I.e., mother sues herself.

That's retarded!

/Geddit?

So a pregnant lady can drown the kid in a bottle of Canadian Club a day or smoke crack and eff up her kid and all's well, but if she spins out on a patch of ice and the accident eff's up the kid, then the kid can sue her?

That's effed up.

That's effed up.

If there's one thing lawyers are good at, it's finding money. Car accidents are usually covered by insurance so there are deep pockets to be probed.

RTFA, she's effectively suing herself so that her insurance company will have to pay to take care of the kid. Well done, deserves the Hero tag.

ZAZ: If there's one thing lawyers are good at, it's finding money. Car accidents are usually covered by insurance so there are deep pockets to be probed.

Yeah, it's outrageous that lawyers don't work for free like everyone else.

Yeah, it's outrageous that lawyers don't work for free like everyone else.

If they were only taking money from each other or willing clients I think we'd like the profession a lot more.

hitchking: Yeah, it's outrageous that lawyers don't work for free like everyone else.

I get real mad when they make money from getting bad doctors to stop killing people!!

People overreact about lawsuits all the time because they don't understand what they mean. For example, the famous MacDonald's coffee case. The lady made a small amount over her actual health care costs because MacDonalds kept the coffee warmer than any other restaurant so they could keep a pot on the shelf longer. The extra heat made burns occur in under 5 seconds as opposed to 15 seconds.

As for this case, it was said above. This is to force insurance companies to cover injuries to pregnant women from car accidents.

Of course, since lawyers will make some money for making sure pregnant women get health coverage, we should hate them. Doctors and HMOs that make twice as much from letting people die? Heroes.

welcome to the liberal utopia.

Lawyers don't make the laws. Take it up with the legislator, jerkfaces.

:-O

/obvious

Careful?? Was my mother careful when she stabbed me in the heart with a clotheshanger when I was still in the womb?

This has officially gone Too Far. Fetuses are not people, and have no rights.

/there, that should piss off somebody

aimtastic: That's effed up.

not really, if a passenger was in the car and injured the passenger would be paid by the insurance company, this just allows the same thing for damage to a fetus.

FarkmeBlind: This has officially gone Too Far. Fetuses are not people, and have no rights.


as property damage to a fetus should be compensated.

captain_napalm: welcome to the liberal utopia.

Hey, dickhead, it isn't the "liberals" who think fetuses are people.

Wait. Doesn't this kinda screw with the whole abortion issue? Or for that mattor the issue of Minors not having the same legal rights as adults? A minor can't sue somebody so how can somebody sue for injuries from before they were born? Legaly they weren't defined as a person and as I understand it therefor they have no rights of any sort. Doesn't this retroactively define them as a person with rights before they were born?

Maybe Looterman has a case!

I'd like to see some people go after the mothers who were stupid enough to smoke during pregnancy.

Then again, my mother smoked when she was pregnant with me and I turned out fine. No harm no foul I guess....

Lehk: as property damage to a fetus should be compensated.

Fetuses are not property, either. If they were, then the anti-abortion crowd would have to give up their "fetus is a person" stance. They can't have it both ways.

How come this has an Interesting tag rather than a Stupid tag???

Maybe the daughter would have perferred it if she had an illegal abortion instead??? Then no one could get sued. Hell, I think in cases like this where a child is born literally a vegitable, the parents should have the choice to kill it before it develops a sense of consciousness.

/RTFA, still think it deserves a stupid tag

Hacker_X


Legaly they weren't defined as a person and as I understand it therefor they have no rights of any sort. Doesn't this retroactively define them as a person with rights before they were born?

I don't care what activist judges say. You're a person with rights the minute you're conceived. Doesn't matter what some idiot on the bench claims.

/ought to tick off some feminazis there

South Park?

I don't care what activist judges say. You're a person with rights the minute you're conceived. Doesn't matter what some idiot on the bench claims.

I'm not ticked off, I'm just curious what you're basing that on. Taking the strict constitutional approach (hardly an activist judge stance), the 14th amendment applies to persons born or naturalized in the US as receiving rights and protections. A fetus is neither.

captain_napalm

welcome to the liberal utopia.

Sorry to break your Neo-Con Truth bubble there captain but alberta is a conservative province , just look at any republicans butt and there is an Albertan ( Mr. Harper et al ) sniffing it.

