Achilles Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Link NEW ORLEANS - Hurricane Katrina's victims have put a price tag on their suffering and it is staggering — including one plaintiff seeking the unlikely sum of $3 quadrillion. A whopping $3,014,170,389,176,410 is the dollar figure so far sought from some of the largest claims filed against the federal government over damage from the failure of levees and flood walls following the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane. Something tells me that they'd be willing to accept the revenues from off-shore oil drilling that takes place off the coast of Louisiana instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeroldoth Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Some might be willing to simply have their guns returned which were illegally seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Or they can do the smart thing--don't live in a coastal town that's below sea level in a hurricane zone. "Whoa, bad hurricane. Oh, my house is under water. How did that happen?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Dando Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Or they can do the smart thing--don't live in a coastal town that's below sea level in a hurricane zone. "Whoa, bad hurricane. Oh, my house is under water. How did that happen?" Or they could of done the smart thing, and not built a town there in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Or they can do the smart thing--don't live in a coastal town that's below sea level in a hurricane zone. There is also a thing called Windstorm Insurance and Flood Insurance. I am thinking of canceling the Flood Insurance since the Federal Government seems to pay claims to those that don’t even have the coverage. Extra $296.00 in my pocket per year. People have to live where the jobs are, but they can still protect themselves against such losses. This reminds me of asking my parents for money when I was a kid. They would ask how much do you need and I would always say fifty. Then they would tell me to come back with a lower figure. It is time for LA & MS to come back with a lower figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Q'ol Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The only people that should be considered are the ones who lost loved ones because of the sad and sloth-like response from FEMA and Bush. ...meaning the families of the babies and old ones who died on the road to the Superdome in blazing heat and no water for days. How would you like to sit in the devastation that was your home and watch your mother die, then be told by the National Guard to move her body to the side of the road? I was of the mind of complacency until I saw the very well done and quite informative documentary by Spike Lee called "When The Levy Breaks". Guaranteed to change even the hardest of opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 ^^^^ So those that lost their homes and their livelihoods don't deserve to be compensated for the gross negligence of the Army corp of engineers? @Jae: considering that most of the U.S. is susceptable to some form of natural disaster or another, I find your tone rather callous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 @Jae: considering that most of the U.S. is susceptable to some form of natural disaster or another, I find your tone rather callous.Just because someone loses their home mean we should all dig our country further into debt for them. They chose to live in New Orleans and shouldn't be surprised if a storm knocks their house away. tl;dr: yay for callousness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 So those that lost their homes and their livelihoods don't deserve to be compensated for the gross negligence of the Army corp of engineers? $3 quadrillion sounds about right for compensation? o_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Just because someone loses their home mean we should all dig our country further into debt for them. They chose to live in New Orleans and shouldn't be surprised if a storm knocks their house away. tl;dr: yay for callousnessIf they lost their home because of gross neglegence on the part of a government agency, then I guess the answer would have to be yes. Ask me how much I like it and I'll tell you the answer is "not much", but neglegence is neglegence and last time I checked our tort laws were still intact. @tk: yeah, I think that on the surface that sounds pretty ridiculous too. I'll withhold final judgment until I hear more about why that amount is being sought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balderdash Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Well, that $3 quadrillion claim is clearly some kind of joke if you ask me. The other $14 trillion is probably more than a little superfluous as well, but it's like the economist says: aim high and negotiate down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Depending on the state laws, it could be punative damages. Like I said, without knowing more, I'm not ready to come down one way or the other regarding the number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Ridiculous. When the man shows up in court, take his leg, it might bring him back to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Three quadrillion dollars? That's...let me do some calculations. Okay, so they're only asking for about 200 years worth of the entire U.S. GDP. That's all. Three QUADRILLION dollars? Are these guys mentally handicapped? That's enough for every person in the entire United States to receive $1,000,000. Approximately, assuming the U.S. Population is exactly 300,000,000 people. Do we even HAVE that many bills? I think maybe if we sold Alaska to Canada, sold our entire military to the EU, and began