NationStates Jolt Archive

http://http://gatewaynet.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20070724/1118809230.htm&sc=1110

ok, what the fuck? I can see if you were injured, but sueing over memories? get over it lady!

Link isn't working for me

I'm gettin an error, too, but it could be work.

That said, emotional damages is a stretch here IMHO.

I remember hearing about it on the news. Cash money, please.

http://http://gatewaynet.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20070724/1118809230.htm&sc=1110

ok, what the fuck? I can see if you were injured, but sueing over memories? get over it lady!

A frivolus lawsuit that needs to be tossed. Problem is, she will probably win.

People are always filing bogus shit in this city. The links not working, but I bet she wants the case heard in the Bronx too. Basically the problem is the UBAR inefficient and corrupt court system here.

its an example of todays world people will do anything if it makes them rich quick. except work.

another example of Lancaster "I don't know fuck all about law but I will pretend to" County, aka corny.
Disagree. This is an absurd lawsuit. "Emotional distress" lawsuits are already tenuous but one based on a pipe accidentally blowing out is begging to get tossed.

A frivolus lawsuit that needs to be tossed. Problem is, she will probably win.

another example of Lancaster "I don't know fuck all about law but I will pretend to" County, aka corny.

Just thought i'd throw in a working link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_re_us/manhattan_explosion;_ylt=AimvEYEeqYku_e7Zk_S.b7pvzwcF)

I can understand this bringing back bad memories for her based on her sisters death but I don't agree with the lawsuit

She's from long island. So I doubly hate her now. :mad:

She's from long island. So I doubly hate her now. :mad:

that would explain it. at least she's not from jersey.

another example of Lancaster "I don't know fuck all about law but I will pretend to" County, aka corny.

So tell me why this should be heard! I am dying of curiosity.

So tell me why this should be heard! I am dying of curiosity.

res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur

You couldn't have just said "It speaks for itself" instead of making me google latin phrases :p

You couldn't have just said "It speaks for itself" instead of making me google latin phrases :p

Hah. Well that's the literal translation. Technically it means "the act would not have occured but for the negligence" We don't need to prove the negligence, it's assumed in the act.

Much like pipes exploding is the sort of thing that doesn't typically happen if people were doing their jobs.

Technically it means "the act would not have occured but for the negligence" We don't need to prove the negligence, it's assumed in the act.
That sounds more like the translation of an Asian three word set.

res ipsa loquitur

You can not explain it? Thought so.

You can not explain it? Thought so.

Ya mean how he explained it fully, not two posts and just three minutes before you made this post?

Huh...

So that's what causes those plumes of steam. I always wondered.

Ya mean how he explained it fully, not two posts and just three minutes before you made this post?

Huh...

And pray tell where did he explain it? This is more about pain and suffering than neglect. Do you have any idea how hard it is to check every pipe in a city as large as NY?

On top of that, Con Edison is doing all it can to 1) Clean up the area and reimburse people and 2) strengthen the energy delivery systems.

Also from the con edison website:

Additionally, Con Edison is continuing to work with businesses in the area to understand the nature of their damages. Customers are asked to file claims with the company for the value of business fixtures and equipment, or goods and merchandise spoiled or damaged by the event. The company also has agreed to pay for the cleanup, both in buildings and on the streets and sidewalks.

So it looks like they are doing all that they can to remedy the situation and paying for damages already as is right.

So that's what causes those plumes of steam. I always wondered.

Actually, manhattan sits atop a huge geologically active rift, causing geyser like plumes of steam to erupt through the sidewalks and, occasionally, explode. The government just tells people that it's Con-Ed, so no-one panics.

Actually, manhattan sits atop a huge geologically active rift, causing geyser like plumes of steam to erupt through the sidewalks and, occasionally, explode. The government just tells people that it's Con-Ed, so no-one panics.

Cool! Just like 'Volcano', then. With fewer Californians.

And pray tell where did he explain it? This is more about pain and suffering than neglect.

....what?

OK, if I must then I must, alright, here we go. First off, there is no claim in civil law of "neglect". It doesn't exist. The claim is "negligence". If you're going to talk about law, get it right. The claim is negligence. Secondly, "pain and suffering" is not a claim, it is a form of damages.

The claim is negligence, the damages are pain and suffering.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to check every pipe in a city as large as NY?

Nope. And neither do you. But I bet Con-Edison does. Want to know why? Because that's their job.

On top of that, Con Edison is doing all it can to 1) Clean up the area and reimburse people

The fact that they're cleaning up the area is in no way indicative of the fact that they may have been negligent in the first place

and 2) strengthen the energy delivery systems.

