hundreds or even thousands of hours and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars) to prosecute the case. No attorney takes a case on contingency unless he believes it has merit. That's a simple business decision.

Further, the average contingency is between 33% and 45%. While that sounds like a lot, the more a claim is worth, the more work you'll do and the more risk you'll take. Less than that simply is not worth it. I'm sure you think that is BS, but that's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Punitive Damages Limitations:
This is a thinly disguised attempt to eliminate punitive damage claims. Were this the case, there would be no incentive to prove puni's because they do not go to plaintiff. Proving damages is expensive and time consuming and thus they would be effectively eliminated. The result of course, is that companies start concealing those defects and generally behaving badly, as they know they won't get hit with a punitive award. Oops.

Three-Strikes:
This is addressed above under the Contingency Fee Limitations heading.

In sum, what the tort reform people are trying to get you to do is give away your constitutional rights for the empty promise of lower insurance rates and cheaper stuff. The fact of the matter is, not one tort-reform law has EVER resulted in lower insurance rates. Further, personal injury accounts for less than 10% of all civil actions filed. The VAST majority is business suits, and if you want to talk frivilous, the most ridiculous suits you've ever seen are business v. business.

You are being played for suckers--pay attention.

It's too bad that you felt the need to taint your post with insults and a superiority complex. Otherwise it might have been possible for an intelligent discussion between 2 people who obviously have a lot of knowledge but simply disagree.

 

[Ridemonkey]

It seems to me more people should be mad at the system that allows this type of lawsuit than the actual person bringing on the lawsuit. I myself can't say in all honestly with no doubt that I wouldn't do something similar if I were paralyzed for LIFE.....D

Then there are going to be tens of thousands of people sueing somebody every year. Soldiers in Iraq. Traffic accident victims sueing the highway department? Skiers sueing the mountains then no more skiing? Where does it end?

 

[chillindrdude]

as a future physician, i fully support tort reform. i find many malpractice lawyers to be scoundrels.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

No
Granted this guys injuries were much worse, and I feel for him. But there is no excuse to sue when it was CLEARLY his fault. HE clipped the course marker, it didn't jump out and get him.

This is not the case of anyone else's negligence. This is the case of a guy riding too fast and too close to the tape. We all get close to the tape on occassions, hell i get wrapped up in it from time to time, but it is no one's fault but our own.

Now saying that wouldn't it be more feasible to have a marker give way if someone hits it? It's a race, and from what I remember about DH racing the one that wins has the fastest time, so to try to win you have to go fast. Sometimes you don't catch that perfect line you practiced and nailed 5 times prior. I'm sure the reason for suing is to cover the medical bills and future bills which I'm sure are well over $100K at this point. I know it sucks to have a great place close down because of it, but I'm almost 100% positive Brian would rather be walking than suing SS. I don't think its fair for anyone to say they should or shouldn't sue until they are faced with something as F'ed up as what Brian is going through. I guess thats why they still use fiberglass for skiing markers, they give when you hit them.

 

[Brian Peterson]

One question... I saw something about constitutional rights in here... Where is the right to sue? Did I miss something here?

Brian

 

[dhjill]

It is HELLA EXPENSIVE to be crippled. Especially a quad. A lifetime of fulltime live-in nursing care, wheelchairs, weekly doc visits, medication, medical equipment, etc. And this is all in addition to your normal bills such as rent, heat, water, etc. Not to mention the fact that you can't feel Mr. Happy anymore. And your life expectancy is shortened.

I'm sure it's way expensive to be crippled...but again, why should Snow Summit have to pay for what appears to be rider error? I know you said you're not defending him; I'm just bringing up a point. IMO, too many people in our society are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and that's why there's so many frivilous lawsuits. Having a legal system that supports this BS just compounds the problem. The attitude that screams " I don't have the money to fixed my jacked up life, so I'll just find someone else to pay the tab" really sucks. If TBB or SS was grossly negligent and someone jacked themselves up, then I can sort of see trying to get them to pony up. Even in that case, 25 mill is pretty extreme. But in the case of rider error, to pin the blame on anyone but yourself and expect them to "pay' for it is just wrong.

