XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.law-enforcement, alt.pets.dogs
XPost: alt.true-crime
From: theprof@jonez.net
BTR1701 wrote:
> "¥ UltraMan ¥" wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> comadrejo wrote:
>>>> 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
>
> Independentus contractus
TX CODE TITLE 4 § 101.07, § 106.02, § 106.025, § 106.04, § 106.07, § 106.071
TX PENAL CODE TITLE § 32.51
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