Again, the fact that they're doing it NOW doesn't in any way weaken the claim that they were negligent THEN.

Also from the con edison website:

Oh their website said that, then it MUST be true. You know what? I bet Vioxx's website said that too.

Now that I need to spend some time on this, here we go. A standard negligence claim has three main elements. That the defendant had a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff.

So is there a duty? You betcha, they have a duty to adequatly maintain their infrastructure.

Did they breach that duty? Maybe. Can't say for now. ONe can argue (and i would) that this is an instance of res ipsa, which is to say, a steam vent blowing up is not the sort of thing that happens unless someone screwed up, so we know they breached their duty, it wouldn't have happened if they didn't.

But even if you don't go that then it's an argument for discovery. And I don't care how hard it is to fix the pipes. That is their job. Whether or not they adequatly did that job is a discovery matter, and frankly speaking you have NO clue what so ever whether they did it adequatly or not, their website not withstanding.

Finally, causally related injury. Again, is she injured? Possibly. Emotional distress is recognized as a valid injury (and by the way, "pain and suffering" is something different, kk?). If she suffered emotional distress, that's a valid grounds for recovery.

So why would this get tossed? It MIGHT get tossed if on discovery it is revealed they weren't negligent (again, you have no clue on this, and assuming they don't make a successful res ipsa argument) or if she can't demonstrate damages, but there's nothing in this article ot suggest that either of those are true.

She has a case as of now. What discovery will reveal is something to be seen, but you have absolutly no clue, none what so ever. And claiming as such just makes you look stupid.

So it looks like they are doing all that they can to remedy the situation

Again the fact that they are doing what they can to remedy the situation in no way invalidates the claim that the situation was caused by their initial negligence.

and paying for damages already as is right.

And doesn't the fact that they are paying for damages kinda suggest to you that they recognize the possibility that this is their fault?

Finally, causally related injury. Again, is she injured? Possibly. Emotional distress is recognized as a valid injury (and by the way, "pain and suffering" is something different, kk?). If she suffered emotional distress, that's a valid grounds for recovery.

Emotional distress in this case is flimsy at best. The emotional distress wasn't caused by the pipe exploding but by previous incidents that she thought the pipe exploding reminded her of. Her emotional distress was a pre-existing condition. I'm not even going to go into on how an accident 'causing' emotional distress derived from a different incident is absurd as proof for causing damages. Or how the best maintenance can't keep stuff like this in perfect condition forever.

Emotional distress in this case is flimsy at best. The emotional distress wasn't caused by the pipe exploding but by previous incidents that she thought the pipe exploding reminded her of. Her emotional distress was a pre-existing condition.

actually no it was not, according to her claim. Her emotional distress was, itself, not a pre-existing condition. The emotional distress was CAUSED by the explosion, which triggered the memory of a prior traumatic event. 9/11 might have made her vulnerable to the emotional distress, but it was not, itself, pre-existing, according to her claim

She was perhaps MORE suceptible to emotional distress caused by shit blowing up outside her office than the average person, but that's not really important.

....what?

OK, if I must then I must, alright, here we go. First off, there is no claim in civil law of "neglect". It doesn't exist. The claim is "negligence". If you're going to talk about law, get it right. The claim is negligence. Secondly, "pain and suffering" is not a claim, it is a form of damages.

Indeed however, it is the Pain and suffering that is being played up more than the negligence charge. Teh_Pantless_Hero even says that this case is asking to be thrown out. She aslo has to prove that Con Edison did not maintain the pipes that ruptured.

Con Ed is doing all that they are obligated to do. I would like to see what evidence she has that the pipe was not maintained at all.

The claim is negligence, the damages are pain and suffering.

True

Nope. And neither do you. But I bet Con-Edison does. Want to know why? Because that's their job.

You are right it is their job. And that does not detract from the point I was making. It is very difficult to do so, especially in a city as big as New York.

The fact that they're cleaning up the area is in no way indicative of the fact that they may have been negligent in the first place

May have been being the key word and it is up to the prosecution to prove it.

Again, the fact that they're doing it NOW doesn't in any way weaken the claim that they were negligent THEN.

