A seventh person has died as the result of the outdoor stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair. Families of two of the victims have already sued. If all seven sued, that means the state would be out only $4.9 million, because we're one of the states that has aggressively tried to limit the proliferation of lawsuits:
Indiana caps the state's liability in accidents at $700,000 per person and $5 million total per event, amounts that personal-injury lawyers say are too low in a situation involving so many victims. Six people have died from their injuries, including one Friday, and roughly four dozen more were hurt, many seriously.
Legal experts said that could result in several other entities aside from the state fair becoming targets of negligence lawsuits, including the designer and builder of the stage and the concert promoter.
The goals of tort reform, among others to unclog the courts of friviolous lawsuits and to reduce costs, especially medical ones, are worthwhile, although I think the individual limits are more justifiable than the collective liability. Why should someone involved in an accident get less merely because there are more people to divide the money among?
Studies are mixed when it comes to whether reforms have actually had the desired effects; I suppose it's one of those "you see evidence of what you were looking for" things.
My attitude about lawsuits in general changed somewhat when I felt I had to resort to one after a car wreck nearly 30 years ago. It was in the best interest of the insurance company, which represented both drivers, to minimize its payout, and it certainly was and expert in the issue. I needed a lawyer just to make sure my interests didn't get rolled over, and the cost -- a one-third contingency fee only if I got any money -- was certainly affordable. I didn't get rich, but I got the money I had asked for and been denied in the first place, which was enough to replace my car and take care of the medical bills.
That's how much I got after the lawyer took his cut -- funny how that worked out, huh? It occurred to me that the insurance companies and the lawyers have a carefully worked-out system. One side knows exactly how much to ask for based precisely on the type of accident, and the other knows just how much it will offer in compromise. Then a settlement is reached just before the statute of limitations runs out, and everybody is happy. But to cover all these polite games, our insurance rates keep going up. I wonder how much a factor that is in comparison to the multimillion frivolous lawsuits?
Comments
To me the statue is a cop out. It protects the state when the state is at fault. I have no idea if the state is at fault and no one else does either at this time. However, if the state was responsible for the death of 500 people, then each victim's family could face financially ruin. Even worse are those who survive with severe disabling injuries which cost far more than those of a deceased person.
The state is self-insured so limiting payouts limits its exposure. Companies either face financial ruin or pay for coverage to protect themselves against poor decisions and in so doing end up paying insurance premiums commensurate with potential liabilities.
Is the law unconstitutional? I can see both sides of it. I can see where
Everyone knew as soon as the news hit that lawsuits would be forthcoming, and it's a shame but I'm sure there will be tons of them going after not just the State Of Indiana but the band, the the bands management, the stage crew, the manufacturer of the stage, the manufacturer of the parts and pieces of the stage, the Indiana State Fair Inc., The Indiana State Fair management team, the inspectors of the stage, the company that manufactured the weather radar device, the guy that ran the weather radar device, etc etc etc...
In short, everyone except Mother Nature herself that caused the storm. It's sad and it's a tragedy, but sometimes there just isn't anything or anyone to blame, it was a storm.
The end result will be a whole slew of new regulations for outdoor venues costing gazillions of dollars and time, all outdoor shows will cancel at the hint of a cloud and numerous shows will be rescheduled costing gazillions and untold problems for ticket holders, the price of tickets will go way way up (again)....
Only winners are the trial lawyers.
Tim I agree that mother nature was the initiator behind the injury. However, like driving in the rain on a wet slick road, the driver needs to take extra precautions.
Indiana is not immune to storms. I have lived her since 1963 and I have seen plenty. The thing I noticed from the video of the collapse is the lack of any type of truss type support either structural or wire. The entire covering looked to be on four vertical columns with a very large structure on top. In simple terms it looked like a tarp with four poles and no guide wires to keep the vertical poles from moving.
Based on the size of the vertical column in relationship to the covering, it did not appear to be a sound design.
I do not know who the covering belong to or who set it up. It may have been set up improperly.
Another item that amazed me was the official in charge of this event stated she was walking from the command center to the stage to tell them to post pone. Why walk? Why not call? How far did she have to walk?
One more thing, no one inspected the state awning. Apparently there is no regulation that requires this. Common sense would be the manufacturer would specify proper setup and usage for their item sold. Common sense would have also applied to the people setting it up. There are required inspections for carnival rides, why not a several ton awning where the purpose is to provide cover to those under neath.
It will be interesting to see what the investigation states. Did bolts break in shear or tension; did structure shear, crack or was it fatigue; was the surface area of the awning so large that a 70 moh wind would exceed the structural integrity of the structure? Lots of questions, no answers yet.
The suits were filed in order to serve notice to protect evidence and meet the states 270 day statute of limitations for a government agency.
Hey, the price and cost may not change at all. Maybe the solution is to not use awnings.
I agree with you both...
You can't sue Mother Nature, and when you ATTEND an event, there should be some stipulation on the ticket that you ACCEPT responsibility for anything that happens to you...granted in THIS particular case, it was all but unforeseeable.
Fate had a hand in this, indeed.
It's like a HOCKEY game.
On the ticket is a caveat that states to KNOW the "risks" of attending the game, and if you wind up sucking on an errant puck that flies over the glass and marries itself to your piehole...that's ON YOU for going.
Or like reaching over a railing for a baseball and falling 20 feet to one's death...
No one MADE you attend...right?
I'm just sayin'...
When I did something for hire, I figured my customer was relying on me to do it right, and if things went wrong, I needed to make things right. As a Republican, I've always supported personal responsibility.
If I'm on the jury, the folks who put the stage up should indemnify those who were harmed by the failure of the stage. If hardware failed to perform to rated specifications, the hardware manufacturer should indemnify the people who put up the stage.
Insurance companies need to be prudent when they pay claims. Trying to weasel out of claims isn't prudent. Trying to earn a bonus by cheating people out of the money they're do is stealing, and if prosecutors would send a few more insurance execs to prison for that, there'd be little call for tort reform legislation.
Whatever happened in the Franklin deal, anyway? Did anyone ever serve time? That wasn't property/casualty, but dishonest insurance execs sure did a number on Olympia.
Harl, well said.