 

[Transcend]

Now saying that wouldn't it be more feasible to have a marker give way if someone hits it? It's a race, and from what I remember about DH racing the one that wins has the fastest time, so to try to win you have to go fast. Sometimes you don't catch that perfect line you practiced and nailed 5 times prior. I'm sure the reason for suing is to cover the medical bills and future bills which I'm sure are well over $100K at this point. I know it sucks to have a great place close down because of it, but I'm almost 100% positive Brian would rather be walking than suing SS. I don't think its fair for anyone to say they should or shouldn't sue until they are faced with something as F'ed up as what Brian is going through. I guess thats why they still use fiberglass for skiing markers, they give when you hit them.

This if indeed a good point, but i would simply argue that he had pre ridden the course as is required. He had practiced, he was AWARE that the course markers were indeed the uber dangerous, but race standard rebar. If he was not comfortable with this risk, he should not have raced.

Of course i am playing the role of antagonist here, but I am sure you can see my point. I would agree that ina perfect world, we would have breakaway course markers, but even in skiing, the large netting supports are indeed giant steel T bars. The financial implications involved with buying hundreds of breakaway poles would make holding a race impossible as reg fees already high due to insurance, would be insane to ver this cost alone.

I can agree that his bills far exceed 100 grand, and I am sure they will probably get close to a million by the time his rehab/surgeries etc are done. I ALSO agree that he woudl prefer to walk, jesus, there is no question there. He looks to all the world like the rest of us, loving his bike (from the photos i have seen).

The difference is, he is the one suuing, and not taking full responsibility for his actions. In this case, i don't think a breakaway pole would even have helped, as they give way (flex) about 6" up the pole usually. It PROBABLY would still have catapulted him over the bars. This is hypothetical of course, as I have no idea about what exactly happenned, besides what is on his website which says he caught his pedal on the course marker.

 

[SCARY]

It's too bad that you felt the need to taint your post with insults and a superiority complex. Otherwise it might have been possible for an intelligent discussion between 2 people who obviously have a lot of knowledge but simply disagree.

He obviously has has something to gain/lose from ANY reform.Thats the complete and utter problem with the law business.All that is required to be successful is that you can spin a web of words and bull**** to convince the lay-person that you are obviously not smart enough to reeeally understand what the issues are ,so you should believe what I'm telling you ."Thats OK ,stupid people thats why you need us"Whats funny to me is in a court,one of the lawyers(if not both) is lying.How many times have you seen on "Dateline"or whatever, where somebodyin prison for 10 years has gotten exonerated with DNA or some other method.And the prosecution just can't let it go?Totally believe's THIS is the guy that did it,even though it was proven they were innocent? Law is not a game of right and wrong.It's some charismatic jackasses that make up stories and .........I gotta stop,I'm gonna blow a f'n gasket here......later

 

[OGRipper]

This is pretty emotional stuff but we should stop making generalizations about the "law business", etc. Sweeping statements like that make ME want to blow a gasket. Like any other business, there are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers. Yeah there are lots of ambulance chasers but there are also lots of people working overtime for non-profits for way less money than they could make elsewhere.

 

[Ciaran]

I'm sure it's way expensive to be crippled...but again, why should Snow Summit have to pay for what appears to be rider error? I know you said you're not defending him; I'm just bringing up a point. IMO, too many people in our society are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and that's why there's so many frivilous lawsuits. Having a legal system that supports this BS just compounds the problem. The attitude that screams " I don't have the money to fixed my jacked up life, so I'll just find someone else to pay the tab" really sucks. If TBB or SS was grossly negligent and someone jacked themselves up, then I can sort of see trying to get them to pony up. Even in that case, 25 mill is pretty extreme. But in the case of rider error, to pin the blame on anyone but yourself and expect them to "pay' for it is just wrong.