Which has yet to be proven. Innocent until proven guilty you know or is that no longer the case in the American Judicial System?

actually no it was not, according to her claim. Her emotional distress was, itself, not a pre-existing condition. The emotional distress was CAUSED by the explosion, which triggered the memory of a prior traumatic event. 9/11 might have made her vulnerable to the emotional distress, but it was not, itself, pre-existing, according to her claim

From the Boston Herald:

Dorf’s attorney, Kenneth Mollins, said Dorf suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and "a legacy of fear" from the 2001 attacks

actually no it was not, according to her claim. Her emotional distress was, itself, not a pre-existing condition. The emotional distress was CAUSED by the explosion, which triggered the memory of a prior traumatic event. 9/11 might have made her vulnerable to the emotional distress, but it was not, itself, pre-existing, according to her claim
Exactly, a memory. The emotional distress was caused by the death of her sister in the terrorist attack and triggered by her reaction to the pipe explosion which only happened because of the terrorist attack. From her reaction, I would assume she was emotionally distraught after the terrorist attacks and that led to an on-going condition of "oh no, I'm going to die in a building collapse like my sister."

Indeed however, it is the Pain and suffering that is being played up more than the negligence charge. Teh_Pantless_Hero even says that this case is asking to be thrown out.

Pantless is about as bad about talking about law as you are. His analysis was wrong.

She aslo has to prove that Con Edison did not maintain the pipes that ruptured.

Yes, she does, prove it more likely than not. And maybe she can, we don't know that.

Con Ed is doing all that they are obligated to do.

We don't know that do we? She claims they are not. That's the point.

I would like to see what evidence she has that the pipe was not maintained at all.

"not maintained at all" may not be the same as "not maintained adequately". Regardless of that, we don't know what evidence she's going to find in discovery. That is the POINT after all of discovery. If you presuppose what discovery is going to yield, there is no point of having discovery in the first place, or even a trial at all. The whole point of discovery is to uncover evidence. That's why we have it.

You are right it is their job. And that does not detract from the point I was making. It is very difficult to do so, especially in a city as big as New York.

And yet, it's still their job. Yes, it may be a difficult job, but they took that difficult job, and as such resumed the responsibility. Incompetance by laziness is not a defense "I couldn't do the job I chose to do" is not a defense.


May have been being the key word and it is up to the prosecution to prove it.

the WHAT?

Which has yet to be proven. Innocent until proven guilty you know or is that no longer the case in the American Judicial System?

Wow. So the PROSECUTION has to prove that the defendant is not INNOCENT in a civil trial? Do I have that right? That's a new one to me...

Exactly, a memory. The emotional distress was caused by the death of her sister in the terrorist attack and triggered by her reaction to the pipe explosion which only happened because of the terrorist attack. From her reaction, I would assume she was emotionally distraught after the terrorist attacks and that led to an on-going condition of "oh no, I'm going to die in a building collapse like my sister."

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she had a pre existing condition and this made it WORSE. That still doesn't change anything. Maybe she had an underlying problem and this situation worstened it. That's still damages. That's still a claim.

If I have a bad knee and you hit it with a baseball bat and make it worse, I still can recover from the fact that you broke my fucking kneecap worse than it was before.

From the Boston Herald:

again, which was made worse by this specific act. Seriously, the fact that you said that the prosecution has to prove the defendant guilty and not innocent already shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she had a pre existing condition and this made it WORSE. That still doesn't change anything. Maybe she had an underlying problem and this situation worstened it. That's still damages. That's still a claim.Triggered and worsened are the same thing?

If I have a bad knee and you hit it with a baseball bat and make it worse, I still can recover from the fact that you broke my fucking kneecap worse than it was before.
Oh please, with all your high and mighty crap you have got to know that is an incorrect comparison.

In addition, if a veteran is at home and a group is holding a fireworks show within seeing and hearing distance of that person's home, should he be able to sue them if he has a post-traumatic episode? That is what is happening here. Actually, what is happening here isn't even that because a pipe blowing out is out of their control.

Pantless is about as bad about talking about law as you are. His analysis was wrong.

Funny. He seems to be more on firm ground here than you are when it comes to emotional duress, pain and suffering or whatever.

Yes, she does, prove it more likely than not. And maybe she can, we don't know that.

Agreed. We do not.

We don't know that do we? She claims they are not. That's the point.

A point she and her attorney has to prove.

"not maintained at all" may not be the same as "not maintained adequately". Regardless of that, we don't know what evidence she's going to find in discovery. That is the POINT after all of discovery. If you presuppose what discovery is going to yield, there is no point of having discovery in the first place, or even a trial at all. The whole point of discovery is to uncover evidence. That's why we have it.

Agreed.

And yet, it's still their job. Yes, it may be a difficult job, but they took that difficult job, and as such resumed the responsibility. Incompetance by laziness is not a defense "I couldn't do the job I chose to do" is not a defense.

