[psmith2.0]

This is currently the big story this morning in my town (been an ongoing situation, this kid's injuries, but the lawsuit was announced yesterday):

http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_71266.asp

Looks like Val Kilmer, doesn't he?

Anyway, was driving to work and heard about this and was just wondering what everyone's take on it.

Seems like the owner didn't have the joint as secure and tight as he should've. But I'm not clear on if there were any sorts of signs, but surely there had to have been. Everyone knows this building, and knows it has been long abandoned.

What happened to the kid was horrible (I know a friend of a friend of a friend of his, and it's really rough). But does all this fall squarely on the building owner? Are the kids, any of them, on the hook for entering this place to begin with?

On most dangerous and abandoned places, there is signage warning of danger and all (I can't seem to get a straight, honest answer from anyone I ask about this). I can't imagine there not being warning signage of some sort.



If there WERE signs (even if the place wasn't sealed up as tight as can be), and these kids ignored them and proceeded on to the property and into the building, aren't they just a LITTLE bit at fault?

How far do we take the "protecting clueless people from themselves" stuff?

Would any of you venture into a place like this? No signs? Signs? If there were signs and you ignored them and got hurt...what would you do? Or do you just exercise some common sense and stay away?

What are your thoughts on this? It's all the talk on local radio this morning (which goes to show what a bustling, important city I live in, that this is "the big topic"!)



I guess I'm just having a hard time believing a) there weren't postings present, warning of the danger of entering this place and b) if they ignored these and went on ahead, wouldn't anything bad that happened to them be more on them and c) if there was no signage or warnings present, wouldn't simple common sense tell you to maybe stay away?

Lots of places in Chattanooga to climb up in to get "pictures of the skyline".



A sad, crappy story all the way around...and now it's venturing into this territory and is just going to get nasty and combative, I'm afraid. At one point, things were looking good for the kid. But it seems things took a turn for the worse a while back.

[scratt]

Very simply my personal belief fall in the area of you are responsible for your own actions... We have too many of these "McDonalds Coffee in my Lap"TM lawsuits.

It's horrible for everyone involved when something like this happens, but that doesn't mean that we should be able to sue for tons of money every time...

This was not a public place. I guess the kids knew that.

It was a local area that was known to be derelict, right? A kid who is as intelligent as this guy should have known that.. Signs or not.

They also knew they should not be in there...

If you climb a tree in the forest and fall off, or fall down an old Tin mine covered in grass on a hill, who do you sue?

It's terribly tragic, and if it had happened in a public place I would whole heartedly agree with a law suit...

But sometimes life is tough.

That doesn't mean that I would disagree with a whip-round. But going after someone and taking away their money to pay for your mistake.. Not sure I would agree with that in this case..

The suit asks $10 million for Asher Mendonsa and $1 million each for his father and mother, Andy and Gloria Mendonsa.

It's the $1million that loses my sympathy every time.

I might even listen to the argument if they wanted reasonable fees to deal with their sons hospitalisation and treatment. But it always seem we try to justify putting a price on life, and then compensating people for some obscure loss in monetary terms. If I lost my son or daughter (heaven forbid) the last thing on my mind would be money for me.

[kaseyha]

The lawyers may be asking for too much money, but that does not exceuse the building owner from either keeping it safe or preventing people from entering.

In my mind it is kind of similar to the idea of owning a home and having to maintain the sidewalk in front of the home. Since you cannot prevent people from using the sidewalk in front of your house, you have to clear snow and ice from it to prevent people from injuring themselves. If someone were to slip on the sidewalk in front of your home and injure themselves because you did not properly maintain it, you would be liable for the injury.

Same thing here. Either maintain the building in such a way that prevents people from injuring themselves, or accept liability when injuries occur.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by kaseyha The lawyers may be asking for too much money, but that does not exceuse the building owner from either keeping it safe or preventing people from entering. In my mind it is kind of similar to the idea of owning a home and having to maintain the sidewalk in front of the home. Since you cannot prevent people from using the sidewalk in front of your house, you have to clear snow and ice from it to prevent people from injuring themselves. If someone were to slip on the sidewalk in front of your home and injure themselves because you did not properly maintain it, you would be liable for the injury. Same thing here. Either maintain the building in such a way that prevents people from injuring themselves, or accept liability when injuries occur.