I'd like to sue the doctor who was in charge of my delivery. Almost killed me and my mom off, left her in labour for 3 days, tried to break her water by using some weird screw thing but it was already broken so I have a numb spot on my head from them farking up, gave her the wrong type of blood so now she has funky antibodies, and then told her I was probably be retarded (I can join Mensa but they're way too weird).

My parents should've sued. Bloody pacifist hippies.

Vote Regressive!

Against abortion. For killing babies!

Maddox '08!

I'm not ticked off, I'm just curious what you're basing that on. Taking the strict constitutional approach (hardly an activist judge stance), the 14th amendment applies to persons born or naturalized in the US as receiving rights and protections. A fetus is neither.

Just back away... slowly... and... nobody... will... get... hurt.

Can't you recognize a fundamentalist when you see one Kepora_Gebora?

Yeah..Blue McPoo...lawyers are SO NOBLE to protect the public from bad doctors! Thats why they get 30-50% of malpractice settlements as their fees. When any talk of reducing outrageous payments are made, lawyers state that no lawyer will take the cases unless the big money is there. SO NOBLE of you parasites on society.

I know malpractice and TORT lawyers most struggle with their ethical soles for all of 30 seconds upon graduating from Parasite School...so save us your indignation.

Danagon:

I had an ethical fish too once, wouldn't eat mealworms.

Got eaten because all of its tankmates were larger.

Alberta has become the first province in Canada to enact legislation allowing children to sue their mothers for injuries suffered in the womb. But the law applies only to damage suffered in car accidents.

Are there any Alberta Farkers who can explain the rationale behind this law? What is it about car accidents--and only car accidents--that made the lawmakers of Alberta allow such lawsuits?

Fetuses are property? With very few exceptions(infertility, the woman is really ugly) aren't they ridiculously easy to replace?

Yet another good reason for abortion. Sure beats the hell out of paying legal fees years later.

BlueMcPoo: People overreact about lawsuits all the time because they don't understand what they mean. For example, the famous MacDonald's coffee case. The lady made a small amount over her actual health care costs because MacDonalds kept the coffee warmer than any other restaurant so they could keep a pot on the shelf longer. The extra heat made burns occur in under 5 seconds as opposed to 15 seconds.

---

Legal question that isn't necessarily related to the article or McDonald's:

Let's say you have a defective car that is prone to rollover due to faulty design. A family is traveling in said car, and nobody is wearing their seatbelt. The car flips over once on a curve due to the flawed design, not driver error. Everyone is severely injured, although had everyone been wearing their seatbelts the injuries would be minimal.

Should the car company have to pay full damages, or just enough to cover the minimal injuries that would have occurred had everyone been buckled up?

SwingingJohnson:

AWESOME. That pic is great.

My older sister totally wrecked the place.

Goddess of Atheism

From the article:
Rewega spent eight months in hospital. Her daughter Brooklyn was born severely brain-damaged and blind, with cerebral palsy and epilepsy. She needs expensive, round-the-clock care.

In a ruling six years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada said a child can't sue its mother for damages suffered in the womb. But the ruling also left a small and very narrow loophole, saying provinces could allow a child to sue its mother, but only in the case of a car accident.

I imagine the logic goes, mother gets into car accident. Baby is injured in a debilitating manner. As such the mother is at fault for providing bodily harm to her as yet unborn child. Ignoring the debate on whether a fetus is a person, you cannot deny that she is somewhat at fault for the situation of her child. So she sues herself, to get the insurance company to pay for the additional medical costs of her child.

I think that about covers it. Ignore my previous post, I was trying to troll and get some snickers from people. But nobody is giving me any damn candy.

hitchking: Yeah, it's outrageous that lawyers don't work for free like everyone else.

Lawyers are scum. They don't do work, they chase ambulances and file idiotic lawsuits like this one. They file frivolous lawsuits against decent people, wrecking their lives, just to boost their paycheck. And save me the whole, "we're protecting you from malpractice!" speech. You parasites eat 90% of the settlement money and the actual victim gets the leftovers. Lawyers today have no morals, no sense of right or wrong. They aren't fighting for us, they're fighting to inflate their wallet and they'll sue anyone who gets in their way.

Lawyers don't make the laws

The change in law in Massachusetts allowing children to sue their parents for injuries suffered in car accidents was made by lawyers, not the elected legislature.

