Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sueing a pickpocket

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sueing a pickpocket

    I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed).
    The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down
    her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a
    pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if
    so, how much might you get?



  • #2
    Sueing a pickpocket


    "John Seeliger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if so, how much might you get?
    Just a question, do you think someone who has lots of money in the bank
    pickpocketed your relative? In most cases you would be lucky to recover
    original loss.
    seek punative damages
    I think you mean punitive, and you need a California jury for that....





    Comment


    • #3
      Sueing a pickpocket

      "Mike J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected] t...
      "John Seeliger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
      I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing
      down
      her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and
      if
      so, how much might you get? Just a question, do you think someone who has lots of money in the bank pickpocketed your relative? In most cases you would be lucky to recover original loss.
      No, but since this is not a priority case for the police, the guy might
      never be prosecuted (even though he was caught on tape at Target using one
      of the credit cards and the security gaurd got his licence plate #), so this
      would just be something to dissuade him from doing this again.
      seek punative damages
      I think you mean punitive, and you need a California jury for that....
      I see the smiley, but I don't get the joke. I remember when the People's
      Court was in California, people got, from time to time, punitive damages.

      Then again, you never know where the Texas legislature will set non-economic
      damages in pickpocket cases with its new found power.

      John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent


      Comment


      • #4
        Sueing a pickpocket

        John Seeliger wrote:
        John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
        Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest
        beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the
        ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral
        upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees
        and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.

        BTW, what does "Republican" have to do with it?
        --
        Theodore A. Kaldis
        [email protected]

        Comment


        • #5
          Sueing a pickpocket

          "Theodore A. Kaldis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          John Seeliger wrote:
          John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
          Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
          For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not
          just medical. Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors. It
          doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.
          Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. Does $250 K seem a
          fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
          BTW, what does "Republican" have to do with it?
          Not a lot, in this case. The opponents came from diverse groups, such as
          the Eagle Forum and the NAACP, but I mentioned it because the leading
          proponent was Gov. Perry himself.


          Comment


          • #6
            Sueing a pickpocket

            John Seeliger wrote:
            Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
            John Seeliger wrote:
            John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
            Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
            For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not just medical.
            But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I wouldn't
            worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the exact
            percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over 50%. Why do
            you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise
            suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their own.
            Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors.
            Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is going to
            have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he still has his
            licence.
            It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.
            It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury
            awards.
            Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering.
            To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical costs, as
            well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively expensive
            that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the state? And thus
            some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in Texas?
            Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
            Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million. No
            amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been done. But
            greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving
            survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So why
            should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?
            --
            Theodore A. Kaldis
            [email protected]

            Comment


            • #7
              Sueing a pickpocket

              "Theodore A. Kaldis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]
              John Seeliger wrote:
              Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
              John Seeliger wrote:
              > John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the
              biggest
              beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to
              spiral
              upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical
              fees
              and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
              Forgot to mention that your initial question seems to indicate that you
              bought into the lie that Prop 12 was the great battle of Armegeddon between
              doctors and lawyers. Since 49% voted agains it, and many of them were not
              lawyers, it nullifies that theory.
              For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not just medical.
              But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I wouldn't worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the
              exact
              percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over 50%.
              If you have so much distrust in lawyers, why do you favor giving them such
              power? At least in a courtroom, a numerical advantage (i.e. buying many
              high-powered attorneys) doesn't gaurantee success. But in the legislature,
              buying off enough Representative and Senator plus the Govenernor does.

              Why do
              you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their own.
              I am not an expert as to Constituional law, but AIUI, the Prop was passed to
              ensure that legislation wouldn't be ruled unconstituional.
              Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors.
              Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is going
              to
              have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he still has
              his
              licence.
              I wouldn't know. Do you have stats to prove your point?
              It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the
              incentive.
              It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury awards.
              Then why did proponents always want to point out that some 50-60% of all
              Texas doctors have been sued and that only 15% of these suits were
              successful? I NEVER, NEVER heard them say what percentage of these lawsuits
              were for non-economic damages above $250 K, which are the only cases that
              this would apply to anyway.
              Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical costs,
              as
              well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively
              expensive
              that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the state? And thus some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in Texas?
              I am not convinced that Prop 12 will really fix the problem.
              Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
              Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million.
              No
              amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been done.
              But
              greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So
              why
              should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?
              By that logic, why even award damages for pain and suffering at all? So
              what? So you suffered. We can't take that back and awarding you money
              won't take that away.