So if I wander into your back garden and through your back door, and then go into your kitchen and drink what I think is water on your kitchen counter and die 'cos it is paint stripper.. I can then sue you, yes?

How far would you go with this?

Is everything on your land 100% safe?

Do you have any dimes or quarters a friends kid could choke on in your house?

Think about it...

[psmith2.0]

That was my main thing I was wondering about...how far, and at what point does it become a bit much?



I don't know.

And something I wanted to mention in my first post: this wasn't a two-year-old toddler or someone who didn't understand English. A sharp guy, by all accounts, with a lot going for him (from the friend of a friend of a friend, and all the other stories I've read). The "random, horrible accident" nature of it gets diluted a bit, when I consider it that way.

I'd love to be able to find out the signage/warning situation. Because if there WERE signs placed around and these kids ignored them, my leaning is to say "tough" (as horrible as that may sound).



But I don't know.

The building should've been torn down ages ago. Hasn't been anything for as long as I've been alive. Just a tall, rotting eyesore near downtown, with a freeway going right by it.

[Engine Joe]

With hazardous areas, the general rule is that a sign and reasonable measures to keep people out is enough, and so long as the person is trespassing, then they are liable for their own actions, not the landowner.

However, there is such a thing as an attractive nuisance - if your hazardous area is something that you would reasonably expect to be "appealing" to kids to explore, you have to take greater steps to prevent them from entering the area could be liable for their injuries. If the owner knew or should have known that kids or others had been trespassing in the past, then it is presumed that the owner reasonably expected trespassers to continue to enter the property.

The seminal case was one where there was a pond which was on private property. The owner had a fence around the property and a sign, but the fence was broken down in places so kids could easily go in. As I hazily recall, the owner had been dumping things in the water (scrap metal and the like). Some kids went to the pond to go swimming, and one was seriously injured (killed?). The owner was held liable because he should have known that kids would be interested in swimming in his pond and yet he didn't do enough to keep the kids out, since he allowed his fence to be in disrepair.

Also note that this only applies to kids - an adult trespassee in this case is expected to "know better" about trespassing through broken fences and warning signs. The attraction of a potential "swimming hole" might overcome the judgment of a child, but not an adult...

In this case, I notice that the kids had apparently been on this property a number of times. That will hurt the defense, since the plaintiff will argue that the defendant should reasonably have expected more trespassers, yet did not lock (or even keep closed) the gate at the building.

[Paul]

This sounds similar to having a swimming pool and not keeping it adequately protected... I believe it is called an attractive nuisance or something... ah, here it is, just found it in my Intro to Law class notes that I took this summer.

Attractive Nuisances (swimming pools, trampolines, ect./young people) 1.Non-actor (owner) knows children could trespass. 2.Risk of death or serious bodily harm. 3.Children may not realize risk. 4.Utility of risk vs. harm. 5.Reasonable care to protect child/trespasser.

I'm not sure of how much care was taken to protect trespassers in the building, but having a "false" floor like the article states does not sound very good. But, given that the city tried to condemn the abandoned building but the owner fought and won I can see how this lawsuit would seem justified. The only point above that may be hard to argue is #3 whether or not they realized the full extent of the risks of entering the building.

[scratt]

It's a tough one if there were no signs...

But then again, as you point out, he was not mentally challenged in any way, and also not a young kid, and he also made his own choices... That building is clearly derelict from the tiny picture in the article.

If it had been falling masonry because the building was not being made safe from the outside well then let's start calling the lawyers..

For this kind of thing I think we have to forget that a source of money owns the 'offending object'. If there was not source of money to sue then there would be nothing we can do....

In this case we can almost 'blame the parents'. Don't get me wrong.. let me finish my point before the flaming begins...

By parents I mean all of us...

Should we educate people better? he seemed pretty well educated. But do people still tell people to stay out of derelict buildings? or do we just assume we can sue, so why worry?

Should the government "in loco parentis" be making sure that buildings in public areas are safe inside?

Should there be legislation that the building must be sealed?

Could we then sue the government if the building was not sealed?

How far do we take it?

Again, we have come full circle...

[InactionMan]

If the building wasn't properly secured and there wasn't proper signage the owner of the building is somewhat responsible. I'm not saying he's responsible to the tune of $11 million but the building was obviously in a state of disrepair.

