[MrLegalReform]

The piano's MAKER?!?!? The fact that they even ask that question shows how much work tort reformers still need to do.

[fightinbluhen51]

Don’t bet on it when nearly all of congress and one of the presidential candidates (and his wife) are lawyers.

[agere_contra]

When someone is hit by a piano, we are all guilty.

[2banana]

The #1 money contributors to the democrat party are trial lawyers...

[Libertarianize the GOP]

But how much of a penalty should such suits exact, above and beyond compensation, in order to deter wrongdoing?

If our civil court are to be used to punish wrongdoing then raise the burden of proof to the same standard used in criminal trials, beyond a reasonable doubt instead of just more likely than not that the accused is guilty.

[TrueKnightGalahad]

Why stop with the piano maker? Sue the people who made the rope and pulley, the architect of the building and all the construction companies involved, the moving-truck manufacturer, the designer who made the piano movers’ clothes, the wife and children of the moving guys, the McDonalds where they had breakfast....

[yankeedame]

Civil lawsuits seek to compensate victims of negligence or wrongdoing, like the unlucky passer-by hit by a falling piano. But how much of a penalty should such suits exact, above and beyond compensation, in order to deter wrongdoing? What about someone traumatized by the sight of the accident, or maybe a whole class of potential victims? And whom can these people sue — the movers, the piano’s maker, its owner?

============================================

Let's parse that one line. The word "wrongdoing" means behavior or action that is wrong, evil, or blameworthy. It can refer to action(s) of the/taking place in the past, present, or future. Example:

• The buzzard planned to drop the piano on Daffy.
• The buzzard plans on dropping the piano on Daffy this afternoon.
• The buzzard is planning on dropping the piano on Daffy sometime next week.

The planning is the wrongdoing. And planning requires forethought. A person, a company, even a buzzard can not accidentally bring about a "wrongdoing". He has to have planned it even if the planning time was only one second before the action. and this kind of forethought is "malice of forethought". That buzzard wants like ^&%^#$ to flatten Daffy with that piano.

So...what do we have here besides a lot of hot air? We have determined that if the dropped piano wasn't deliberate (a "wrongdoing") than the only other things it could be was accidental. That it just happened. Happened without intent, without malice, without intention, blah...blah...blah. The action may be many things-- neglect, etc. -- but the one thing it is not is a "wrongdoing". As that one insurance ad goes, "Nobody plans an accident."

Even as you are innocent till proven guilty, a piano dropping on Daffy must be assumed to be an accident unless proven to be deliberate (a "wrongdoing"). But what if Porky got clipped by the falling piano? He should get nothing since the piano was not intended for him. He could go after the buzzard hammer-and-tongs on another charge(s), but for "wrongdoing"? No.

Good grief, what do they think the buzzard going to do? Hesitate in sawing the rope and think to himself "Oh-oh, I'd better not drop this piano on Daffy. They might make me pay compensation."

IMHO this whole idea of "compensation, in order to deter wrongdoing" is a milch cow for tort lawyers and their ilk. It in perfect world it would be junked. (sigh)'Course in a perfect world we'd all take a nice bus ride to Japan tomorrow.