              Pain and suffering awards should in some way mitigate the suffering the
              invidual experienced and $250 K would not provide enough mitigation for the
              worst types of injuries. Perhaps the legislature should just sit down and
              make the tough decision of deciding what the caps on different types of
              indivual injuries should be. How much is a broken leg worth? Broken arm?
              Severe burn? Paralisys? Blindness? Amputation. Etc. But to cap all
              damages without considering individual injuries seems to me to be wrong.


              Comment


              • #8
                Sueing a pickpocket

                John Seeliger wrote:
                Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
                John Seeliger wrote:
                Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> John Seeliger wrote:
                >> John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
                > Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest> beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the> ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to> spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher> medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
                Forgot to mention that your initial question seems to indicate that you bought into the lie that Prop 12 was the great battle of Armegeddon between doctors and lawyers.
                What makes you think that it's a lie?
                Since 49% voted agains it, and many of them were not lawyers, it nullifies that theory.
                The airwaves over Texas were covered with ads for and against it, were they
                not? And virtually all of the ads for it claimed to be financed by some
                "public interest" group. But a little investigation will reveal that these
                "public interest" groups are actually lawyers.
                For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not just medical.
                But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I wouldn't worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the exact percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over 50%.
                If you have so much distrust in lawyers,
                I don't distrust lawyers, it's just the ambulance-chasers amongst them that I
                don't like.
                why do you favor giving them such power?
                What power?
                At least in a courtroom, a numerical advantage (i.e. buying many high- powered attorneys) doesn't gaurantee success. But in the legislature, buying off enough Representative and Senator plus the Govenernor does.
                Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. It's human
                nature, you're not going to change it. The best you can hope for is to
                design a system that keeps these factors in check.
                Why do you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their own.
                I am not an expert as to Constituional law, but AIUI, the Prop was passed to ensure that legislation wouldn't be ruled unconstituional.
                Don't count on that. Where are California Props 187 and 209 today?
                Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors.
                Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is going to have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he still has his licence.
                I wouldn't know. Do you have stats to prove your point?
                Not handy. But any doctor who is convicted of a serious case of malpractise
                is going to have his ticket pulled.
                It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.
                It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury awards.
                Then why did proponents always want to point out that some 50-60% of all Texas doctors have been sued and that only 15% of these suits were successful? I NEVER, NEVER heard them say what percentage of these lawsuits were for non-economic damages above $250 K, which are the only cases that this would apply to anyway.
                The morons who sit on juries these days have the attitude, "oh well, it's
                only the insurance company's money anway". But where does the insurance
                company get its money, except from you and me?
                Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering.
                To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical costs, as well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively expensive that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the state? And thus some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in Texas?
                I am not convinced that Prop 12 will really fix the problem.
                But the lack of a cap on non-economic damages is certain to exacerbate it.
                Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
                Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million. No amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been done. But greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So why should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?
                By that logic, why even award damages for pain and suffering at all?
                Good point. You're right, why should they? I can't think of a good reason.
                So what? So you suffered. We can't take that back and awarding you money won't take that away.
                It certainly won't.
                Pain and suffering awards should in some way mitigate the suffering the invidual experienced and $250 K would not provide enough mitigation for the worst types of injuries.
                But who is paying the money? The negligent doctor who caused the injury, or
                all those who have to pay more to buy health insurance?
                Perhaps the legislature should just sit down and make the tough decision of deciding what the caps on different types of indivual injuries should be.
                Why not $0, as you suggested above?
                How much is a broken leg worth? Broken arm? Severe burn? Paralisys? Blindness? Amputation. Etc.
                How can you put a price on any of these?
                But to cap all damages without considering individual injuries seems to me to be wrong.
                While forcing me, as a customer of health insurance, to pay for it isn't?
                --
                Theodore A. Kaldis
                [email protected]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sueing a pickpocket

