XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.law-enforcement, alt.pets.dogs
XPost: alt.true-crime
From: ultra@man.jp
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article ,
> comadrejo wrote:
>
>> In article <1186191445.929295.111130@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bo Raxo wrote:
>
>>> Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
>>> idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
>>> million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
>>> cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
>>> future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
>>> pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
>>> victim who is already halfway through his working life and probably
>>> didn't earn that much per
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
>>> card.
>>
>>
>> My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
>> could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a heart
>> attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
>> benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
>> could be limited...
>
> It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own death.
> Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs, etc.
> before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was the one
> who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked them to
> attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?
respondeat superior
>Until the investigation is over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his insurance
> company) will have to pay out.
You really were a crappy lawyer, weren't you?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