No one said it was. I am just pointing out that it is very difficult to go inch by inch and examine all the pipes. And how do we know that it was not? For all we know, and pantless pointed this out, it was and it still exploded. No neglect there if that is the case.

the WHAT?

I am sure you are familiar with the word. You are a lawyer after all.

Wow. So the PROSECUTION has to prove that the defendant is not INNOCENT in a civil trial? Do I have that right? That's a new one to me...

It is up to the Prosecution to prove the defendent guilty. It is up to the defense to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the Prosecution. Are you sure you are a lawyer?

again, which was made worse by this specific act. Seriously, the fact that you said that the prosecution has to prove the defendant guilty and not innocent already shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Oh My God. If you truly are a lawyer, and now I am seriously doubting it, you should know that a pre-existing condition (PTSD in this case) can not be used to win damages. In the name of all that is holy, you should go back to law school and stop hammering me for my lack of knowledge when it comes to law.

Oh My God. If you truly are a lawyer, and now I am seriously doubting it, you should know that a pre-existing condition (PTSD in this case) can not be used to win damages. In the name of all that is holy, you should go back to law school and stop hammering me for my lack of knowledge when it comes to law.
I'm pretty sure you don't prove anyone guilty or innocent in a civil case. In fact, the defendant is not on trial, not exactly anyway.

Oh please, with all your high and mighty crap you have got to know that is an incorrect comparison.

In addition, if a veteran is at home and a group is holding a fireworks show within seeing and hearing distance of that person's home, should he be able to sue them if he has a post-traumatic episode?


Speaking of incorrect comparisons. Setting off fireworks (provided they are professionals and follow all safety regulations) is not negligence. That is actually the definition of NOT negligent.

You only get to recover if you are injured and that injury is caused by someone doing something WRONG. Breaching a duty. What duty did someone breach by setting of a fireworks display?

That is what is happening here.

No, it's not.
Actually, what is happening here isn't even that because a pipe blowing out is out of their control.

Really? you SURE about that? You're an expert in pipe maintenance? You know what kind of maintenance is done on these things? You know what it takes ot prevent them, you know what can be prevented and what cant?

If that piple blew up because they failed to maintain it you better fucking believe it was in their control. They could have fixed the pipe.

Seriously, both of you, fucking incompetant

Oh My God. If you truly are a lawyer, and now I am seriously doubting it, you should know that a pre-existing condition (PTSD in this case) can not be used to win damages.

Holy crap are you an idiot.

If I have a pre-existing condition, and I am harmed ABOVE AND BEYOND my pre existing condition because of the defendant's negligent act, you better fucking believe I can recover. All that is required is that it makes it WORSE. That's it. I can be a basket case, but if you do something negligently and it makes my condition WORSE, I can recover because, you guessed it, you made me WORSE.

In the name of all that is holy, you should go back to law school and stop hammering me for my lack of knowledge when it comes to law.

When you actually manage to demonstrate one single shred of knowledge about the law, I will be amazed, mr "the prosecution in a civil trial has to prove the defendant guilty and not innocent"

I'm pretty sure you don't prove anyone guilty or innocent in a civil case. In fact, the defendant is not on trial, not exactly anyway.

Wow, talk about the dumb leading the blind. Oh well, half credit anyway, you got the first part right.

Triggered and worsened are the same thing?


Oh please, with all your high and mighty crap you have got to know that is an incorrect comparison.

In addition, if a veteran is at home and a group is holding a fireworks show within seeing and hearing distance of that person's home, should he be able to sue them if he has a post-traumatic episode? That is what is happening here. Actually, what is happening here isn't even that because a pipe blowing out is out of their control.

You really are functionally illiterate aren't you?

Walking into the "negligence requires a duty" response to this. Shooting off fireworks isn't negligent, a person doesn't have a duty 'not to shoot off fireworks' &c &c &c

Speaking of incorrect comparisons. Setting off fireworks (provided they are professionals and follow all safety regulations) is not negligence. That is actually the definition of NOT negligent.
Irrelevant point. They would have caused damage using your definition of causing damage still making them liable for a lawsuit.
And they would have a "duty" to shoot off fireworks if they were contracted to do it.

No, it's not.
Yes it is. The steam pipe triggered a post traumatic event. It didn't itself damage anything.


Really? you SURE about that? You're an expert in pipe maintenance? You know what kind of maintenance is done on these things? You know what it takes ot prevent them, you know what can be prevented and what cant?
Freak accidents happen regardless of maintenance. Are you admitting a pre-existing bias against the company?