                  "Theodore A. Kaldis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  John Seeliger wrote:
                  Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
                  John Seeliger wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> John Seeliger wrote:
                  >>> John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent>> Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the
                  biggest
                  >> beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly
                  the
                  >> ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to>> spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher>> medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it
                  passed.
                  Forgot to mention that your initial question seems to indicate that you bought into the lie that Prop 12 was the great battle of Armegeddon
                  between
                  doctors and lawyers. What makes you think that it's a lie?
                  Because many people who are not lawyers (such as myself, as you pointed out)
                  or had any economic interest in it, strongly opposed it
                  Since 49% voted agains it, and many of them were not lawyers, it
                  nullifies
                  that theory. The airwaves over Texas were covered with ads for and against it, were
                  they
                  not? And virtually all of the ads for it claimed to be financed by some "public interest" group. But a little investigation will reveal that
                  these
                  "public interest" groups are actually lawyers.
                  Yes, but how do you account for the voters, themselves?
                  > For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of
                  lawsuit,
                  > not just medical.
                  But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I
                  wouldn't
                  worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the exact percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over
                  50%.
                  If you have so much distrust in lawyers,
                  I don't distrust lawyers, it's just the ambulance-chasers amongst them
                  that I
                  don't like.
                  why do you favor giving them such power?
                  What power?
                  The power to decide what types of lawsuits are worthy of caps and which are
                  not. Then again, you seem to think the real problem is excessive awards, do
                  I wonder why you say "Or rather I would [worry too much about this]"? If
                  they pass caps, it would be what you want, right? And if they don't, then
                  we are no worse off (excessive-judgement-wise) than if Prop 12 hadn't
                  passed.
                  At least in a courtroom, a numerical advantage (i.e. buying many high- powered attorneys) doesn't gaurantee success. But in the legislature, buying off enough Representative and Senator plus the Govenernor does. Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. It's human nature, you're not going to change it. The best you can hope for is to design a system that keeps these factors in check.
                  So, how does putting the Legislature in charge of it help? At least money
                  plantiffs and defendants in a courtroom spend on attorneys doesn't go to the
                  decsionmakers (i.e. judges and juries), whereas money special interests
                  spend does go to the politcal campaigns of the Legislatures.
                  Why do you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their
                  own.
                  I am not an expert as to Constituional law, but AIUI, the Prop was
                  passed
                  to ensure that legislation wouldn't be ruled unconstituional. Don't count on that. Where are California Props 187 and 209 today?
                  Sorry, I don't know enough about that to comment.
                  > Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors.
                  Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is
                  going
                  to have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he
                  still
                  has his licence.
                  I wouldn't know. Do you have stats to prove your point?
                  Not handy. But any doctor who is convicted of a serious case of
                  malpractise
                  is going to have his ticket pulled.
                  Will the doctor at Duke Medical Center who gave the girl organs with a
                  mismatched blood type have his ticket pulled? Since I have heard cases of
                  persons posing as doctors with false credentials going from hospital to
                  hospital, with the new hospital not knowing of the firing from a former
                  hospital because of false credentials. If non-doctors can get away with
                  that, how much more easily would a real doctor be able to hide his or her
                  past?

                  I don't normally read tx.politcs, but when you cross-posted there, I found a
                  thread "Re: Houston's FINAL RALLY AGAINST PROP 12!" in which some says:

                  <<Furthermore this $250,000 cap limits the deterrence effect where large
                  corporations are involved or where the offender is partially shielded
                  from damages by his insurance. If a doctor recklessly screws someone's
                  health up and the jury levies low punitive damages, he only ends up
                  paying higher insurance premiums while his insurance company pickes up
                  the punitive damages. So instead the jury raises the punitive damages
                  to exceed the upper limit of his insurance plus the amount the
                  physician ought to be made to suffer. This is hard on insurance
                  companies so instead of capping punitive damages, some states now
                  allow juries to levy punitive damages directly on the offender and
                  preclude his insuror from compensating him.>>