renting out California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Washington State, and Oregon, then everyone in the country joined the priesthood and sold all their possessions we MIGHT be able to pull that much money together, in about a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 That is a really ridiculous! Those people are out of their mind! 3 Quadrillion dollars! What about people who have had their homes destroyed by house fires? Tornado victims? Crimes? Everybody else who has had a tragedy in their life? It is not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Three quadrillion dollars? Those figures are totally crazy At that price anyone is welcome to come and destroy my house! There's no chance the guy will get anything close to that amount but even then, I've always been amazed by the amounts amounts claimed (and awarded) in some US lawsuits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Me Bizarro laugh, Haw Haw Haw. They know they're not going to get it, but most every lawsuit goes that way. I mean some idiot lady spilled hot coffee on her lap and won millions. These people lost their homes, so following the same logic, the number is likly to be mathematically sound. It's still outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Does that amount of money even exist on planet Earth? I could say "Good for them. The government reacted horribly to this disaster. Hundreds of people watched as their family and friends died around them. Maybe if we didn't have so many damn soldiers and national guard in Iraq, there could have been more done to help the recovery effort." Or, I could say "Who cares? You live in an area that is prone to natural disasters, so it is your own damn fault for having a hurricane destroy everything. You live below sea level, next to a part of the ocean that has always had a bad hurricane problem that is getting worse as every year passes. If you want someone to file a complaint against, go yell at mother nature or, better yet, global warming." I can't really take a full stance on either side because I think they are both right and wrong in their own ways. If they lost their home because of gross neglegence on the part of a government agency, then I guess the answer would have to be yes. Ask me how much I like it and I'll tell you the answer is "not much", but neglegence is neglegence and last time I checked our tort laws were still intact. Last time I checked, Katrina was the thing that destroyed their houses and familys. Regardless of human help, Katrina destroyed that place, and then destroyed it a little bit more, and finally attempted to rip it from the face of the earth and put it back under water like it used to be. Even if we had the full national guard there to help, and full army support, I doubt it would have done much to save property. It would have probably saved many more lives, but all of those houses were long gone. Humans simply cannot compete with mother nature, or stop her ability to act as she pleases. I can understand if these people are not getting the money they need to start a new life, but last time I checked the figures the damages to Katrina were only estimated at 125 Billion or less. I can understand fully if they were to ask for that figure to rebuild, and fully understand why they feel their government as thus far betrayed them. But the amount of money they are asking for makes them look like damn children who have no concept of money, which to me means that they should not be trusted with much at all. They can believe that the money will make them happy. They can believe that their money will make us feel for them more. They can believe whatever delusion they want. But all they are doing is asking "We had some bad stuff happen to us. Mind if we drag all of America down with us and destroy this country so that you can be unhappy to, so then we can feel better about ourselves?" Depending on the state laws, it could be punative damages. Like I said, without knowing more, I'm not ready to come down one way or the other regarding the number. They will never get the amount of money they want because the entire earth's economy combined could not get them that figure. Even if they did, the world's economy would collapse. Every figure I have seen thus far has estimated Katrina damages in the hundred billions, not anywhere close to the number they want. So what. They had something bad happen to them. It happens in life. They are better off than the people who got hit by the tsunamis. They are better off than the people currently living in Sudan. Money can help, but asking for a figure that would destroy the economy to meet their own selfish aims makes them not even worth the space they take up. I could fully understand if they were asking for a number that would help them out, rebuild new orleans, and help people get back on their feet. America should help its people. On the other hand, the levys broke once and the hurricanes don't seem like they want to stop. Rebuilding the death trap may not be a good use of money or manpower. I dunno where to really stand on this, but I know that at the moment the figure they are asking for is way too high for anybody to take them seriously. Its more of a bad joke to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelda 41 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 ahahaha, i heard this on the news this morning. i fell out of my chair laughing XD yeah, that IS a bit pricey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 ^^^^ @Jae: considering that most of the U.S. is susceptable to some form of natural disaster or another, I find your tone rather callous. I have no objections to fair compensation to right a wrong and to be used for appropriate things to help rebuild lives. I object to the sense of entitlement