Here in Toronto, Home Depot evicted a bunch of squatters from some land they own on the waterfront. Not because they wanted to develop the land but because the land was is so polluted that anyone living on for an extended period of time would get very sick. From what I understand they shut the site down to avoid any lawsuits stemming from the squatters getting cancer or the like. Home Depot knew there were squatters on the land and they knew the land was horribly polluted. It was their responsibility to secure the site or deal with the consequences of allowing Tent City (cute name ) to stay on their land. The same goes for this guy if he knew people were trespassing in his building and he knew the building was unsafe.

[BuonRotto]

I think it's fair to say that if the owner of the building didn't lock entrances to the building, he's at least guilty of negligence, but it is trespassing, it is common sense that a place like that could be dangerous, and the kid is responsible for his actions, as callous as that sounds. It's not an all-or-nothing situation in any case, though I'm sure the laywers are trying to frame their arguments that way. Most bad things that happen in general are not simple and clear for blame to be placed on one person or group. These things usually happen as a series of smaller mistakes by multiple parties add up.

[psmith2.0]

Exactly. I agree 100%. Each side had a little hand in this, with possible laziness and negligence on the owner's part and foolishness and trespassing on the kid.

A bit of each, adding up to a horrible situation.

But I'm not sure the owner should be on the hook for $12 million...

I was just curious on what everyone's take on it was. Judging by the calls and talk here this morning on local radio, people seem fairly evenly split, echoing most of what we've said here: the owner should've done this, but the kid should've done that, etc. No one is outright "evil" or "stupid", but neither party has gone about things in the best or smartest way.

Unfortunate, all around.

I'm curious to see how this all plays out.

I realize it ain't no Pat Robertson type of story, but still...

[alcimedes]

You might want to do a little more digging on the McDonald's/coffee lawsuit before you decide that was a frivious one. It wasn't an accident that the punitive damages were so high.

In this case, kid was where he shouldn't have been. The property owner shouldn't have an obligation to secure an abandoned building's third floor.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by alcimedes You might want to do a little more digging on the McDonald's/coffee lawsuit before you decide that was a frivious one. It wasn't an accident that the punitive damages were so high.

Are you serious? I was under the impression it was a commonly accepted legal joke.

Spilling hot coffee in your crotch after picking it up at a drive in and suing because it was too hot? FFS!

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by scratt Are you serious? I was under the impression it was a commonly accepted legal joke. Spilling hot coffee in your crotch after picking it up at a drive in and suing because it was too hot? FFS!

Turns out that law suit may not have been frivolous at all.

quick Google search linky

[scratt]

Thanks for the link..

Hmmm... Perhaps I should sue my kettle manufacturer 'cos that kicks the water out at almost 100 degrees celcius, and I am sure I have burnt myself at least once or twice in my life with kettle water.

I really still think that this is a frivilous case.

Do not get me wrong. I loathe McDonalds in so many ways...

But you could apply the same arguments as used in that link to gun law, or cars, or pets, or anything...

I am sure she was a lovelly lady, and not a bandit looking for some quick cash, and I am sure she was right to go after McDonalds because of the way they treated her..

But the fact that you can sue because you spill A HOT DRINK THAT YOU BUY AS A HOT DRINK all over yourself by your own clumsiness and an act that you can blame anyone but yourself for is incredible!

I am glad she got her medical bills.

But I still think the law suit is a stupid one.

[murbot]

Originally Posted by scratt Thanks for the link.. Hmmm... Perhaps I should sue my kettle manufacturer 'cos that kicks the water out at almost 100 degrees celcius, and I am sure I have burnt myself at least once or twice in my life with kettle water.

Yeah, because serving scalding hot coffee is the same as burning yourself on a kettle you have full control over.

Boy, when you get an idea you really go to town with it, eh?

[scratt]

Didn't she spill it on herself while trying to drive away from a Drive Through?

Did she not have full control of her choice of venue, money, car and coffee?

That's all I meant.

EDIT: And doesn't everyone in America have cars the size of tanks with loads of little cubby holes for drinks and stuff... And didn't McDs give out those carboard trays with drinks then?

Just proving your point, by exploring all angles of an idea!

EDIT2: Actually I have just done some reading.. And she wasn't driving, but her son was. There are valid arguments on both sides in this one. IMHO.

