 |
|
Main
| FAQ
| Uploader
| IRC chat
| Radio
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Latest posts
| Calendar
| Stats
| Online users
| Search
| |||
| Views: 88,500,447 |
Main
| FAQ
| Uploader
| IRC chat
| Radio
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Latest posts
| Calendar
| Stats
| Online users
| Search
|
04-29-24 10:08 AM |
|
| Guest: Register | Login | |||
| 0 users currently in General Chat | 1 guest |
| Main - General Chat - Conrad Murray found guilty in death of Michael Jackson | New thread | New reply |
| Googie |
| ||
 Giant Red Paratroopa Level: 77 Posts: 773/1407 EXP: 4182086 Next: 9043 Since: 02-19-07 From: Brooklyn, NY Last post: 12 days Last view: 12 days |
Read about it here, I'm so mad I can scream...
 ____________________ My Linktree |
| blackhole89 |
| ||
 The Guardian Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Level: 124 Posts: 3829/4196 EXP: 21538033 Next: 298568 Since: 02-19-07 From: Ithaca, NY, US Last post: 474 days Last view: 87 days |
|
| KP9000 |
| |||
 Boomboom Level: 90 Posts: 1894/1975 EXP: 6954995 Next: 233614 Since: 02-19-07 Last post: 3583 days Last view: 3207 days |
|
| Omi |
| |||
 Super Koopa Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Level: 62 Posts: 802/836 EXP: 1894774 Next: 89912 Since: 07-03-07 Last post: 4498 days Last view: 4494 days |
|
| MiniCompute |
| ||
 Bubble Level: 66 Posts: 95/981 EXP: 2422040 Next: 39811 Since: 04-25-07 Last post: 492 days Last view: 701 days |
Posted by Omi My question is this mainly, if they think this doctor ordered the drugs for Mj, why in the world can they not back track to his pharmicudicle records and see when that drug was ordered and retrace that phone call ? Anyone ever hear of Data Storage, look closely in there and there will be your answer. |
| Omi |
| |||
|
Super Koopa Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Hey Nick ♥ Level: 62 Posts: 803/836 EXP: 1894774 Next: 89912 Since: 07-03-07 Last post: 4498 days Last view: 4494 days |
|
| MiniCompute |
| ||
|
Bubble Level: 66 Posts: 96/981 EXP: 2422040 Next: 39811 Since: 04-25-07 Last post: 492 days Last view: 701 days |
I am not thinking about the dosage, my point is who was the one who "REALLY" ordered it ?
Was it his doc, his doctors co-workers or was this entirely not his doing which he is trying to tell everyone ? In a sense I can see where this doctor is coming from, hell I've had other hospitals or offices unknown to me at the time give me the wrong medicene when treating my health over the years. :\ |
| blackhole89 |
| ||
|
The Guardian Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Level: 124 Posts: 3831/4196 EXP: 21538033 Next: 298568 Since: 02-19-07 From: Ithaca, NY, US Last post: 474 days Last view: 87 days |
|
| MiniCompute |
| ||
|
Bubble Level: 66 Posts: 97/981 EXP: 2422040 Next: 39811 Since: 04-25-07 Last post: 492 days Last view: 701 days |
Posted by blackhole89 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence There should be a law for that, but seing as how this is going badly on USA terms these days, barely any rightfull decision can be made these days. Damages Main article: Damages Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim. One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "reasonable person". The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury) be damaged by the breach of duty. Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort. Damages are compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages addresses a plaintiff/claimant's losses (in cases involving physical or mental injury the amount awarded also compensates for pain and suffering). The award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position he or she was before Defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort. Types of Damage: Special damages - quantifiable dollar losses suffered from the date of defendant's negligent act (the tort) up to a specified time (proven at trial). Special damage examples include: lost wages, medical bills, and damage to property such as your car. General damages - these are damages that are not quantified in monetary terms (e.g., there's no invoice or receipt as there would be to prove special damages). A general damage example is an amount for the pain and suffering one experiences from a car accident. Lastly, where the plaintiff proves only minimal loss or damage, or the court or jury is unable to quantify the losses, the court or jury may award nominal damages, sometimes the symbolic $1 you see the jury award in movies. Punitive damages - Punitive damages are to punish a defendant, they are NOT to compensate plaintiffs in negligence cases. Therefore, punitive damages are NOT obtainable in a negligence case. Punitive damages are awardable only in cases where a defendant has been found "guilty" of intentional, reckless or malicious wrongdoing, such as fraud, defamation or false imprisonment. The easy way to remember this concept is to think about a car accident where there is physical injury. If the defendant driver was negligent (say by running a red light) then punitive damages cannot be sought. But if the defendant driver was drunk then punitive damages could be awarded. [edit]Procedure in the United States The plaintiff must prove each element to win his case. Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be by way of a demurrer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment. The ability to resolve a negligence case without trial is very important to defendants. Without the specific limits provided by the four elements, any plaintiff could claim any defendant was responsible for any loss, and subject him to a costly trial.[14] The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the "finder of fact" (jury) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable, after the trial. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy. The court can find that regardless of the disputed facts, if any, the case can be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts, because two people in the position of the plaintiff and defendant simply cannot be legally responsible to one another for negligent injury. On appeal, the court reviewing a decision in a negligence case will analyze in terms of at least one of these elements, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal. For example, if it is an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the reviewing court will look to see that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review de novo whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his case. Kawa edit: hi, I edited your markup |
| Ailure |
| ||
|
Hats Steam Board2 group Level: 121 Posts: 3932/3965 EXP: 19783789 Next: 272907 Since: 02-19-07 From: Sweden, Skåne Last post: 3304 days Last view: 2055 days |
Posted by blackhole89I'll consider it malpractice personally so I'm surprised at the verdict of it being "manslaughter" (then again it's always taken a notch up when celebrity is involved). Neverthless he should have quite known that it was a overdose. :/ ____________________ AIM: gamefreak1337, MSN: Emil_sim@spray.se, XMPP: ailure@xmpp.kafuka.org
|
| Main - General Chat - Conrad Murray found guilty in death of Michael Jackson | New thread | New reply |
© 2005-2023 Acmlm, blackhole89, Xkeeper et al. |
|
MySQL - queries: 67, rows: 85/86, time: 0.016 seconds. |
