Update on Roofing Accident.

[DawnCt1]

Last week I posted the horrific death of a 21 year old roofer who fell into a vat of boiling tar. If that wasn't horrible enough, the reporter who wrote the story called the victim's wife and asked for a comment. In the paper it stated that "she could be heard audibly sobbing into the phone, and said "he was my husband".
To me that was as almost as awful as the death. I called the news editor of the paper and left a message. He was very diligent in returning my call and he agreed with me 100%. The reporter was new and young and felt he was doing his due diligence, which the editor said is "no excuse" but an explanation of how it got that far. The other mistake he said was that it got by the editor on duty. It shouldn't have. A memo has been sent out to the news staff discussing if and when contact with the victim's family is ever appropriate. Of course other work safety issues need to be address in this case. For instance, how is it that a large vat can be in such a location that one could fall into it?

 

[sharbear]

Good for you Dawn. Very nice of you to look out for the victim's family.

 

[dennis99ss]

Of course, don't get a lawyer involved to look after the widow's future. Especially if the vat was unsafe, there were unsafe building procedures going on, there were no safety harnesses provided, etc. Right dawnct. That would be frivilous

 

[Doctor P]

Actually, I don't think that a reporter is at all wrong for contacting widow. The widow has the right to have her story and her late husband's story told. Yes, it seems repulsive, yes it may be difficult, but it is a news story and deserves to be covered, including the family angle.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Doctor P
Actually, I don't think that a reporter is at all wrong for contacting widow. The widow has the right to have her story and her late husband's story told. Yes, it seems repulsive, yes it may be difficult, but it is a news story and deserves to be covered, including the family angle.

There is a time and a place for the widow's story to be told. The News Editor agreed with me. It was an unnecessary, insensitive and poorly timed invasion of privacy.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
Of course, don't get a lawyer involved to look after the widow's future. Especially if the vat was unsafe, there were unsafe building procedures going on, there were no safety harnesses provided, etc. Right dawnct. That would be frivilous

What could you possibly be ranting about? Did I not say that the work safety issues need to be address? Did I EVER indicate that this was a frivolous situation?

 

[Sandy V.]

I'm a lawyer too, and I'm smart enough to know that Dawn's comments weren't directed toward the filing of a lawsuit - they were dealing with the "get a story at all costs" of trying to interview a totally devasted widow whose husband died in a horrible manner.

Some people just want to bait you, Dawn - don't stoop to that level.

A lawsuit will surely be filed, but that's not what we're talking about here. Let this poor family grieve and quit sticking microphones in their faces during that process. This reporter was totally insensitive.

 

[ZachnElli]

I agree with you Dawn. Sometimes they just go too far. Last week a 21 year old man was killed in a drive by shooting. The local tv news showed his mom and his sister as they were being told the news it was their son/brother and their reaction! Dh and I were stunned! Such disrespect! I won't watch that tv news channel at all anymore!

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by ZachnElli
I agree with you Dawn. Sometimes they just go too far. Last week a 21 year old man was killed in a drive by shooting. The local tv news showed his mom and his sister as they were being told the news it was their son/brother and their reaction! Dh and I were stunned! Such disrespect! I won't watch that tv news channel at all anymore!

There is the sense that we, the viewer or the reader need to know everything at that moment without regard for the victim's privacy. I think more people are appalled at that type of reporter than are not. Most of us would be willing to "wait" for that type of news if it means that dignity and privacy are preserved for those who are bereaved.

 

[antmaril]

Dawn:

You were absolutely right. Don't let anyone make you doubt yourself. It was totally inappropriate to contact the man's wife so soon after his horrific death. It's just wrong and there is no argument in favor - period!!!!!

 

[dennis99ss]

Do I think that this woman is entitled to and deserves redress in the courts? I absolutely do. It was a dangerous and ultimately fatal situation which never should have happened.

So its ok to sue for this one, but not for faulty drugs, vaccines, etc. I know this is not the subject, but in previous posts when you blame problems and expenses on "trial lawyers like John Edwards" and then, you state that this family is entitled to redress in the courts, your position is two faced.

You cannot be in favor of this widow bringing suit, because of negligence, and be opposed to the widow, or the parent with the autistic child, or the damaged person who were injured as the result of a vaccine manufacturers negligence bringing suit. negligence is negligence. You seem to believe that just because you seem to have some connection, or knowledge of this incident, that it is meritorious, and is more deserving of court access than do others.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
So its ok to sue for this one, but not for faulty drugs, vaccines, etc. I know this is not the subject, but in previous posts when you blame problems and expenses on "trial lawyers like John Edwards" and then, you state that this family is entitled to redress in the courts, your position is two faced.

You cannot be in favor of this widow bringing suit, because of negligence, and be opposed to the widow, or the parent with the autistic child, or the damaged person who were injured as the result of a vaccine manufacturers negligence bringing suit. negligence is negligence. You seem to believe that just because you seem to have some connection, or knowledge of this incident, that it is meritorious, and is more deserving of court access than do others.