But trying to get this thread back on topic.... Sorry pscates.

Irresponsible use of anecdotal cases by “tort reform” proponents is nothing new. The case of Charles Bigbee was the “McDonald’s coffee case” of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan described Bigbee’s case in a 1986 speech as follows: “In California, a man was using a public telephone booth to place a call. An alleged drunk driver careened down the street, lost control of his car, and crashed into a phone booth. Now, it’s no surprise that the injured man sued. But you might be startled to hear whom he sued: the telephone company and associated firms!” In fact, Bigbee’s leg was severed after a car hit the phone booth in which he had been trapped. The door jammed after he saw the car coming ‚ he tried to flee but could not. The accident left him unable to walk, severely depressed and unable to work. Because the phone company had placed the booth near a known hazardous intersection, and because the door was defective, keeping him trapped inside, he sued the phone company for compensation. Bigbee was brought to Congress to testify. He said, “I believe it would be very helpful if I could talk briefly about my case and show how it has been distorted not only by the President, but by the media as well. That is probably the best way to show that people who are injured due to the fault of others should be justly compensated for the damages they have to live with the rest of their lives.” House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, July 23, 1986. Charles Bigbee died in 1994 at age 52. Nader, Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (1996).

[psmith2.0]

I'm waiting for the inevitable "the coffee was too cold" lawsuit.



What I love at drive-thru windows: them making you a beverage and it winding up all over the side of the cup (almost like they were purposely trying to see how much ice and soda they can pack in, and then put the lid on and have 1/10 of it gush out everywhere). And they just hand it to you, and now I've got Dr. Pepper on my shirt, my crotch, my steering wheel, my slick slacks (pretend I wear them, for added effect ), etc.

And heaven forbid you have the nerve to ask for a napkin...

[kaseyha]

Originally Posted by scratt So if I wander into your back garden and through your back door, and then go into your kitchen and drink what I think is water on your kitchen counter and die 'cos it is paint stripper.. I can then sue you, yes? How far would you go with this? Is everything on your land 100% safe? Do you have any dimes or quarters a friends kid could choke on in your house? Think about it...

No everything is not safe, but this is the reason for liability insurance. I recall hearing of precedence for thieves suing homeowners for injuries sustained while in the process of robbing the home. What is the urban legend... a guy gets himself stuck in the garage, while robbing a house when the homeowners are on vacation, and comes close to death from dehydration and then sues the homeowners for pain and suffering... Pretty silly, but I think you have to always assume that you are liable for anything that happens on your property.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by kaseyha No everything is not safe, but this is the reason for liability insurance. I recall hearing of precedence for thieves suing homeowners for injuries sustained while in the process of robbing the home. What is the urban legend... a guy gets himself stuck in the garage, while robbing a house when the homeowners are on vacation, and comes close to death from dehydration and then sues the homeowners for pain and suffering... Pretty silly, but I think you have to always assume that you are liable for anything that happens on your property.

You see I come from a different school of thought.
Responcibility for your own actions.

That way if I walk past your building on the public footpath and your building drops something on me I may choose to sue. You must be responsible for your building, or yourself, and your actions in the public domain.

However, if I am in your building and I shouldn't be, anything that happens is my fault. I must be responsible for my actions in your domain.

You cannot expect to sue me if I invite you to my home, and I am not a business, and you fall off my garden swing. Who would you sue if you fell of your own garden swing? The manufacturer? If perhaps they sold you a dodgy swing, fine. But not if you put it together wrong, or are fragile as a twig, or the size of a hippo. That's not the manufacturers problem is it?

You see. Very simple. But people these days (a lot of them anyway) seem to want to be indemnified from anything they do, and able to carry this reasonable protection we have 'on the public sidewalk' into our homes and property. That is simply not freedom, it is pandering to people in a way that ultimately makes us all weak.

The 'urban legend' you talk about is actually true across many countries now... UK: Did you hear about the farmer who shot a drug addict who broke into his house at night, out in the boonies somewhere, and was stealing? This guy was sent to jail (the farmer) and the local community trashed his farm and house while he was in there... When he was finally released from jail the drug addict tried to sue the farmer. Thankfully the judge and police (outside the court action) pointed out to the drug addict that this was not a wise course of action and the case was dropped. But legally he had a case (in the UK of all places).