Seriously, both of you, fucking incompetant
And you can't fucking spell captain high and mighty, physical assault to post traumatic event comparison person.

Irrelevant point. They would have caused damage using your definition of causing damage still making them liable for a lawsuit.
And they would have a "duty" to shoot off fireworks if they were contracted to do it.

What? I mean seriously what the fuck? I think NG is right, functionally illiterate.

Go back and READ my post. No, seriously, read it. Note where I said "there first must be a breach of duty". Did you ignore that? Can you read? Are you just willfully ignorant?

It's RIGHT FUCKING THERE, read it you dolt. You first much breach a duty AND THEN that breach must cause injury. It's not JUST injury. Here, I'll even repeat it for you:

Now that I need to spend some time on this, here we go. A standard negligence claim has three main elements. That the defendant had a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff.

If I, fully in compliance with the law, following all reasonably prudent precautions, having secured all necessary permission, set off fireworks...what duty have I breached? Where's the breach in your example? Where is the second element? Did you even read?

God people are stupid.


Yes it is. The steam pipe triggered a post traumatic event. It didn't itself damage anything.

Post traumatic events aren't emotionally damaging? The courts would disagree.

Freak accidents happen regardless of maintenance.

And sometimes shit happens because people didn't do their job. Which one is the case here? I don't know, that's what trial discovery is for

Are you admitting a pre-existing bias against the company?

Are you claiming you know what discovery will say before discovery happens? Fucking psychic you are.

And you can't fucking spell captain high and mighty, physical assault to post traumatic event comparison person.

Oh no, I'm writing this post quickly and not bothering to spell check. That TOTALLY invalidates everything I said.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, the two of you just shouldn't even try. And by the way, because courts have recognized BOTH emotional injury and physical injury, there is no need to seperate the two. I can recover if my injury is physical or emotional.

This thread is the perfect storm, the two most ignorant and stubbornly stupid posters on NS are both arguing with a lawyer about how the law works.

Holy crap are you an idiot.

Nice ad homin.

Nice ad homin.

Yes, thank you, I thought it was too. Care to actually address the argument that preceded it?

No? Got nothing? Completely in over your head here? Thought so. Pretty par for the course for you corny.

What? I mean seriously what the fuck? I think NG is right, functionally illiterate.

Go back and READ my post. No, seriously, read it. Note where I said "there first must be a breach of duty". Did you ignore that? Can you read? Are you just willfully ignorant?

It's RIGHT FUCKING THERE, read it you dolt. You first much breach a duty AND THEN that breach must cause injury. It's not JUST injury.

God people are stupid.
I'm sure I can make an argument correct here but I'm about to leave.


And sometimes shit happens because people didn't do their job. Which one is the case here? I don't know, that's what trial discovery is for
And you don't any more know that it wasn't a freak accident than I know it wasn't negligence.


Are you claiming you know what discovery will say before discovery happens? Fucking psychic you are.
Right back at ya.


Oh no, I'm writing this post quickly and not bothering to spell check. That TOTALLY invalidates everything I said.
I suggest you switch to Firefox. And calling some one incompetent while misspelling it shines poorly on your own competency.

Seriously, the two of you just shouldn't even try.
But your argument gets lamer as it goes.

This thread is the perfect storm, the two most ignorant and stubbornly stupid posters on NS are both arguing with a lawyer about how the law works.

And the lawyer is not being incompetent? No matter how smart you are, we are all ignorant of things. Even things we study for a living.

This thread is the perfect storm, the two most ignorant and stubbornly stupid posters on NS are both arguing with a lawyer about how the law works.

It's kind of like watching a car accident in slow motion isn't it?

Yes, thank you, I thought it was too. Care to actually address the argument that preceded it?

No? Got nothing? Completely in over your head here? Thought so. Pretty par for the course for you corny.

Either that, or I just choose not to argue with someone who is so prideful that it makes him look very arrogant even when in the face of being proved wrong by one poster who is not a lawyer.

the world is full of opportunistic scum-bags.

she will devote all her effort into the suit now,neglecting her normal responsibilities. Her work will tie of her taking bogus "sick" days and get rid of her. and ten years down the road,she'll be an even older, bitter bag.

If she was driving and went into the crater, I could see it.

She's going to use the "afraid of smoke" angle and her late sister as a prop.

I bet her sister would be proud.

Either that, or I just choose not to argue with someone who is so prideful that it makes him look very arrogant even when in the face of being proved wrong by one poster who is not a lawyer.

LOL

You truly are priceless Corny!