There are an abundance of frivilous lawsuits, and Edwards has been the king of faulty science. Channeling a fetus was one of his great court room stunts and yet it has been demonstrated that the increase in C-Sections has not reduced the incidence of CP.

 

[dennis99ss]

Junk science. If it was so much junk, why did the Judge allow it into evidence. Why did the jury believe it. Why didn't the doctor produce evidence to the contrary. If it is junk science, why didn't the doctor's lawyers cross examine the Plaintiff's experts and blow holes all through the testimony. Simply because you don't like a result does not mean the system is broken. There are cures for frivilous lawsuits, but limiting damages is not one of them, nor is it in limiting a general type of case. In fact, your roof case may be barred from suit. Of course, that's good for business, but not so good for the injured person.

Frivolous lawsuits are, by their very nature, barred from recovery. Frivolous lawsuits have no merit. I have yet to see a case that has a recovery that has no merit. I have seen some that go to trial and get poured out, but not ones that money is paid on.

Getting back to junk science, I would be surprised to hear that any of the testimony given by Edwards' experts was not backed up by tests and studies. I'm pretty confident that such is the case, or else it would not have been allowed into evidence, or, easily rebutted.

medical malpractice cases are some of the most difficult cases to recover on. If the doctor had evidence to the contrary, why didn't he present it, and, why didn't the jury believe it.

It is not Edwards' fault. Ever think about blaming the doctors, the doctors' lawyers, the jury.

Simply because the injury rate has not improved/declined is not evidence that the cases any one lawyer works on are not meritorious. Just because a smaller vat of tar, etc. was implemented, or, if no new rules were implemented, and no more deaths were seen does not mean that there is no negligence in your case.

 

[diznygirl]

This thread seems to have taken a left turn. Or is that a right?

 

[DawnCt1]

Dennis, where are YOU getting your flu shot this year? Oh that's right, we have no U.S manufacturers who will make it anymore.

 

[Disney Doll]

Back to the original post guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you Dawn that the reporter was insensitive. Good of the editor to admit it, and take steps to rectify the situation. If it is handled properly, it can be a good learning experience for the young reporter. Youth can be so...overzealous...sometimes, and then there is that "phase" of young people thinking they know everything about everything when they are few years out of college. I have a 22 year old nephew in that phase right now, and it is not always easy, although it is good to know someone who already knows everything...saves me the trouble of having to figure it out myself!

As far as the widow goes...I am sure there will be legal action, and I am sure she will be able to tell her story when she chooses to.

There seem to be a couple of folks who are "fighting other battles" within this post. May I respectfully suggest you save those for PMs or start another thread, and keep to the topic at hand?

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by Disney Doll

There seem to be a couple of folks who are "fighting other battles" within this post. May I respectfully suggest you save those for PMs or start another thread, and keep to the topic at hand?

What's the fun in that? How else are people going to know how important Dawn is? And how else can we allude to the fact that we know everything, just like that little jab you have in your own post?
It's a message board. Posting is what it's about, doll!

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Disney Doll
Back to the original post guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you Dawn that the reporter was insensitive. Good of the editor to admit it, and take steps to rectify the situation. If it is handled properly, it can be a good learning experience for the young reporter.

I agree, which is why I wouldn't write a letter to the editor for the op ed page.

 

[dennis99ss]

Hm, yeah, off topic....but.....but.....but

but......but......but....

I gotta...........


flu shots-----Dawn, why don't you talk about the prior mfgrs who had certain requirements on the number of doses to produce, and that these had to be produced regardless of demand, and the fact that one of the recent companies to leave the business sat on approx. 10 million doses due to the requirments.

Why not talk about the low profit margin per dose. It simply is not as profitable as viagra. It is a one time a year drug, as opposed to whenever you sit in your bathtub looking at the sunset type drug.

Why should vaccine makers not be held accountable for their mistakes. For their negligence? Why should we give them protection from their own wrongdoing?

Why don't you talk about the fact that Thimerisol is no longer in the flu vaccines. I think thats good, don't you.

Talk about no thimerisol in child vaccines. That's good, right.

Would either be the case without the civil regulation which is put into effect by lawsuits and civil liability.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
Hm, yeah, off topic....but.....but.....but


Why don't you talk about the fact that Thimerisol is no longer in the flu vaccines. I think thats good, don't you.

Talk about no thimerisol in child vaccines. That's good, right.

Would either be the case without the civil regulation which is put into effect by lawsuits and civil liability.

While pediatric (childhood diseases) vaccines have reduced or eliminated Thimerisol, you are aware that there is thimerisol in Flu vaccine, aren't you? That children receiving flu vaccine will in all probability receive a flu vaccine that contains Thimerisol. And that studies have not demonstrated any link between vaccines, thimerisol and autism. Product liability and price fixing of vaccines have made the production of vaccines unprofitable.