Electrify

The admins changed the tag when they approved the article.

birdboy2000: Fetuses are property? With very few exceptions(infertility, the woman is really ugly) aren't they ridiculously easy to replace?

Yes.

It takes a year to make a horse, 50 years to make a tree. To replace a human takes a man, a woman, and nine months. Easy. What we don't seem to realize is that placing a definite value on a fetus is going to open some mighty large cans 'o worms.

I would have no problem with this, if it applied to mothers who, while knowingly pregnant, drank, did drugs, smoked, to such an extent as to cause permanent health/mental problems for the child. Then, only to the extent that it is used to cover medical expenses or the expenses of someone else raising the child. I'm sorry, and this may cause a war here, but I firmly believe that once you are pregnant, its not just YOUR body anymore. Your decisions will have life long affects on the child.

Now...just because there is an accident....nope.

Should the car company have to pay full damages, or just enough to cover the minimal injuries that would have occurred had everyone been buckled up?

You could easily be killed if your car flips over, seatbelts or not.

My lawyer charges me $50 every time I ask him a question. Once I asked him why he keeps charging me $50 every time I ask him a question... I also asked him if he would charge me for asking why he charges me $50 for asking him questions.

He laughed and said he wouldn't charge me for asking him why he charges me every time I ask him something.

I did not see the humor in it at the time, but it's par for the course.

otomo: I imagine the logic goes, mother gets into car accident. Baby is injured in a debilitating manner. As such the mother is at fault for providing bodily harm to her as yet unborn child. Ignoring the debate on whether a fetus is a person, you cannot deny that she is somewhat at fault for the situation of her child. So she sues herself, to get the insurance company to pay for the additional medical costs of her child.

---

I can see how by allowing the child to sue the mom, they're creating a victim plaintiff in a situation where there otherwise wouldn't really have been one, thus allowing the lawsuit to happen.

But...

Why do they even need to do this? Don't insurance companies cover you when you're at fault? They raise the premiums, sure, but they'll do that in this case anyway. Why couldn't the mother just collect insurance for her own blunder?

I don't care what activist judges say. You're a person with rights the minute you're conceived. Doesn't matter what some idiot on the bench claims.

/ought to tick off some feminazis there

One big hug to you. At least I wont be alone while getting yelled at.

Submitted this weeks ago with a more inflammatory headline... though skimming through the thread, it doesn't look like it was necessary.

Also, a note to folks on both sides:

HEY DUNDERHEADS, AMERICAN LAW IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS IS A CANADIAN CASE. CANADA IS NOT YET THE 51st STATE; YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR MR. HARPER TO GET ELECTED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

Should be mid-Jan.

/generically pissed off
//not even drunk

if a passenger was in the car and injured the passenger would be paid by the insurance company

There are states where drivers are not liable to passengers for injuries unless they were driving recklessly. Other states follow normal rules of negligence. Search for "guest statute" for more information. I don't know which way Canadian provinces handle injuries to passengers.

What is it about car accidents--and only car accidents--that made the lawmakers of Alberta allow such lawsuits?

Almost certainly insurance. That is what prompted Massachusetts to abolish the inter-family immunity from suit. Lawyers told judges there was an untapped source of money if only they would abolish the law that said you couldn't sue your spouse or parent, and the judges agreed that it was a shame that so many BMWs were sitting on lots when they could be in the hands of personal injury lawyers.

Sue Ford! Her brother's cousin's roommate's friend owned an Explorer so it must be Ford's fault!

Helen_Arigby: /generically pissed off
//not even drunk

Yeah, but that little loin loaf still ain't sleepin' through the night is it?

Kids are sometimes bad, even when they're wanted. Sorta like new puppies.

pHatidic: You could easily be killed if your car flips over, seatbelts or not.

---

So are you saying that the protection afforded by seat belts in a rollover accident is negligible?

I know several people who have flipped their cars and walked away without a scratch. All were buckled up. Had they flipped at VERY high speeds, then they'd probably be dead regardless, but that's true for just about any safety measure.

Otomo--

Yes, thanks, I read the article; I just don't see why ONLY car accidents should be covered by this law. Assuming one thinks a child should be able to sue the mother for fetal injury, why limit it ONLY to car accidents? I am just wondering what made the provincial lawmakers pick car accidents, and nothing else.