Now I am telling you that even if you are the Pope, and I find you in my familly home at night, sneaking around uninvited, I will kill you, and take the consequences!

These laws we have in the US and UK which seem to protect criminals are there to protect the stupidity in us all, I guess. But at what cost?

Another one that springs to mind...

I remember a case in the US where a young man was sliding down a slide near a pool (he was in his early 20s and it was a kids slide) and he managed to break his neck and do some brain damage.. They had been drinking, and it was a private family party. I think they were even launching themselves into the pool. They sued the slide manufacturer, saying that they had not been told that it could not be used for that. I think they won.....

[kaseyha]

Well you are correct, these types of cases, civil law in general, do cater to the lowest common denominator. And I don't actually agree with the idea that I need to consider myself liable for anything that occurs on my property, but that is the way our legal system works.

Based on that, I think it likely that the owner of the building in question will be found responsible for the damages to the young man who fell three floors through a hole in the floor. It also seems that his only hope is to prove that the kid who was injured was old enough to know that he was in danger and should have known better than to be in a building that was known to be dangerous. I think the building owner will lose the case.

Unfortnate, it does promote a certain amount of irresponsibility, but this is the reality of our legal system. I think it would be interesting to learn more about how the legal system managed to get in this position. Most people seem to agree that there really isn't a lot of justice served in these cases, yet the verdicts turn out the same virtually every time...

[scratt]

I think we are pretty much on the same page really.. I just have a lot less tolerance of the whole thing than you.

And I don't actually agree with the idea that I need to consider myself liable for anything that occurs on my property, but that is the way our legal system works.

That's an interesting one though. On that basis you could not sue if you fell off a slide when drunk and hurt yourself, on the grounds that no-one told you that was a stupid thing to do.

The problem is that with the current system....

While on the one hand you have to consider yourself liable for everything that happens on your land. If that happens to be when using someone elses product on your land and they don't have 100 pages of caveats in the instructions you can still sue them.

It's almost as silly as the badge on all my parachutes, which clearly states that you might die doing this, it is very dangerous, and you really shouldn't do it etc. etc. bla. bla.

It is unbelievable to me that some idiot can go buy a parachute, jump off a cliff and turn themselves into strawberry jam, and there is the chance that the relatives of that person could then concievably sue the manufacturer, shop, or governing body of the sport for that accident - IF THEY DIDN"T HAVE THAT PRINTED ON THE PARACHUTE!

[DMBand0026]

I was listening to WGN Radio yesterday on my way to a friend's house and I heard the afternoon host talking about a story he read, apparently a woman is suing her doctor for millions in pain and suffering and asking him to be investigated by the state medical board of North Carolina (I think...the state escapes me at the moment). She's also asking that a jude requires he take a course in sensitivity. The reason: he told her she was overweight.

Did you just make that face too?

[Foj]

Originally Posted by DMBand0026 Did you just make that face too?

it was more of a face for me

[thegelding]

working in medicene i see this everyday...some parents see every trip to the doctors as buying a lottery ticket...with every visit being, perhaps they will win this time...

becomes very sad...

sometimes death happens...sometimes bad things happen...not every time do you deserve a million bucks...sorry

sometimes you do...sometimes something is so fu@ked up that people deserve lots of money and the person responsible needs to pay grandly to send a message...

but usually that is not the case...sometimes kids die...sometimes parents die, wives, husbands, pets...cars get wrecked, homes burned down...somedays your life just sucks and suck so fu@king greatly that you feel every part of you crumbling...and that is awful...but it is also life and guess what, you don't deserve cash because of it

and when i think back to my life and all the stupid things i did and how many times i could have die...but all of them would have been my fault and none of them should have made my mom rich (though i would have liked my mother to have gotten rich...that would have been nice for her)...

sorry for the rant...just bugs me...and i am all for lawyers and i am all for people getting justice and even compensation...but not just because something bad happened...it takes more than that...everyday life isn't playing the lottery...everyday life is just life....

g

[geneman]

Originally Posted by DMBand0026 I was listening to WGN Radio yesterday on my way to a friend's house and I heard the afternoon host talking about a story he read, apparently a woman is suing her doctor for millions in pain and suffering and asking him to be investigated by the state medical board of North Carolina (I think...the state escapes me at the moment). She's also asking that a jude requires he take a course in sensitivity. The reason: he told her she was overweight. Did you just make that face too?