And you don't any more know that it wasn't a freak accident than I know it wasn't negligence.

Oh, you're quite right, I don't know, and in fact I admitted I do not know. here's the difference between us though.

Find me one point where I said she will win.

Go on, find it for me. Show me where I said she's going to win. Just once, please. See you guys claimed that she WOULD lose. I said we need more evidence, but she COULD win. I only ever said she COULD win. Not that she would.

BIIIIG difference there.

I suggest you switch to Firefox. And calling some one incompetent while misspelling it shines poorly on your own competency.

Sure, talk to my employer about installing it. Until then IE it is.

But your argument gets lamer as it goes.

There's an old adage (actually, not that old given that I just made it up) that goes "just because you're incapable of understanding it doesn't make it wrong"

And the lawyer is not being incompetent?

Nope, everything I said is 100% correct.

No matter how smart you are, we are all ignorant of things. Even things we study for a living.

True. However in this case I'm absolutly right. As I said, just because you're incapable of understanding the argument doesn't make it wrong.

Either that, or I just choose not to argue with someone who is so prideful that it makes him look very arrogant even when in the face of being proved wrong by one poster who is not a lawyer.

now, remind me again where did you prove anything? What did you prove exactly? That someone can't recover for a pre-existing condition.

yes, that's true.

However, I never ACTUALLY said that (again, your incompetance and failure to read doesn't make you right). What I DID say is that making a pre-existing condition WORSE is still an injury one can recover for.

Now, if you want to keep arguing that you can't recover for a pre-existing condition, feel free. But you know, you may want to restrict yourself to arguments people are ACTUALLY making.

And wait, remind me again, which one is the prosecutor in a civil action? And which one has to have their guilt proven?

Isn't New York a 'zone of danger' jurisdiction for negligent infliction of emotional distress, or did that change recently?

And the lawyer is not being incompetent? No matter how smart you are, we are all ignorant of things. Even things we study for a living.

You've both made factually false statements. He hasn't made any false statements. You, that in a civil trial, the "prosecution" tries to prove the "defendant" "guilty." Pantless, that a fireworks display would be the equivalent of the case at hand, after it was already explained to him that the case at hand is a negligence case, which an ordinary fireworks display is not.

What you two reading whizzes can't seem to comprehend (reading comprehension is fundamental) is that at no point has art claimed that the lady is going to win her case, just that she does indeed have grounds to sue.

If nothing else, her suit would establish, during discovery, whether or not the company was negligent when the pipe blew up.

You reading and thinking whizzes seem to believe, for some reason that you can't articulate, that because you don't think she'd win her case, she has no grounds to sue and the case should be thrown out.

What you've had explained to you is that whether or not she will win is dependent upon the evidence of the case, which you aren't privy to.

Her ability to win is evaluated differently from her ability to sue, but you two reading and thinking whizzes seem unable to comprehend that when you read.

You've both made factually false statements. He hasn't made any false statements. You, that in a civil trial, the "prosecution" tries to prove the "defendant" "guilty."

Don't put defendant in quotes there. Defendant is the acceptable term in both civil and criminal cases. Prosecution and guilty of course don't belong in any discussion of civil law.

The rest of your post was spot on.

However, I never ACTUALLY said that (again, your incompetance and failure to read doesn't make you right). What I DID say is that making a pre-existing condition WORSE is still an injury one can recover for.

I take it you do not know just how bad PTSD is. Now tell me, how is a steam pipe explosion going to make it worse? It can not. Anything resembling what a person went through will set off a PTSD attack. that is probably what occured here. Now the question one has to ask one's self is if she does have PTSD, it should be documented and what form it is in. These forms are acute, chronic, or delayed.

Now, if you want to keep arguing that you can't recover for a pre-existing condition, feel free. But you know, you may want to restrict yourself to arguments people are ACTUALLY making.

PTSD is treatable. Wether it is curible or not, I do not know.

Isn't New York a 'zone of danger' jurisdiction for negligent infliction of emotional distress, or did that change recently?

1) I know nothing particular about that, but I'm not sure why that would still be an affirmative defense

2) negligent infliction of emotional distress is slightly different than negligent maintenance which resulted in emotional injury.

I take it you do not know just how bad PTSD is. Now tell me, how is a steam pipe explosion going to make it worse? It can not. Anything resembling what a person went through will set off a PTSD attack. that is probably what occured here. Now the question one has to ask one's self is if she does have PTSD, it should be documented and what form it is in. These forms are acute, chronic, or delayed.

PTSD is treatable. Wether it is curible or not, I do not know.Enter Corny, the medical expert. A true Homo Universalis.