                  A good point. Suppose a hospital with millions of dollars decides it is
                  worth it to keep a doctor on with the risk of a $250K + economic damages
                  lawsuit. Maybe had the suit been millions more, they would have gotten rid
                  of the negligent doctors sooner. $250 K isn't really a lot of money
                  compared to running a hospital or maybe even the cost of educating a doctor
                  or hiring a doctor.
                  > It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the
                  incentive.
                  It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury awards. Then why did proponents always want to point out that some 50-60% of all Texas doctors have been sued and that only 15% of these suits were successful? I NEVER, NEVER heard them say what percentage of these lawsuits were for non-economic damages above $250 K, which are the only cases that this would apply to anyway.
                  The morons who sit on juries these days have the attitude, "oh well, it's only the insurance company's money anway". But where does the insurance company get its money, except from you and me?
                  What does that have to do with my point? As I said, proponents often talked
                  about how often doctors are unsuccessfully sued, but never did I hear them
                  say what percentage of frivolous lawsuits was going to be stopped by Prop
                  12.
                  > Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical
                  costs,
                  as well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively expensive that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the
                  state?
                  And thus some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in
                  Texas?
                  I am not convinced that Prop 12 will really fix the problem.
                  But the lack of a cap on non-economic damages is certain to exacerbate it.
                  > Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis,
                  or
                  > blindness?
                  Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million. No amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been
                  done.
                  But greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So why should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?
                  By that logic, why even award damages for pain and suffering at all?
                  Good point. You're right, why should they? I can't think of a good
                  reason.

                  Because it would be inhumane to not compensate someone for an injury simply
                  because they had little or no economic loss from it. Or to only compensate
                  them for the economic portion of what they lost, and not the intangible
                  aspect of it. It would also not serve to punish the perpetrater of the
                  injury.
                  So what? So you suffered. We can't take that back and awarding you
                  money
                  won't take that away. It certainly won't.
                  Pain and suffering awards should in some way mitigate the suffering the invidual experienced and $250 K would not provide enough mitigation for
                  the
                  worst types of injuries. But who is paying the money? The negligent doctor who caused the injury,
                  or
                  all those who have to pay more to buy health insurance?
                  If the purpose was punitive, it wouldn't serve much purpose to punish
                  insurers, unless they had reason to believe the doctor was negligent at the
                  time they wrote his or her policy, but from the standpoint of compensating
                  the victim, saying to him or her, "You have suffered a lot. You deserve
                  something for what you have gone through", it would have a purpose.

                  Furthermore, it would make the insurance company drop the doctor, which
                  might not happen with a sufficiently low award. Also, the idea above about
                  requiring doctors themselves the pay punitive awards, though they don't
                  likely have the money to do so, would serve the purpose of holding doctors
                  personally accountable and force doctors who are negligent to considering
                  getting out of the profession before the hurt someone in the first place.
                  Perhaps the legislature should just sit down and make the tough decision
                  of
                  deciding what the caps on different types of indivual injuries should
                  be.
                  Why not $0, as you suggested above?
                  Again, inhumane. Furthermore, if we don't allow people to sue on the basis
                  of non-economic injuries, why let them sue on the basis of economic
                  injuries? Why not just say, "Your injury makes it impossible to do your
                  job, costing you money. Tough luck. Life is unfair." That is your
                  attitude to non-economic, so why not economic damages?
                  How much is a broken leg worth? Broken arm? Severe burn? Paralisys? Blindness? Amputation. Etc.
                  How can you put a price on any of these?
                  The number would be arbitrary, but so are many things legislators decide.
                  But to cap all damages without considering individual injuries seems to
                  me
                  to be wrong. While forcing me, as a customer of health insurance, to pay for it isn't?
                  When I was still undecided on Prop 12, though leaning that way because I
                  don't support caps, in principle, an opposition group called and one of the
                  things they saud is that Prop 12 won't make your insurance go down or won't
                  keep it from going up. I tend to believe them. Insurance companies are
                  greedy and I have heard about how they keep raising rates even though their
                  profits are increasing. That is the place to cut.