Talk about denial
<Cartman voice> No I'm not fat </Cartman voice>

On a serious note, I don't think there's any basis for suing the owner of the abandoned building, the "kid" was trespassing IMHO.

More generally, it scares me (literally) what you can sue people for in this country (US), it sometimes seems an honest mistake can set you back a few millions or half a life in prison

[Random Hero]

I'm going to play ignorance here and just say that if the owner of the property has not invited the person who gets injured onto the property than he holds no responsibility. If you start getting into this "People will get in, so keep it safe" stuff it all can turn into a grey area.

I live in the country and my grandfather owns a lot of farm land, and so do my parents. We have 4 wheeler trails for my brother and I to ride. What if someone other kid on a dirtbike from across town is making his way through this area and comes upon our trails, trespasses on our property and starts riding them only to take a spill and get himself real banged up. Well, he could very well sue us to cover his hospital bills and repairs to his dirtbike, and use the arguement that we should have made our trails safer, maybe had some signs posted about the rough terrain, or smaller jumps, etc. I mean yeah, it's real unfortunate that the kid is hurt but I think many would agree that this is irrational. At what point do you stop and take responsibiltiy for your actions?

The argument that the Gary Fillers, the property owner, is responsible to keep the Tower building safe is a valid one, but remember: private property. Because this is a building in (from what I suspect is) a public area, I'm sure that the owner of the property is under different guidelines than my family is for maintaining properties, and in that situation the owner appears to definitely be at fault. But, if you go onto private property without permission you are trespassing. Doesn't that kind of null and void your lawsuit anyways since you were breaking the law?

This sucks for both parties. I feel for the kid who is now a quadriplegic because, well, he's now a quadriplegic. He went in there to take pictures (yeah sure) but even if he was in there just to screw around he still sure didn't see that hole in the 3rd story floor coming. And I feel for the property owner because why should he have to baby-proof his old building? If people would respect his private property and stay off from it this wouldn't be a problem.

I'd say the owner should compensate the family and the kid because the covered hole in the floor just sounds like a dumb thing to do. Even some construction worker in there someday could have made the same mistake. However, 12 million dollars? (total) That's abserd. I'd say enough to cover the hospital bills so far and for the next year or so and a nice wheel chair and get him on out of there.

Flame on.

[scratt]

Sounds like a sound viewpoint to me.

I don't know that he should compensate them for anything... But if you're faced with a lawsuit like that, and a reasonable judge, then I think any lawyer (on the side of the defendant) would think that was a reasonable deal, if everyone could sit down round a table and thrash it out...

[Luca]

I hold what appears to be a common opinion that the owner of the property should be held (mostly) accountable for this and should have to pay a good deal of money to the child and his family, but I also don't think that $12 million is quite reasonable. A good amount, though, because of the permanent damage the child suffered that will affect him the rest of his life.

Someone compared this to leaving paint thinner on your kitchen counter and having someone break into your house and drink it. Given the circumstances, I think a better analogy would be leaving your doors wide open and putting a bowl full of poisoned candy on your counter (not visible from outside the house; that would imply intent to harm). You're not openly offering the candy to people, but it's an enticing target and there are no warnings that it's going to be dangerous. I think people do have a responsibility to protect themselves from dangerous things, but they also have a responsibility to prevent dangerous situations in everyday life. Leaving an abandoned building open without any warning signs (and I don't know whether there were any warnings signs or not in this particular case) is creating a pretty dangerous situation.

Maybe if he had put up some signs or if he had locked the gate and/or the doors to the building, I wouldn't feel like holding the building owner accountable.

[kaseyha]

Originally Posted by scratt Sounds like a sound viewpoint to me. I don't know that he should compensate them for anything... But if you're faced with a lawsuit like that, and a reasonable judge, then I think any lawyer (on the side of the defendant) would think that was a reasonable deal, if everyone could sit down round a table and thrash it out...

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if that's how it worked.

I was recently on the sidelines of a case where one side tried multiple times to come to a reasonable compromise, but was refused each time. The reason... the other law firm had agreed to be paid a percentage of whatever damages were recovered... and they got greedy. And, the judge never put a stop to the ridiculous situation.