The Framingham man who broke his neck by diving into a wading pool may be able to recover at least some movement in his body, but faces a difficult road ahead.
"Cleber Dos Santos, 29, broke his fifth cervical vertebra when he dived from a trampoline into a shallow kiddie pool It was a two foot deep inflatable pool. That means his cervical spine should be functional above the fifth vertebra, giving him some upper body movement."
It has been all over the stations how this illegal alien is now in the hosp with no insurance, and has a wife/kid at home. He was bouncing on a trampoline, with his wife video taping the event, and trying then to bounce into the two feet of water.
He hit his head on the bottom, fracturing his neck. His wife said that she was laughing till she realized he never came back up. So she jumped in and pulled him up to the surface.
Several lawyers have offered their services to sue the trampoline and pool manufactures, as their is not warnings or labels warning the dangers of doing such things. How about suing the wife for not using correct procedure bringing the hubby to the surface, causing more damage?
Fuck that. This is a BS case. He made a decision to do this; common sense tells you not to.
It has been all over the stations how this illegal alien is now in the hosp with no insurance, and has a wife/kid at home.
Several lawyers have offered their services to sue the trampoline and pool manufactures, as their is not warnings or labels warning the dangers of doing such things.
How sad... Even if there were warning labels, they'd still sue because the labels weren't also written in Spanish.
"Cleber Dos Santos, 29, broke his fifth cervical vertebra when he dived from a trampoline into a shallow kiddie pool It was a two foot deep inflatable pool. .......... and trying then to bounce into the two feet of water.
So she jumped in and pulled him up to the surface.
How about suing the wife for not using correct procedure bringing the hubby to the surface, causing more damage?
I guess I just don't understand the whole "puling him to the surface" concept here. The water couldn't have been much more than 18 inches deep. Wasn't he pretty much at the surface already? "She jumped in and pulled him up to the surface" pretty much puts one in the mind of some dramatic rescue. Damn Liberal press!
I think what they meant by "pulling him to the surface" was the wife grabbing the husband somewhere around the fourth vertebrae, then roughly dragging him out of the pool
I think what they meant by "pulling him to the surface" was the wife grabbing the husband somewhere around the fourth vertebrae, then roughly dragging him out of the pool
With her teeth? Like a momma cat carries a kitten? That woulda been cool to see.
The real problem is there are lawyers that take cases like this, Then you wonder why everything is so expensive. The mexican may not win the lawsuit but it still costs the company to defend them selfs. lawyers like this should be disbarred.
Why can't you get affordable health insurance? because if some kid is born fucked up the first person the lawyers go after is the doctor, Never mind mom was smoking crack, drinking wine or it is simple genetics.
The real problem is there are lawyers that take cases like this, Then you wonder why everything is so expensive. The mexican may not win the lawsuit but it still costs the company to defend them selfs. lawyers like this should be disbarred.
Why can't you get affordable health insurance? because if some kid is born fucked up the first person the lawyers go after is the doctor, Never mind mom was smoking crack, drinking wine or it is simple genetics.
The real problem is that in our legal system there is no downside to filing a lawsuit. In some countries the loser and his lawyer are responsible for the legal costs to the winner. So frivilous lawsuits can quickly bankrupt attorneys willing to file them. Attorneys here would argue that such a system deters plaintiffs from getting fair access to the court.
Somewhere in between lies the answer.
Maybe a plaintiffs attorney needs to place a $25,000 bond with the court that is surrendered to the defendant if the case is lost? Or some wiser idea?
The real problem is that in our legal system there is no downside to filing a lawsuit. In some countries the loser and his lawyer are responsible for the legal costs to the winner. So frivilous lawsuits can quickly bankrupt attorneys willing to file them. Attorneys here would argue that such a system deters plaintiffs from getting fair access to the court.
Somewhere in between lies the answer.
Maybe a plaintiffs attorney needs to place a $25,000 bond with the court that is surrendered to the defendant if the case is lost? Or some wiser idea?
There is a downside - if the suit is determined to be frivolous, the defendant may be awarded attorney's fees - this just isn't enforced enough, that's the problem.
first, I doubt there are any lawyers who are willing to take a case like this. think about it for just a second. where is the liability? you don't need warning labels to know that you shouldn't jump from a trampoline into a 2 ft deep inflatable pool! u show me a lawyer who can sell that to a jury and I tell you that lawyer would be soooooo amazing he should be teaching magic tricks to david copperfield AND david blaine.
come on people use your brain and stop with the kneejerk reactions that lawyers are the root of all problems.
next, litigation has NEXT TO NOTHING to do with health insurance. litigation costs and malpractice insurance are but a very small part of doctor's and hospitals' budgets. it comes in at less than 5 percent and is less than what doctor's spend on office supplies.... give me a break.
health insurance premiums are high because the insurance companies lost their asses in the tech market crash. its plain and simple and that comes directly from YOUR administration's report on inceeasing health costs.
stop buying all the bullshit propaganda put out by the insurance companies....
I don't disagree with loser pays but do you not understand the way a plaintiff's lawyers practice works???? they will go bankrupt if they take bad cases even without loser pays....... why? because the plaintiff lawyer FRONTS ALL THE MONEY!!!!! you can't bring a decent case to trial without spending $50k minimum. so how long can a bad plaintiff's lawyer stay in practice losing $50k each time? it doesn't make any fucking sense. but people just assume there is no disincentive to filing a bad lawsuit. FUCK YEAH THERE IS! ITS CALLED LOSING ALL YOUR GODDAMN MONEY AND HAVING GRIEVANCES FILED AGAINST YOU!
or maybe you're right. maybe I should change my practice to only filing frivolous lawsuits.....i mean hell they are sure fire winners with no down side to filing and there seems to be plenty of them laying around! damn it must ne easy making millions being one of those kinds of frivolous lawyers!
or maybe I just have it all wrong. yeah that's it. you guys got it all figured out.
