the only reason I'm posting this, because quite frankly.....I really am through with this thread. I have to admit, it has touched a nerve.
But see, that's how it was with me, too, dear Rooster-Dude (the GREATEST of love and peace to you, dear one, and I love you, TOO, man!): the thread and comments touched a nerve. It's the nerve that says "Anyone who says that anyone who sues (even though they have cause and grounds to... and the other side COULD have avoided a suit - it's called "settling a claim")... is just wrong"... is just wrong. Not just legally, but even scripturally. That's not returning evil for evil; because there was no "evil" involved, per se. It was an ACCIDENT and so making a claim is just asking for restitution from someone ABLE to pay (either personally or through insurance).
Folks are getting all goo-goo over "Well, now the poor congregation has to pay." Dear one, the congregation pays... the WTBTS... and you're not cryin' over that! Would you TRULY rather money, that SHOULD have went toward that child's medical bills... as well as her pain and suffering... go the WTBTS?? Seriously??? 'Cause regardless of WHO donated it (whether congregants or householders)... that's where it's going (after bills)... for one purpose or another (i.e., KH Building Fund, care for Bethelites/missionaries/"special" pioneers... CO's pocket...).
If they didnt' have adequate health insurance, or one of those snake-like health insurances that fought coverage in a case like this, then I can see suing.
Wait. So, if her PARENTS didn't carry insurance then it would have been OKAY for them to sue? Wouldn't not carrying insurance... if they could afford it... have been IRRESPONSIBLE? And if they couldn't afford it because, say, they only worked part-time, were out of work, or pioneered, etc., THEN the congregation should have picked up the tab? Well, then, let's hope dear Chukky was more than the usual JW pioneer-janitor, 'cause how the heck was he supposed to AFFORD insurance if he was?
Dear Counselor Rooster, I can understand that you have an aversion to lawsuits. Truly, I can. And I agree that they can be excessive, I do. And I agree that dear Chukky's (peace to you!) motive may have been wrong here - he sued out of anger rather than out of a desire to make his daughter "whole" (which is the purpose of a suit).
BUT... as I stated before and some have corroborated... it was the congregation's responsibility... and the congregation that should have stepped up IN THE FIRST PLACE, particularly since the elders hold sway over the people on the basis of having been "appointed by holy spirit" and so "know" so much about "love" and how ones are to treat one another. Since they are so adamant about JWs being all "law-abiding" and everything... THEY SHOULD HAVE SET THE PROPER EXAMPLE. Had they DONE so... on day one ("Please, brother, send us the bills - it was our error in allowing obstacles in the first place so that your dear little one was hurt; the LEAST we can do is cover your medical costs!")... there would have BEEN no lawsuit.
Do you SEE that, dear one? True, two wrongs don't make a right. But here, one of those "wrongs" WAS right. Because you know WHAT? It would have been an even GREATER wrong for him to not exercise his DAUGHTER'S rights... on HER behalf... which rights would have expired when she turned 18. In that instance, SHE could have sued HIM (dear Chukky)! And why compensate her? Let's say it's not only to cover her pain and suffering (which is certainly was, and please... please... do not pull out the "she was too young to too remember" card. Because that is entirely irrelevant)... but any future potential "tick" that just MIGHT arise as a result of her injuries. For example, crooked teeth or an off-bite. Or TMJ. Or whathaveyou. So MANY adult pains and discomforts are the result of childhood injuries that went undiagnosed and/or untreated. If such does arise, she now has some money to help her seek care for it, should she choose to do that (and if not that, too, is her choice, but she'll have to live with the result)... her claim has been resolved. She can't go back later and complain of pain (unless that was part of the settlement).
Please... please... get a book on Personal Injury law. Nothing huge or fancy, just one of those DIY dealies perhaps like Nolo Press sells. Then also read about the history of personal injury law. 'Cause it goes all the way back to the OT:
"When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.
[Say, what?! Why, he's a grown man - can't he see that he might fall off the roof? Why is it MY fault if he gets too close to the edge and falls off? What's he doing up there, anyway??]
I am thinking that perhaps (1) you don't have any children, (2) you've never sustained an injury (or if you did, no one properly informed you of your rights), and (3) you don't own a home... or any piece of real property, dear one. Because if you did as to any of these, your perspective... and thus, your response... would be quite different.
Now, here's a HUGE hug! Let's move on and get back to "loving" one another ('cause I like that much better)!
Again, the greatest of love and peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA, who wishes my insurance agent would have a problem paying a claim if someone got hurt at my house or in an accident that was my/my husband's fault. She would get "told" [to handle it] right off because that is what I am paying FOR all these years! It's not THEIR money but mine, to cover MY negligence. She wouldn't have to worry about the injured party suing - I would sue with them!