I agree with you 100%! I was merely trying to possibly show why the initial figure they are suing for is so high. I never said that SS or anyone else should have to pay for his error. Sheesh!

 

[Pegboy]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet but, I remember hearing earlier this year that a monkey was hurt at BIg bear and they would not take him down the montain in a truck due to a previous incident that I believe involved a lawsuit. I'm wondering if it is possible that Brian's paralysis was incured due to being improperly transported or moved after the actual bike accident. This is the only way I could possibly agree with his reasoning for the law suit. If the mountain had untrained people do something negligent that could have been avoided, and thus avoided the paralysis then maybe...

 

[DH Diva]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet but, I remember hearing earlier this year that a monkey was hurt at BIg bear and they would not take him down the montain in a truck due to a previous incident that I believe involved a lawsuit. I'm wondering if it is possible that Brian's paralysis was incured due to being improperly transported or moved after the actual bike accident. This is the only way I could possibly agree with his reasoning for the law suit. If the mountain had untrained people do something negligent that could have been avoided, and thus avoided the paralysis then maybe...

From what I've heard of the accident, they air lifted him off the mountain. Usually when that happens (which I've seen it happen at nationals a lot), the situation is assesed as critical and the mountain medics don't move them at all, but wait for the heli EMT's to transport the person. I don't know what care he was given on the mountain but he was air lifted and not transported on the ground.

 

[BMXman]

everyone loves to flog the McD's coffee suit as a frivolous one, but when you see the details underlying it, it's not so clear-cut, is it? i'm certainly no trial lawyer apologist either.

mcdonald's coffee lawsuit

exactly...being in the food industry we followed this case very closely...Mc D's got what they deserved...there's even more information on the lawsuit then the link above all you have to do is search...D

 

[Jeremy R]

That's possible for sure.
But even so, on most DH courses there is no good way to get somebody off of a mountain. It is just another risk we have to take.
I remember at Mt. Snow this year, this guy had a compound fracture of his femur that happened at the top of the mountain, so they layed his azz on a 4 wheeler, and drug him to the bottom. He was bouncing all over the place, but that was the only way to get him down. That 4 wheeler was really busy that weekend, because the course was evidently routed by retards who forgot to make turns. He could have sued as well. As a matter of fact, I bet every DHer on here who has been racing for a few years has a good reason for a lawsuit or two, we just don't do it. But then again, dealing with paralysis is something we have not had to go through either.
The whole situation is sour.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet but, I remember hearing earlier this year that a monkey was hurt at BIg bear and they would not take him down the montain in a truck due to a previous incident that I believe involved a lawsuit. I'm wondering if it is possible that Brian's paralysis was incured due to being improperly transported or moved after the actual bike accident. This is the only way I could possibly agree with his reasoning for the law suit. If the mountain had untrained people do something negligent that could have been avoided, and thus avoided the paralysis then maybe...

 

[BMXman]

and just for the record Pegboy has absolutely nothing to do with filing the lawsuit...I have had 3-4 people ask me how he's involved...pay no attention to those who think sarcasm can always be recognized on a message board....D

 

[-BB-]

The financial implications involved with buying hundreds of breakaway poles would make holding a race impossible as reg fees already high due to insurance, would be insane to ver this cost alone.
.

What I want to know is What is the F'n point of Race Insurance for small race promo companies if after one suit, they are going to have to fold anyway.

Can't they just set themselves up as a corporation (no going after personal property)?

People won't sue if there is nothing to be gained from it.

Also, and I hate to derail this, would Socialized Medicine help? That way he doesn't HAVE to sue for med exp. and there is no need for a big insurance Co.