Don't put defendant in quotes there. Defendant is the acceptable term in both civil and criminal cases. Prosecution and guilty of course don't belong in any discussion of civil law.

The rest of your post was spot on.

Roger, not a real lawyer myself just yet ;)

A frivolus lawsuit that needs to be tossed. Problem is, she will probably win.

Why? It's idiotic and any judge who doesn't toss it is incompetant.
I live in NYC, and I was here during the attack. Does that make me a winner in the Tragedy Jackpot?

People need to stop being stupid and making those who really DO suffer look like total sleezes.

I take it you do not know just how bad PTSD is. Now tell me, how is a steam pipe explosion going to make it worse? It can not. Anything resembling what a person went through will set off a PTSD attack.

Fucking BINGO. Bolded part for emphasis. You just proved my point. She suffered an attack by being exposed to a situation.

Said situation was triggered, allegedly, by an underlying breach of duty.

So, they did something wrong which triggered an emotional meltdown.

Gee, that seems like duty, breach, causation and injury to me. The fact that she was more likely to suffer an emotional meltdown than the average person is irrelevant. He PTSD makes her an eggshell plaintiff. That doesn't help them at all.

that is probably what occured here. Now the question one has to ask one's self is if she does have PTSD, it should be documented and what form it is in. These forms are acute, chronic, or delayed.

Even if your argument was in your favor (it aint because at best her PTSD makes her an eggshell plaintiff) this is, AGAIN, a matter for discovery, which, as stated, has not happened yet.

So how could you in any intellectual honesty call this case frivolous when you just admitted you don't know the full facts?

Gee, I wonder...

PTSD is treatable. Wether it is curible or not, I do not know.

Totally irrelevant

Enter Corny, the medical expert. A true Homo Universalis.

Um...this information is readily available. I have a friend who suffers from PTSD. I did research on it to make sure my facts there was right.

And pray tell where did he explain it? This is more about pain and suffering than neglect. Do you have any idea how hard it is to check every pipe in a city as large as NY?

On top of that, Con Edison is doing all it can to 1) Clean up the area and reimburse people and 2) strengthen the energy delivery systems.

Also from the con edison website:



So it looks like they are doing all that they can to remedy the situation and paying for damages already as is right.

Never mind they ignored the infrastructure until it is failing every six months -- blackout last summer, people in Queens ten days without electricity?

1) I know nothing particular about that, but I'm not sure why that would still be an affirmative defense

Because it sounds like she wasn't in the zone of danger so she has no case.

2) negligent infliction of emotional distress is slightly different than negligent maintenance which resulted in emotional injury.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The emotional distress was caused by the pipe exploding, surely? Hence she would have to be: in the zone of danger, physically injured, or witness a relative getting chopped from the explosion to make a recovery for the infliction of emotional harm. (Provided the rules haven't changed in the past few years.)

Then there is the whole unforseeability issue.

Why? It's idiotic and any judge who doesn't toss it is incompetant.

*sigh* not again. OK, tell me, which of the four elements of a negligence claim has she not alleged sufficient facts to substantiate?

On what grounds should a judge dismiss it?

As NG said, whether or not she will WIN is totally seperate to whether she can bring the claim. On what legal grounds should a judge toss it? What rule?

Um...this information is readily available. I have a friend who suffers from PTSD. I did research on it to make sure my facts there was right.

Corny, I think this will boil it down for you.

If it is possible that there was breach of duty in the pipe explosion, and she thinks she was harmed by it, she can sue.

During that suit, that possibility and her thoughts will be evaluated against evidence, and if there actually was negligence, which means a breach of duty and harm, then she can win.

See how the "can sue" and "can win" are based on completely different things.

Fucking BINGO. Bolded part for emphasis. You just proved my point. She suffered an attack by being exposed to a situation.

An attack from a condition she is allegedly already diagnost to have. Ergo, it is a pre-existing disease.

Said situation was triggered, allegedly, by an underlying breach of duty.

Triggered an attack from a pre-existing disorder. I would love to know if she was actually diagnost with PTSD. If so, then the damages can be thrown out. The only way it would work is if she was diagnost with delayed PTSD. Then maybe she could actually win.

So, they did something wrong which triggered an emotional meltdown.

You forgot the word allegedly before they did something wrong.

Gee, that seems like duty, breach, causation and injury to me. The fact that she was more likely to suffer an emotional meltdown than the average person is irrelevant. He PTSD makes her an eggshell plaintiff. That doesn't help them at all.