                  I have not been to the doctor (excluding dentist/oral surgeon, which are not
                  covered by my plan) in several years, nor had more than about 2 or 3
                  prescriptions charged to my insurance, but Unicare, with whom I have been
                  for over 3 years keeps raising my rates (forcing me to change plans with a
                  larger deductable) about every 6 months. They just raised my rates from
                  82/mo to 97/mo, which is outragous (since it was the second or third
                  increase in a year), but I think this is a matter of insurance greed masking
                  the problem by blaming lawsuits.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sueing a pickpocket

                    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:15:50 -0500, "John Seeliger" <[email protected]> wrote:
                    "Theodore A. Kaldis" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
                    John Seeliger wrote:
                    John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
                    Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
                    For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, notjust medical. Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors. Itdoesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.
                    Actually, while demagogues through around the phrase "frivolous lawsuits," the
                    examples they use are generally of large awards. Since legislators draft laws
                    and are often lawyers themselves, they can not be unaware of the fact that
                    lawsuits which result in large judgments are by definition NOT frivolous.

                    Strengthening Rule 11 penalties would punish frivolous lawsuits. Putting a cap
                    on legitimate awards is not. It is yet another example of the trend of the
                    legislature to attempt to destroy the independent judiciary, that is to say, to
                    destroy the very basis of the "law and order" they claim they support.
                    Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. Does $250 K seem afair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
                    No. It seems like a sick joke, but it is a sick joke that is being advertised
                    heavily using your tax dollars. The legislators pushing this are pawns of Big
                    Business, Big Insurance, Big Pharm. Their interest is in the campaign donations
                    from their owners.
                    --
                    Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sueing a pickpocket

                      John wrote:
                      I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if so, how much might you get?
                      The average street pickpocket is after the cash. He'll ditch the wallet in a
                      mailbox somehwere. Chances are you'll get it back in a few months.
                      Without any real proof as to seeing the crime being committed by that
                      person, the burden is on you to prove that the defendant did the deed. He
                      doesn't have to do a **** thing.
                      Usually, they work in pairs. One does the taking, then quickly passes it to
                      his buddy. IF the PP is caught, he has no evidence.
                      Sometimes there will be a group. The prize could be passed between all of
                      them just to throw off the watching cops.
                      That's why PP is a hard case to prove. The only way to do that is to have a
                      video of the event capturing the PP's hand in the till.

                      If you carry your wallet in your back pocket, you're only asking for
                      trouble.
                      I carry mine in the front pocket. Since the pockets are deeper in front, it
                      makes picking that much more difficult.

                      If you take the PP to court, be sure you can prove it beyond a reasonable
                      doubt or he could turn around and sue you.



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sueing a pickpocket

                        John wrote:
                        "Mike J" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] t...
                        "John Seeliger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
                        I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick
                        pursed).
                        The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing
                        down
                        her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a
                        pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages,
                        and
                        if
                        so, how much might you get?
                        Just a question, do you think someone who has lots of money in the bank pickpocketed your relative? In most cases you would be lucky to recover original loss.
                        No, but since this is not a priority case for the police, the guy might never be prosecuted (even though he was caught on tape at Target using one of the credit cards and the security gaurd got his licence plate #), so this would just be something to dissuade him from doing this again.
                        In that case, you can sue him for the theft of the card, as well as file
                        criminal charges.
                        Call the security guard to court as a witness. Have the store hold the tape
                        for evidence.



                        seek punative damages I think you mean punitive, and you need a California jury for that....
                        I see the smiley, but I don't get the joke. I remember when the People's Court was in California, people got, from time to time, punitive damages.
                        as in california courts are known to award high damages for the least of
                        things.
                        Such as a cal. jury awarding $28billion to a woman for suffering from
                        asbestos.
                        Or $10 million to the woman who spilled coffee on herself in the mcdonalds.
                        Whatever it was. The judge reduced it to below a million.


                        Then again, you never know where the Texas legislature will set non-economic damages in pickpocket cases with its new found power.
                        And just how do you suppose the pickpocket is going to wind up paying the
                        damages awarded eh?


                        John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent


                        Comment

                        The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                        Working...
                        X