NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734910/

It's not that I don't think that this man shouldn't have been sued; this quote just got to me:

"They do not have tuberculosis, but nobody can say that they won't have tuberculosis either," Nguyen said of his clients. "And that will not be known, not now, not next year, but for many years in the future, so the pain and suffering that the people have gone through are real. They continue to suffer now because of the uncertainty."

It reminds me of the speech Rummy gave on "known unknowns" because the attorney uses future tense in the beginning of his statement, but says that his clients are undergoing "pain and suffering" from a disease that no one has proven they have contracted and may never contract.

Anywho, what're your thoughts on this issue?

Doesn't TB manifest itself in visible symptoms within a few days/weeks of infection?

And wasn't this the same guy the doctors told "You can go on a flight. No problem"?

I hope they get him on something akin to reckless endangerment

Doesn't TB manifest itself in visible symptoms within a few days/weeks of infection?

And wasn't this the same guy the doctors told "You can go on a flight. No problem"?

That's the thing - there was absolutely no sign that these people had TB after coming within close proximity of the man in question.

One person received a positive TB test from their skin, but even doctors agree that testing skin to see if one has TB is ineffective and not accurate.

Oh. I could only go... meh, everyone in my country probably has TB. So sue my country. :p

That's the thing - there was absolutely no sign that these people had TB after coming within close proximity of the man in question.

One person received a positive TB test from their skin, but even doctors agree that testing skin to see if one has TB is ineffective and not accurate.

That's what I don't get. If they test negative for TB, they can still sue on grounds that they 'might' get TB later on?

"Judge! His broken leg caused me to get a broken leg too 4 years down the line in an automobile crash! I demand recompense!"

Seems a bit silly.

That's what I don't get. If they test negative for TB, they can still sue on grounds that they 'might' get TB later on?

"Judge! His broken leg caused me to get a broken leg too 4 years down the line in an automobile crash! I demand recompense!"

Seems a bit silly.

Correct.

In the very least, they aren't asking for much. $100k in todays money sounds reasonable... Considering other, much more frivolous lawsuits.

By the way, those of the legal niche of society, if these people DID get TB down the line, wouldn't they be allowed to sue then, when there is actual proof that exposure to the person in question gave them TB, rather than now, when all they have is speculation and a lawyer?

Correct.

In the very least, they aren't asking for much. $100k in todays money sounds reasonable... Considering other, much more frivolous lawsuits.

By the way, those of the legal niche of society, if these people DID get TB down the line, wouldn't they be allowed to sue then, when there is actual proof that exposure to the person in question gave them TB, rather than now, when all they have is speculation and a lawyer?

the thing with suing people is you only have a short window of time to do it in, so right now I have to sue the evil woman who smashed me up on Wednesday or I may not get any money from her ever, even though I don't know how long it will take to heal or if I will need physical therapy or not, if I want her to pay my medical, I have to sue her now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734910/

It's not that I don't think that this man shouldn't have been sued; this quote just got to me:



It reminds me of the speech Rummy gave on "known unknowns" because the attorney uses future tense in the beginning of his statement, but says that his clients are undergoing "pain and suffering" from a disease that no one has proven they have contracted and may never contract.

Anywho, what're your thoughts on this issue?

There are countless class action suits filed against companies who close factories in the US - based on the idea that since a plethora of chemicals were used on-site (they collect the list of MSDS entries used at the site), it's a toxic cocktail just waiting to explode and kill everyone with cancer...

In some cases, it's true. So, rather than proving harm, they claim mental anguish, pain, and suffering from "not knowing" what may befall them.

The plantiffs' lawyer usually gets 1000 to 5000 plaintiffs together, and makes the broad claim.

Meh. If I turned out to be free from TB, I'd get a healthy O - blood syringe and inject or otherwise cause the guy to have contact with it. Let's see how HE would feel about the possibility that I gave him a serious disease. :p

Despite his flaws, Rummy brought up a highly philosophical concept we haven't looked into enough. Though I'm sure he was just bullshitting. Anyhow, the suit ought to be dismissed. If they don't have TB, then the TB patient was absolutely no threat to them. Now they could sue if they could prove that he was consciously threatening them, but I doubt that they could.

It would probably be easier to sue for mental anxiety and trauma suffered by the knowing they were in close quarters with the TB patient.

Also, seeing as his strain is lethal (I believe) the possibility that he wont be around to drain money from in the future is very real.

From Wikipedia:

About 90% of those infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis have asymptomatic, latent TB infection (sometimes called LTBI), with only a 10% lifetime chance that a latent infection will progress to TB disease. However, if untreated, the death rate for these active TB cases is more than 50%.

If they can't prove that they where not infected then I think it's fair that he's getting sued, he put others life in danger knowing that he could spread a deadly infection.

"They do not have tuberculosis, but nobody can say that they won't have tuberculosis either," Nguyen said of his clients.

He could've worded it better than that, seems alot of people are confused about what he said.

"They do not have active tuberculosis, but nobody can say that they don't have latent tuberculosis either," Aarch said of his clients.

I like my refrasing of his statement, it makes it clear that he is not saying that they may be infected with TB at a later stage, but that they might have been infected without showing any symptoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

why do people find it necessary these days to sue over anything If I was the judge I would throw the bloody c\se out of my court and tell them to stop wasting my bally time

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734910/

It's not that I don't think that this man shouldn't have been sued; this quote just got to me:



It reminds me of the speech Rummy gave on "known unknowns" because the attorney uses future tense in the beginning of his statement, but says that his clients are undergoing "pain and suffering" from a disease that no one has proven they have contracted and may never contract.

Anywho, what're your thoughts on this issue?

And people call US Americans litigious. "We might not have tuberculosis, and heck, one of us wasn't even on the plane, but LET'S SEE HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN GET!"