this seems to be, the idea that just because someone lived in New Orleans (or other affected areas) that they deserve to be handed a fistful of money. We saw the horrible abuse of the credit cards that the Red Cross handed out right after the disaster--instead of buying food, clothing or basic building necessities to rebuild their lives, people used them to buy bigscreen TVs to put in the trailers that FEMA provided for them to use while they supposedly rebuilt their lives. They knew they were living in a danger zone, just like I know I live in an area of the country that gets hit by tornadoes, as my county did just 3 days ago. You won't see me running to the gov't asking for a ton of money because the gov't couldn't protect our county from the violent force of nature over which they had no control. The storm surge in Katrina was so high that the waves would have gone over the levy even if it had stayed intact, and even if that levy had been built to its very best, I don't think it would have survived the extreme water and wind forces that hit it. If there are people who truly deserve some kind of compensation, then I'm for that, as long as it's used for appropriate things like rebuilding their homes and lives. What this looks to me to be, however, is a bunch of money-grubbing opportunists looking for any way to milk the disaster for whatever they can get, and that's what I find objectionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aash Li Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I have just one response to these ...people... LOL good luck with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I gotta say, that's the biggest figure I've ever seen with a dollar sign that wasn't in jest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 That is a really ridiculous! Those people are out of their mind! 3 Quadrillion dollars! What about people who have had their homes destroyed by house fires? Tornado victims? Crimes? Everybody else who has had a tragedy in their life? It is not possible.If it were a simple matter of homes being destroyed via a natural disaster, I would agree with you totally. However as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is evidence that the army corps of engineers is guilty of negligence with regards to the construction of the levees which broke during the storm and led to widespread loss of life and property. There is a long standing practice of suing negligent parties when defects in their product lead to loss of life, so it isn't as though this is the first time it's ever happened. With regards to your point specifically, I don't know how many cases of fire, tornado, crime, or tragedy in general can be tied directly to gov't negligence, so I don't know how applicable your example is. I hope that helps. Last time I checked, Katrina was the thing that destroyed their houses and familys.Please see above re: negligence. You probably wouldn't sue a car company if you got into an accident but you might if the air bag didn't deploy and the seat belts failed resulting in the death of all your passengers. I can understand if these people are not getting the money they need to start a new life, but last time I checked the figures the damages to Katrina were only estimated at 125 Billion or less. I can understand fully if they were to ask for that figure to rebuild, and fully understand why they feel their government as thus far betrayed them. But the amount of money they are asking for makes them look like damn children who have no concept of money, which to me means that they should not be trusted with much at all. In tort cases, the plaintiff generally seeks two kinds of compensation: compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are sought to repay for things that were lost, time that was wasted, hardship that was incurred, etc. Punitive damages are sought to "make an example" out of the company or to otherwise make such lawsuits non cost effective for the company (i.e. it cost less to get sued than fix the problem, therefore we'll just get sued, etc). So it is entirely possible that someone filed a suit requesting $125 billion (to use your number) in compensatory damages and $3 quadrillion dollars in punitive damages. It may be that some whacko filed a suit for $3 quadrillion in compensatory damage. If it's the latter then I'm with you guys. If it's the former, then it sounds much more reasonable to me. They can believe that the money will make them happy. They can believe that their money will make us feel for them more. They can believe whatever delusion they want. But all they are doing is asking "We had some bad stuff happen to us. Mind if we drag all of America down with us and destroy this country so that you can be unhappy to, so then we can feel better about ourselves?" See above re: punitive damages. More info for those that want it They will never get the amount of money they want because the entire earth's economy combined could not get them that figure. Even if they did, the world's economy would collapse. Every figure I have seen thus far has estimated Katrina damages in the hundred billions, not anywhere close to the number they want.If the request is for compensatory damages, then the case might be thrown out. If the request is for punitive damages, then the case could move forward but damages awarded might be less than those requested. So what. They had something bad happen to them. It happens in life. They are better off than the people who got hit by the tsunamis. They are better off than the people currently living in Sudan. Money can help, but asking for a figure that would destroy the economy to meet their own selfish aims makes them not even worth the space they take up. I think you might be jumping to conclusions without all the info that you need to