Sometimes read (but only aloud) as “the friendly article” for the sake of propriety.
This. Healthcare (and your money one way or another) is being systematically plundered by medical device companies trying to ensure they can monopolise a slice of the pie by using proprietary protocols.
1 Like
Modern Theatre lights do have the sockets to take them. But the cameras aren’t always fitted because the other infrastructure is often hellishly expensive and subject to the proprietary lock-ins that @LDoBe referred to. They are a good idea there for all the reasons you describe, but only if they’re rolled out into an environment with the kind of no-fault compensation system that I described above.
It really varies from state to state, and I say that as someone with the classic “shoe box” cassette recorder right here on my desk and connected to the phone line. I think this setup was one of Radio Shack’s more popular packages. I always advised people having relationship problems to get one ASAP for when their ex drunk dials to make threats, which are legal and comedy gold when you get them on tape.
You’re right, there are some people in the world who would need both. I should have said mostly unnecessary. But I am still curious if you do get a printed sheet of instructions at discharge from hospital in the US.
Adding full anaesthesia where it’s not really needed maximizes shareholder value. Nevermind the effect it may have on the patient, medical services in the US are for profit.
In the state of Indiana, the state gets half of punitive damages. Tort reform types are responsible for that.
1 Like
Interesting - I wasn’t aware of that. Seems like a conflict to me, but I guess if that’s how they do…
States have different laws about when conversations may be recorded. In California, no conversation which is “private” may be recorded unless both parties consent (ie. it is a two-party consent jurisdiction). As with every other aspect of the law, there are exceptions. For instance, there is some kind of exception for police/people investigating a crime (I’ve had to deal with it before, but I always forget how it specifically works). Also, another exception: courts hearing domestic violence/related restraining orders here regularly grant persons the right to record any contacts/attempted contacts by the party against whom a restraining order has been granted.
That being said, if I were presented with these facts in CA (a guy hits record not with the intention of secretly recording a private conversation, but with the intent to record medical advice given to him by his doctor) I think there is a really good possibility you would be able to get it into evidence (no, its not hearsay because the information would not be introduced to prove the truth of the matter being asserted, and also, it would fall under the “party admission” exception in any event). To my mind, it is really more of an interesting rules of evidence issue than anything else.
Is that true (in Indiana half of punis go to the state)? If so, that is insane… “Hey, sorry the drunk driver killed your grandmother, you definitely deserve punitive damages for your loss… With the caveat that the state gets to wet its beak…”
Hey, thanks for your thoughts. Ok, in a very brief nutshell: I think it can be useful to think of the United States Constitution as a sort of last line of defense about how/what rights states can regulate/diminish. States can (generally) provide more protections for civil liberties/privacy rights than the Federal Constitution, but they can not go below the minimum standards provided by the Constitution .
Defamation is ultimately a First Amendment issue, and there are several important 1st Amendment cases which focus in particular on defamation. The most famous Supreme Court case that I am aware of (with the caveat that I am not a First Amendment scholar) is New York Times v. Sullivan (on the Wikipedia page look at the “Recent Developments” section for a quick run down of important later defamation cases). This, and the related cases establish what basic limitations must apply to a defamation claim.
The basic/generic version of the Constitutional limitations on defamation that one learns when studying for the bar (which means it is illustrative only) and which is a result of this ruling, is that if a person is a PUBLIC FIGURE, or speaking about a PUBLIC ISSUE, then the speaker must make a false statement of material fact with “actual malice” (the speaker knows the statement is false, or makes it with reckless disregard as to its falsity). Basically, without this case (or really a later case from the same line of cases, but you get the point), there would be no Daily Show for us to all enjoy.
If on the other hand, the person on the receiving end of the nasty comment is just an ordinary Joe, then the generic rule is that where the statement is a 1) false, 2) statement of fact (opinions are fine. For instance “that guy is a jerk” would generally be ok, whereas “that guy has hepatitis C and is a thief” would probably not be ok, 3) which is untrue, 4) harms a persons reputation, and 5) is published to a third party, then you might be in business for a defamation claim. Also, some statements are considered to defamation per se. Usually stuff like accusing people of committing crimes of having serious diseases, but that is sort of a whole different topic.
