Anonymous wrote:THe point of punitive damages is to punish the wrong doer. A 250k hard cap gives companies an incentive to NOT be as safe as possible.

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

Anonymous wrote:Only in DC would there be pages of discussion on the minutia of a potential lawsuit resulting from this horrible tragedy. Not faulting you PPs, just observing that there are obviously a lot of law school grads in the DCUM contributor pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth can netting cause decapitation? I understand the raft was traveling at high speeds, but this is just insane to me.

There was at least one gap on the slide that did not have netting - this gap appears to be there as part of the design, not because the net got torn or anything. If a person launched up from the raft at that gap and their neck collided with the edge of that netting structure --- ^ ---- at 65 or so mph they would be badly injured.

Someone isn't going to randomly launch upwards. They're only going to launch upwards at the point where they have upward momentum, and the raft starts to turn down, which is at the top of the second hill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely heartbreaking. And to think the boy's brother witnessed it. Pray this never happens to anyone else.

Obviously this is awful for the family, but after reading that article, I also feel really badly for the other two women in the raft. I can't imagine how you get past witnessingthat. I'm not going to quote the part of the story about it for the squeamish in this thread, but that's got to be nightmare-inducing for a long, long time.

+1. I hate myself for reading that article.

Anonymous wrote:

Right. If my 35 yo DH dies as a result of a company's negligence, my family loses $300k/year for the next 30 years. But with a kid that's hard. What a weird law.

I don't necessarily find it weird, although I think the punitive damages cap is ridiculously low. To me, it makes sense that a wage earner supporting a family would be able to recover those lost wages, while a nonwage earner who is not supporting a family would not be able to.

Right. If my 35 yo DH dies as a result of a company's negligence, my family loses $300k/year for the next 30 years. But with a kid that's hard. What a weird law.

Anonymous wrote:During the trial, will the Schlitterbahn lawyers bring up the fact that the dad voted to limit regulations and limit the cap?