More Lawsuit Stupiditly

[GT98]

The NOAA is getting sued becaue they didnt provide enough warning for the Tsunami in december

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=2&u=/nm/tsunami_lawsuit_dc

[KvHagedorn]

These sleazebags are gonna line their pockets and the victims will get nothing. It will also take funds away from actual future improvements.

[Jammrock]

[lecter]

"We don't earn any money on the lawsuit. We want to help people," he said. "We are suing to get information."

I fail to understand what it is that they want, then...practically all the victims praised the Thai government for the way they handled the situation. Just how many Westerners would have pitched in to help tourists when their own families and houses would be washed away??? Of course now that they're back in their comfy houses with the Merc out front they feel big and strong and want to extort already empoverished national resources. Suing should always work both ways: if they lose, they should be forced to give all their posessions to charity...anyone else would deserve them much more.

Great choice of lawyer, as well...everyone should have a personal shyster when they're low on pocket money

edit: oh, wait, now I get it, instead of money they probably all want a 12-year-old Thai boy delivered to their homes...that's what all these shitheads come for here.

[DukeP]

If they win, they can only get ca$h from NOAA.

No way either the hotel chain nor the government of thailand will take this case serious.

I for one woulndt.

NOAA, being US founded, have to pay out.
Thats only fair, I guess - the dangers of living in US.

~~DukeP~~

[Umfriend]

Skipping through the suit, it appears the only demand they make is for the respondents to ensure that they do not destroy any relevant information and allow the petitioners to question them.

So there is now suit for liability yet. All counsil is working pro-bono and/or donating their fees to the fund.

It's a pity the exhibits aren't on that website. The allegation that, for instance, the Thai government considered consequences on tourism when debating what warning to send out when is an interesting one (page 6). We would not want such considerations to affect the actions of the government, would we? Exposing and suing might be a good thing IMO.

Wrt NOAA, I am not sure, I doubt really, whether they can be held liable or should be able to be held so. Being a US gov institution, I just do not know whether they have any responsibility to other countries or people located there. Nevertheless, from information that may be obtained through this suit, it may become clear that they should be in the future (against a fee of course, I don;t see why US tax payers need to cough up only for others' sake).

Wrt. Accor, I don't know. Should they really have known they were in a dangerous area? Was that commonplace knowledge? Interesingly, in a damages suit in the Netherlands related to proffesional injury (a fire in a workshop), the court agreed that safety measures were not up to par even though they complied with all regulations. The argument made by the court was that when the company rebuilt the workshop, they did include additional safety measures that would have prevented the injury. I'd say that this is a totally wrong call. It actually incentivies such companies to not build safer things after an accident occured.....

Ah well, just saying this might be a bona fide claim.

[DukeP]

Do and die, dont and die.

What would YOU have done, sitting in that weather center, with that information?

There was no formal emergency plans.

The hysteria surrounding such an unsupported announcement could have killed as many as it saved (or more).

The problem was that the government had not prepared for a tsunami.

Was this an error?
Depends on the price of this plan.

In a world were people are still dying from lack of clean drinking water, spending millions of $ on an event with less than 1/100 chance of appearence could be seen as flawed as well.

~~DukeP~~

[Umfriend]

Oh, I agree completely. But that does not mean that we should not look at the relevant information to make that assesment now does it?

Same goes for your unemployment benefit BTW

[Umfriend]

Actually I don't agree with

The hysteria surrounding such an unsupported announcement could have killed as many as it saved (or more).

unless you can substantiate that that has been a consideration when acting (or not acting). The allegation is other considerations played a role.

But other than that, yes it's all relevant IMO.

[DukeP]

Same goes for your unemployment benefit BTW

True, true.


Its all a matter of insurance.

~~DukeP~~