 

[-BB-]

talk more about the insurance company forcing to sue? if so, and it's a necessity for him to cover medical, he should do it b/c no one here is obviously asking how we can help. there are 150+ responses, but no one is asking about helping him out...we could all get by w/ one less pair of tires for the year and put that money towards his medical bills.

what about the $25 million figure that someone posted? i can't imagine an insurance company forcing someone to sue for that much money. could that be the case? is the 25 million figure accurate? could it be the figure desired by the insurance company?

let's try to get some facts out here and figure it all out. if an insurance company tried to "force" me to do anything of the sort, i'd try to find a way around it, i hope.

I understand where you are coming from, but we are not going to be able to raise anywhere NEAR the amount he needs.
Plus there are many others in the same situation (that didn't sue), and how would that me fair to them?

 

[Silver]

Also, and I hate to derail this, would Socialized Medicine help? That way he doesn't HAVE to sue for med exp. and there is no need for a big insurance Co.

You a communist or something?

 

[chillindrdude]

Also, and I hate to derail this, would Socialized Medicine help? That way he doesn't HAVE to sue for med exp. and there is no need for a big insurance Co.

are you crazy? look at canada...would you want to wait 3-4 months just to see a specialist? socialized medicine is NOT the answer

 

[-BB-]

are you crazy? look at canada...would you want to wait 3-4 months just to see a specialist? socialized medicine is NOT the answer

If it brings back BigBear its fine with me!!

 

[-BB-]

My sister is a Doctor and from what she tells me the whole medical system is F'd.

 

[chillindrdude]

so switching another F'd up system is the answer? get real

 

[Silver]

are you crazy? look at canada...would you want to wait 3-4 months just to see a specialist? socialized medicine is NOT the answer

Anecdotal...my dad in Canada and me in California both had to wait approximately the same amount of time to see a hand specialist (for the same thing.)

Waits are a normal thing unless you're bleeding profusely or have cancer. Those people jump the line, for some reason...

 

[chillindrdude]

to see a specialist in canada...if its an emergency, obviously you will see them soon than later. but if its anything but, it will take longer when compared to the US. so you are disproving what i said on 1 account? nice

 

[Ciaran]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet but, I remember hearing earlier this year that a monkey was hurt at BIg bear and they would not take him down the montain in a truck due to a previous incident that I believe involved a lawsuit. I'm wondering if it is possible that Brian's paralysis was incured due to being improperly transported or moved after the actual bike accident. This is the only way I could possibly agree with his reasoning for the law suit. If the mountain had untrained people do something negligent that could have been avoided, and thus avoided the paralysis then maybe...

That was me.

Worst Ride EVER.

Broke my leg and had to ride back down. The SS guys wouldn't elaborate on the incident, would only say that they were not allowed to bring anyone else down due to a lawsuit claiming that they aggrivated someones injury while bringing them down. He mentioned that it was not that serious of an injury... like a broken bone or something.

Come to think of is, my leg still hurts. Where's my lawyer!? (j/k!)

My crash was totally my fault. Went into the corner too hot, and lost it. My leg hit a rock. Accidents happen in a dangerous sport.

 

[-BB-]

so switching another F'd up system is the answer? get real

Dude... this was a JOKE.
Chill out.

 

[Silver]

to see a specialist in canada...if its an emergency, obviously you will see them soon than later. but if its anything but, it will take longer when compared to the US. so you are disproving what i said on 1 account? nice

You did see the "anecdotal" at the very front of that post, right?

Right?

Right?

Still, one account is better than an assertion. Why'd I have to wait to see the specialist here? Because he's busy...it has nothing to do with insurance. Compare your average joe on average insurance to a guy in Canada, and see who comes out better. Better yet, add what you pay in insurance every year to your tax bill and compare rates. They might not be as diffferent as you think...

 

[Mani_UT]

exactly...being in the food industry we followed this case very closely...Mc D's got what they deserved...there's even more information on the lawsuit then the link above all you have to do is search...D

No way.. the person got what she deserves. A car is meant to be driven it's not a fock#^ cafeteria. Wanna eat something? Get out of your car you fatass