I sued the local congregation (page 2)

drewcoul

Ahhhhh....I see.

Your principles are subjective. Very nice. You didn't see fit to seek damages at the time, but waited several years, before the statute of limitations ran out to sue.

If you were a principled person, your view of the congregation would have zero to do with whether you felt they were liable for the damages. Obviously you didn't feel they were liable at the time, but as your animosity toward the congregation grew, and after you left, you felt you could go back and grind an axe.

I'm glad I don't know you.

miseryloveselders

Remind me never to invite you to my house for dinner or anything. Your daughter might fall against my wall and slash the side of her face open on a light switch and I'd never be able to afford it.

Ahhhhh....I see.

Your principles are subjective. Very nice. You didn't see fit to seek damages at the time, but waited several years, before the statute of limitations ran out to sue.

If you were a principled person, your view of the congregation would have zero to do with whether you felt they were liable for the damages. Obviously you didn't feel they were liable at the time, but as your animosity toward the congregation grew, and after you left, you felt you could go back and grind an axe.

I'm glad I don't know you.

I swear I'm such a coward, because I didn't want to come out and say it. I was thinking it the whole time, but just couldn't bring myself to hit the submit tab.

Lore

Your principles are subjective. Very nice. You didn't see fit to seek damages at the time, but waited several years, before the statute of limitations ran out to sue.
If you were a principled person, your view of the congregation would have zero to do with whether you felt they were liable for the damages. Obviously you didn't feel they were liable at the time, but as your animosity toward the congregation grew, and after you left, you felt you could go back and grind an axe. I'm glad I don't know you.

I dunno, dispite what I just said. (Which I was serious about by the way. I would never let anyone in my car or on my property if I knew they sued over that.) I think that's a bit harsh.

They STRONLY discourage pressing charges, even when they are warrented. You're not supposed to sue a brother. So now that the threat of being shunned is gone, that doesn't mean his principles have changed, it just means he's now free to act on them without the horrible consequence of loosing contact with everyone he cares about.

This is why child abuse cases stay hidden for so long. Even though the person SHOULD have pressed charges at the time, they feel like they can't because of the social pressure to just 'forgive and forget'.

Giordano

Why people are so litigious and sue happy, these days I don't understand. As long as there isn't any negligence or malice, I don't think it's right to sue. Someone getting hurt shouldn't create a windfall for them, or their parents.

Of course you understand....it's about the nature of accidents and being held responsible. If the congregation opted not to have wireless mics then they had the obligation of making sure the wires didn't create a dangerous situation and should an injury result due to their neglience they should have addressed the issue of their responsibility first and stepped up and helped with the costs. Didn't they have liability insurrance? They got off lucky considering that she also had sereve heart problems..........So good for Chukky and his family.

Beside which Who is more litigious then the WTBTS? They rejoice in that. They are always ready, willing and able to go to court.

sabastious

I swear I'm such a coward

Yikes, miz, such harsh critique of yourself this morning!

-Sab

miseryloveselders

Yikes, miz, such harsh critique of yourself this morning!

-Sab

Ya know I was thinking what Lore and Drew posted, but I just didn't want to come out and say it. The kid factor made me hesitant, as well as the OP being a newbie. I'd hate to turn off any newbies to this forum. However, I personally just don't agree with suing in a situation like that. There's a certain ethic that was tossed out the window in this case. The kid is playing at the park on the monkey bars, and gets hurt, so you sue the city, or the kid hit her head off of the door knob in an apartment, so you sue to the landlord. I don't agree with that mentality.

simon17

That being said......I NEVER considered suing the congregation, or the KH. Accidents happen and it's not their fault.

Why people are so litigious and sue happy, these days I don't understand. As long as there isn't any negligence or malice, I don't think it's right to sue. Someone getting hurt shouldn't create a windfall for them, or their parents.

Another thumbs up to this.

Its just an accident!

Finally-Free

I think there are times when a lawsuit is justified and other times not. Once I was out in service and I slipped on some ice in someone's driveway and injured my right knee, which eventually needed surgery. I could have sued but didn't. I didn't want to generate any animosity against the JWs either. Besides, it was private property and I was uninvited.

A few years later I had another accident. I went to a small plaza next door to mail a letter. I slipped on some ice, fell, and injured my left knee. I had surgery that same day where my cartiledge and a small piece of my left femur were removed. That particular part of the parking lot was alongside a small butcher shop, where they habitually threw buckets of soapy water out of the door and on to the lot. The ice couldn't be seen because it was covered with about an inch of snow. The ambulance attendents had hell trying to get me into the wagon because they kept slipping on the same ice. Meanwhile, workers were in the plaza putting Christmas decorations on the lamp standards instead of trying to make the place a little safer for people to walk. Yes, I sued successfully.

My lawyer told me it was good I contacted him asap, because there was a limited time where a person could file a claim for an accident like that. It probably depends on local laws, but here you can't wait months or years before you decide to sue someone.

W

chukky 594

Miseryloveselders

I think that you are judging without knowing the whole situation.

My mother-in-law was remained a JW for several years after my wife and I left. Even though I had thought about suing before, we refrained out of any potential repurcussions in our relationship. My mother-in-law has been out for a year now.

chukky

miseryloveselders

Miseryloveselders

I think that you are judging without knowing the whole situation.

My mother-in-law was remained a JW for several years after my wife and I left. Even though I had thought about suing before, we refrained out of any potential repurcussions in our relationship. My mother-in-law has been out for a year now.

chukky

Even if you were a visitor to the kingdom hall, and this situation happened, I'd still view suing as inappropriate. It was an accident, and pardon me if this comes off abrasive, but your child's feet and inattention were as much at fault as the microphone chord. Children are clumsy, careless, they don't pay attention, and things happen. It's expected with children. I might view things differently if the brother purposely used the chord to trip your little girl, but that doesn't appear to be the case. On a happy note, I am glad you and your family are out of the cancer.

I sued the local congregation

Share this