make an informed opinion. On the other hand, the levys broke once and the hurricanes don't seem like they want to stop. Rebuilding the death trap may not be a good use of money or manpower. Indeed. If that's the case, then I think we should all be up in arms regarding the money that's currently being "thrown away" on rebuilding efforts. Keep in mind though that New Orleans is a vital international trade port and a source of domestic oil. If we don't rebuild, that will have a pretty significant impact on our economy too. I have no objections to fair compensation to right a wrong and to be used for appropriate things to help rebuild lives. I object to the sense of entitlement this seems to be, the idea that just because someone lived in New Orleans (or other affected areas) that they deserve to be handed a fistful of money.See multiple references to negligence. We saw the horrible abuse of the credit cards that the Red Cross handed out right after the disaster--instead of buying food, clothing or basic building necessities to rebuild their lives, people used them to buy bigscreen TVs to put in the trailers that FEMA provided for them to use while they supposedly rebuilt their lives.It's true that this did happen in some cases. However none of this would have any bearing whatsoever in a criminal negligence case. They knew they were living in a danger zone, just like I know I live in an area of the country that gets hit by tornadoes, as my county did just 3 days ago. You won't see me running to the gov't asking for a ton of money because the gov't couldn't protect our county from the violent force of nature over which they had no control. Again, not a very applicable example but lets try another one. Perhaps the gov't installed an early warning system and told you that you would have a five minute warning for all tornadoes from that day on. Then some time later, a tornado strikes, the early warning system fails, and everyone you know is killed and your home destroyed. Later on you find out that the early warning system failed due to a design flaw that the government knew about but did not believe would be an issue. Do you just accept what is for what is or do you sue the gov't for knowingly putting your life, and the lives of everyone in your area, in danger? See the difference now? The storm surge in Katrina was so high that the waves would have gone over the levy even if it had stayed intact, and even if that levy had been built to its very best, I don't think it would have survived the extreme water and wind forces that hit it. Source please? If at all possible, could your source also show how the amount of water that would have gone over the top of the levees would have been comparable to the amount of water that passed through the breach? Thanks in advance. If there are people who truly deserve some kind of compensation, then I'm for that, as long as it's used for appropriate things like rebuilding their homes and lives. What this looks to me to be, however, is a bunch of money-grubbing opportunists looking for any way to milk the disaster for whatever they can get, and that's what I find objectionable.Please see the above re: punitive damages. Thanks for reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Achilles, with 3 quadrillion dollars, we could just purchase Canada, Mexico, and South America outright. Not with payments, outright. I mean, they might object, but money is a most persuasive speaker. These people are so stupid, they don't even deserve to GET punitive damages, and they ought to lose their share of the compensation, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 In tort cases, the plaintiff generally seeks two kinds of compensation: compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are sought to repay for things that were lost, time that was wasted, hardship that was incurred, etc. Punitive damages are sought to "make an example" out of the company or to otherwise make such lawsuits non cost effective for the company (i.e. it cost less to get sued than fix the problem, therefore we'll just get sued, etc). So it is entirely possible that someone filed a suit requesting $125 billion (to use your number) in compensatory damages and $3 quadrillion dollars in punitive damages. It may be that some whacko filed a suit for $3 quadrillion in compensatory damage. If it's the latter then I'm with you guys. If it's the former, then it sounds much more reasonable to me. You think 3 quadrillion dollars is a reasonable amount to seek for punitive damages? If the request is for compensatory damages, then the case might be thrown out. If the request is for punitive damages, then the case could move forward but damages awarded might be less than those requested. I should hope that it's far less than those requested. I think you might be jumping to conclusions without all the info that you need to make an informed opinion. In cases like this, I don't think most people would need full disclosure of all the facts before coming to an 'informed opinion'. Good old common sense would suffice. Source please? If at all possible, could your source also show how the amount of water that would have gone over the top of the levees would have been comparable to the amount of water that passed through the breach? Thanks in advance. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/02_levee_testimony.shtml Please see the above re: punitive damages. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the amount of punitive damages is reasonable considering the circumstances. While it may be the case that some entities may have a case for large sums of punitive damages, I do not believe any court or jury anywhere will even seriously entertain the idea of handing out a sixteen-digit amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.