Seems to me, you already have made up your mind about this case.

Even if your argument was in your favor (it aint because at best her PTSD makes her an eggshell plaintiff) this is, AGAIN, a matter for discovery, which, as stated, has not happened yet.

And yet, your arguments seem to indicate that Con Ed is guilty before all the evidence is collected.

So how could you in any intellectual honesty call this case frivolous when you just admitted you don't know the full facts?

Gee, I wonder...

Gee I wonder indeed. Just like you saying that Con Ed was negligent before you quickly added the word allegedly.

Totally irrelevant

Not really.

Because it sounds like she wasn't in the zone of danger so she has no case.



I'm not sure what you are getting at. The emotional distress was caused by the pipe exploding, surely? Hence she would have to be: in the zone of danger, physically injured, or witness a relative getting chopped from the explosion to make a recovery for the infliction of emotional harm. (Provided the rules haven't changed in the past few years.)

Then there is the whole unforseeability issue.

Oh ok I see what you mean. Wasn't clear what you were talking about. Yes, this is a good argument. Honestly I don't know what PARTICULAR rules there are for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but what I meant is this:

There is a specific claim "negligent infliction of emotional distress" which has a very specific prima facie elements.

One can also argue a different form of emotional distress, one that isn't in and of itself emotionally damaging, but had an eggshell plaintiff problem.

In other words, and this depends on state, some places you can argue "you did something that was, by itself, emotionally damaging".

You can also claim "you did something that, was, by itself, negligent, not necessarily typically emotionally damaging, but you did SOMETHING negligent and because of my eggshell plaintiff status, caused me emotional damages).

In which case the emotional distress is the damages, but not a breach that in and of itself is typically outragious or offensive (but still negligent).

Again, this varies by state.

You can also claim "you did something that, was, by itself, negligent, not necessarily typically emotionally damaging, but you did SOMETHING negligent and because of my eggshell plaintiff status, caused me emotional damages).


Yeah. That won't flush in New York.

I imagine they are just looking for a cost of defense settlement in any case.

An attack from a condition she is allegedly already diagnost to have. Ergo, it is a pre-existing disease.



Triggered an attack from a pre-existing disorder.

Yes, exactly. She was already emotionally frail, this emotional frailty caused her injury when the pipe exploded.

Look up "eggshell plaintiff rule"

Seems to me, you already have made up your mind about this case.



And yet, your arguments seem to indicate that Con Ed is guilty before all the evidence is collected.



Gee I wonder indeed. Just like you saying that Con Ed was negligent before you quickly added the word allegedly.

Show me where I said "they are negligent" other than in the context of discussing what she CLAIMED.

She CLAIMED they were negligent. I have no particular position one way or the other. I merely note that they MAY have been, and she MAY have suffered injury. Not that either of those are true.

I have said, numerous times, that this is what discovery is for. I have no fucking clue if she'll win or if they were in fact negligence.

I lack enough information to make such claim. So do you. Unlike you I never ACTUALLY said she was going to win. But you said she had no claim, and that's entirely wrong.

And by the way, stop saying "guilty" it makes you look silly.

Not really.

Ya rly. How is whether or not it may be cured relevant to whether she suffered damages now.

Yeah. That won't flush in New York.

I imagine they are just looking for a cost of defense settlement in any case.

maybe. Zone of danger stuff is...wierd, sometimes. Arguably a pipe exploding across the street might place her in the zone of danger, but it is a good argument.

And to address the main argument, about the judge "throwing it out". A judge can only throw out a case in two situations (that are relevant here).

Either she failed to allege sufficient facts to substantiate her claim, OR that she has not demonstrated sufficient evidence after discovery so that a jury can find in her favor.

She has alleged sufficient facts, that's been done. And discovery hasn't been done yet (so we have no reason to suspect one way or the other).

So how can you people say it should be dismissed? because YOU don't THINK she can win? Well, fortunatly, judges are not bound by how you feel. They're bound by the law. Regardless of what they THINK about a case, they can only dismiss it in narrow circumstances. And since discovery hasn't happened yet, they can only dismiss it for failure to allege sufficient fact, and to me, she has.

Whether she can ultimitly PROVE those alleged facts is an entire other story, but nobody here, NOBODY is privy to inside con-ed information. So nobody has ANY way of saying one way or the other. There are no legal grounds, in my opinion, for the judge to dismiss this case. "I think it's stupid" is not a legal reason, and please, I challenge you all, find me a rule of relevance.

Zone of danger as Lac mentioned MIGHT do it, but I'd have to know the specific case law to say more.