I do agree that I’ve never heard of any state defamation laws getting thrown out; I suspect that is because they (the state defamation laws) all got changed to be brought in line with the NY Times v. Sullivan ruling in the 60s. I also think that is why not too many of these cases make it to the Supreme Court (none that I can recall in recent memory actually, but that doesn’t mean much) -this area of the law is fairly well ironed out at this point, and the Supreme Court probably doesn’t feel like they have to grant cert on cases because the appeals courts generally iron out any goofy problems that may happen at the trial court level using the well established/robust defamation law.
But if for instance, if a state passed a law making it defamation to call people “short”, unless there was just something extremely weird going on, it would probably get ironed out under Constitutional principles at the trial court level, and almost certainly at the appellate or state supreme court level.
To answer your question: no one would have any problem whatsoever appealing a wonky state trial court ruling that made a hash out of Constitutional defamation protections. Again (I know I am repeating myself, but I wanted to answer directly), I think one doesn’t hear about this much because it is a pretty well ironed out corner of the law.
Sorry for the long post. Cheers.
PTSD is a real medical diagnosis with long term effects and costs.
A friend in hospital administration had a tough week, partly due to that hospital taking this story very seriously. She mentioned last night that departments and procedures differ, but it is common for a patient’s clothes and personal items to be bagged and brought with the patient into the procedure on the low shelf under the gurney.
Not relevant, in the “I never find out about the bomb” situation presented.
Well the wrongful death damages by themselves aren’t punitive, and neither are damages arising from the events that affect you directly. Just the punitive portion. I don’t think the state would be able to help itself to the proceeds of damages that “make whole” without at least a due process constitutional challenge. I don’t agree with it, but the reasoning is that it will discourage frivolous lawsuits. But as legal evils in the tort system go, I’m more concerned about medical malpractice damage caps.
Using a real broad/theory of the law sized brush:Tort law is divided (more or less) into two main branches, intentional torts, and negligence.
Negligence requires that damages (of some kind or another) occur, Intentional torts do not require actual damages.
By way of example, PERSON A tries to punch PERSON B in the face, but misses. He would still be culpable for assault.
In another scenario, PERSON A is texting while driving a car (and so is negligent) and almost crashes into PERSON B. No damages (unless you can get to negligent infliction of emotional distress, but for this example we’ll exclude that as a possibility) and so no negligence claim.
That being said, I am having a hard time thinking of how one would/could properly sue the person who didn’t connect the wire in your hypothetical about the assassination plot. (The tort of) Battery requires that a harmful or offensive touching occur, Assault requires that the person is aware of the attempted harmful or offensive touching. Kind of a fun thought experiment that I am going to have to let percolate a bit.
Indeed. Which is why there should be strict statutes about how much money “emotional distress” can be worth.
… and once again I find that my disagreements with the majority opinion here can be traced back to centuries-old cultural differences, in this case, the difference between Common Law and Civil Law.
I’m just used to Civil Law’s much clearer distinction between private law and public law.
Basically, everything meant to punish and deter belongs to the sphere of public law, while private law is just intended to redress specific wrongs.
So, regarding @baudzilla’s example:
Private law decides how much the plaintiff deserves to get how much the plaintiff deserves to get as a compensation for actual damages done. No actual damages, do compensation. Public law decides how much the guilty party needs to be punished. Here, the law specifies whether a failed attempt is a punishable offense, or whether negligence is to be punished.
For me it just feels wrong to impose any kind of punishment without the added protections provided for by public law. It also feels wrong for someone to profit from someone else’s punishment. If PERSON A is a bad person and needs to be punished, it’s the pubic prosecutor’s job, not PERSON B’s job, to make that punishment happen. PERSON B should get whatever is needed to compensate for the crime, but not more.
Sounds like this has always been different in Common Law, so I should just put any disagreements down to “cultural differences” and move on before this topic closes.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
