Corporations Behaving Badly
-
raison de arizona
- Posts: 18987
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
Corporations Behaving Badly
I always worry about this sort of thing purchasing ice, which is paid for at the register, and THEN loaded into the cart on the way out.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
-
RTH10260
- Posts: 15246
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Corporations Behaving Badly
in the aftermath of the Houston storm
‘It is outrageous:’ Senior living facility abandoned by management following storm, Mayor says
KPRC 2 Click2Houston
20 May 2024
A senior living apartment complex in Houston is accused of abandoning it’s vulnerable residents after a severe weather outbreak in Houston on Thursday.
-
sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3375
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Corporations Behaving Badly
Everything old is new again. They has so many that LA laws changed after Katrina to address abandoning patients at assisted living and skilled nursing facilities.
-
RTH10260
- Posts: 15246
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Corporations Behaving Badly
American Airlines backtracks after lawyers blame girl, 9, for not seeing hidden camera in bathroom
FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth
23 May 2024
The airline's attorneys wrote in an answer to the lawsuit involving the 9-year-old from Austin, “She knew or should have known [the compromised lavatory] contained a visible and illuminated recording device." But now, the airline says its outside legal counsel "made an error in the filing."
-
bill_g
- Posts: 5805
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:52 pm
- Location: Portland OR
- Occupation: Retired (kind of)
- Verified: ✅ Checked Republic ✓ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ
Corporations Behaving Badly
Without corroborating evidence, I lean towards believing the airline, that this was outside counsel brought in by a third party (the liability insurance co), who though acting on American Airlines behalf, did not represent the airline's thoughts, desires, or opinions. Someone needs to produce the smoking gun email or other correspondence proving this defense was knowingly ordered and/or approved by the airlines.
Corporations Behaving Badly
I have a good deal of sympathy with outside counsel here.
Just because a plaintiff has good grounds to allege one kind of awful conduct (installing a camera in a place where she is entitled to privacy) doesn't mean that she also has a claim for a different and more intense flavor of awful conduct (installing a hidden camera), if it turns out that the camera was not in fact hidden. The rules of pleading are frequently such that competent counsel would usually feel forced plead as an affirmative defense the plaintiff's failure to notice the camera because otherwise the defendant is at risk of waiving the right to challenge trial the contention that it was hidden. Insurance counsel, who do cases like this on a volume basis, routinely assert a laundry list of affirmative defenses, many quite far-fetched, many inconsistent with others, because they need to file their answer before, often long before, they have a full understanding of the facts.
Lawyers who don't do this kind of work often snicker and sneer at the laundry list affirmative defenses pleaded by insurance counsel, and I've been guilty of this, but if we're honest, we realize that we'd do the same if we worked under the same constraints.
Obviously there are other liability perils for the airline if the camera was kind of obvious and remained in place for more than a short while; the airline might well ultimately contend that the camera was indeed so well hidden that their staff couldn't have been expected to discover it, with plaintiff's counsel disputing this. But again, insurance counsel usually don't know much, let alone everything, at the outset of the litigation, which is when they have to plead their client's affirmative defenses.
If you tell your insurance counsel that they must not assert potentially icky affirmative defenses when they're defending you against serious claims, you're not going to have insurance coverage much longer.
Just because a plaintiff has good grounds to allege one kind of awful conduct (installing a camera in a place where she is entitled to privacy) doesn't mean that she also has a claim for a different and more intense flavor of awful conduct (installing a hidden camera), if it turns out that the camera was not in fact hidden. The rules of pleading are frequently such that competent counsel would usually feel forced plead as an affirmative defense the plaintiff's failure to notice the camera because otherwise the defendant is at risk of waiving the right to challenge trial the contention that it was hidden. Insurance counsel, who do cases like this on a volume basis, routinely assert a laundry list of affirmative defenses, many quite far-fetched, many inconsistent with others, because they need to file their answer before, often long before, they have a full understanding of the facts.
Lawyers who don't do this kind of work often snicker and sneer at the laundry list affirmative defenses pleaded by insurance counsel, and I've been guilty of this, but if we're honest, we realize that we'd do the same if we worked under the same constraints.
Obviously there are other liability perils for the airline if the camera was kind of obvious and remained in place for more than a short while; the airline might well ultimately contend that the camera was indeed so well hidden that their staff couldn't have been expected to discover it, with plaintiff's counsel disputing this. But again, insurance counsel usually don't know much, let alone everything, at the outset of the litigation, which is when they have to plead their client's affirmative defenses.
If you tell your insurance counsel that they must not assert potentially icky affirmative defenses when they're defending you against serious claims, you're not going to have insurance coverage much longer.
Corporations Behaving Badly
Some kinds of insurance may not be worth paying for.
If your insurance company's lawyers "succeed" in defending you against a lawsuit by the family of a nine-year-old whose pictures have been taken by a pedophile while a passenger on your airline, you may find your revenue noticeably decreased by the ensuing public relations disaster. It may be better just to pay up and settle out of court and forget about the financial "protection" offered by your insurance.
It is a very bad ploy to suggest that a nine year old girl is partly to blame for the pedophile's actions because she failed to notice a cell phone in the lavatory. Very bad.
If your insurance company's lawyers "succeed" in defending you against a lawsuit by the family of a nine-year-old whose pictures have been taken by a pedophile while a passenger on your airline, you may find your revenue noticeably decreased by the ensuing public relations disaster. It may be better just to pay up and settle out of court and forget about the financial "protection" offered by your insurance.
It is a very bad ploy to suggest that a nine year old girl is partly to blame for the pedophile's actions because she failed to notice a cell phone in the lavatory. Very bad.