The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Lifeguard saves life; Corporation he works for fires him
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:51 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster Lifeguards in Hallandale Beach work for Orlando-based company Jeff Ellis and Associates, which has been providing lifeguard services for the city's beaches and pools since 2003.
Company officials on Tuesday said Lopez broke a rule that could've put beachgoers in his designated area in jeopardy. The firm could ultimately have been sued, officials said.
"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," said supervisor Susan Ellis. "What he did was his own decision. He knew the company rules and did what he thought he needed to do."
Lopez said he was sitting at his post at about 1:45 p.m. Monday when someone rushed to his stand asking for help. Lopez said he noticed a man struggling in the water south of his post. The man was previously swimming in an "unprotected" stretch of the beach, city officials confirmed Tuesday.
"It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn't going to say no," he said.
Company officials said the rescue took place about 1,500 feet south of the company's protective boundaries. The unprotected area has signs alerting beachgoers to swim at their own risk.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/hallandale/fl-hallandale-beach-lifeguards-20120703,0,5326638.story |
 |
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:10 PM Author: well-lubricated heady shrine digit ratio Fuck this bullshit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21020526) |
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:52 PM Author: burgundy coffee pot No duty to rescue (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014512) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:54 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster Whiny nasally lawyers: "BUT THERE WAS A SIGN WARNING PEOPLE TO SWIM AT THEIR OWN RISK" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014531) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:04 PM Author: razzle theatre background story Other Whiny nasally lawyers: "BUT THAT SHOULDNT PREVENT RECOVERY FOR MY CLIENT" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014995) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:52 PM Author: Lilac massive locale Orlando based company. No surprise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014513) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:54 PM Author: High-end affirmative action Greetings, SHITboomer jews |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:48 PM Author: Impertinent field (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015346) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:52 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster Libertarians, is this how you imagine private police officers and firefighters would IRL? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014516) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:54 PM Author: domesticated dingle berry hell Rules are rules breh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014530) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:53 PM Author: dead big tanning salon Jeff Ellis and Associates will get fucking ass-raped in the media if there is any justice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014521) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:53 PM Author: orange forum thanks libs! (corp was clearly afraid of tort liability) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014528) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:28 AM Author: provocative garrison (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018686) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:54 PM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
They made the right decision from a legal perspective; whether it was a good decision from a business perspective depends entirely on how much bad publicity they end up getting. So jury's still out on whether this was a good decision or not at the end of the day. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:57 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster Well several other lifeguards who work for this company quit in protest.
|
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 2:01 PM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
Who gives a shit? Unless there's a massive lifeguard boycott against the company and/or this story blows up on the national radar and assfucks it, they'll look back in a month (when this has all died down) and pat themselves on the back for making the smart business decision. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:49 PM Author: exhilarant station To be fair, this attitude is exactly why this country is a festering TTT in decline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015351) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:02 PM Author: Marvelous flesh mediation quadroon why was it a smart business decision to fire this guy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015432) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:13 AM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
If he's saving people while on the job and otherwise acting in the reasonable course of performing his expected duties as a lifeguard working for this company, but the people that he's saving are outside of the clearly demarcated geographic jurisdiction that the company has assigned him to cover, then the company's insurance policy almost certainly wouldn't cover it if he fucked up the rescue and the guy got injured/died and his family sued the company for big money. Or were you under the impression that companies like this just demarcate what areas are "safe" to swim in (i.e., have been vetted and are covered by their insurance policy) because corporate suits are assholes who get personal satisfaction out of stopping people from swimming wherever they want?
So if they keep him on after he did this, not only do they open themselves up to future litigation if he does it again, but they've established (as a matter of implicit company policy) that it's "OK" to do this - which means that future employees will likely feel free to take similar actions without thinking twice, and if another employee pulls something like this and the company gets sued for that, they will have an even harder time arguing that he wasn't acting within the reasonable course of employment. Of course neither the company nor this lifeguard had any legal duty to save this guy because he was outside of the bounds of the "safe" swimming zone, which means that as long as the employee does nothing, nobody can be successfully sued. And not only that, but if shit goes down in his jurisdiction while he's outside running around pretending to be a superhero to idiots swimming in the middle of the ocean, the company is liable for that too because he was negligent for leaving his designated area. Welcome to America's tort system.
This has to be balanced against the probable level of public outcry if they fire the hero. Obviously they were banking, rightly or wrongly, on this not blowing up on them such that they take a huge business hit because people are morally outraged. Maybe that will happen and maybe it won't, but either way it's a tough calculation with no clear answer and they certainly weren't stupid or "evil" to do what they did given the legal backdrop. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:10 PM Author: well-lubricated heady shrine digit ratio Oh what scholarship! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21020523) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2020 9:01 AM Author: Disgusting Topaz State (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#40984066) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2020 9:21 AM Author: curious abnormal den black woman Ljl at this 1L level screed. (Xo 2012 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#40984152) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:21 PM Author: Talented Onyx Circlehead Kitty If there's a big enough uproar, the city just won't renew their contract to provide lifeguarding services and they'll go out of business. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015552) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:29 AM Author: provocative garrison Date: July 4th, 2012 2:01 PM Author: To be fair (Semi-Retired)
To be fair,
Who gives a shit? Unless there's a massive lifeguard boycott against the company and/or this story blows up on the national radar and assfucks it, they'll look back in a month (when this has all died down) and pat themselves on the back for making the smart business decision. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:29 AM Author: provocative garrison (low-iq schtick) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018692) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:13 AM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
(Dumb faggot who probably knows nothing about law) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2025 4:09 PM Author: Pungent splenetic public bath giraffe It actually is really hard to hire lifeguards nowadays. This could hurt the company. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#49074456) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:52 PM Author: exhilarant station They made a horrible decision from a moral and ethical perspective, asshole. But I guess only legal and business decisions matter to you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015372) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:56 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library Better to risk the capital of debtors and owners due to legal liability? By your definition, it is immoral to fire anyone for financial considerations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015405) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:59 PM Author: exhilarant station Do you even realize how absurd your statements are?
You are supporting the idea that it's better to just watch someone drown because of some minuscule chance of liability (we're talking actual expected values on the order of pennies at best here). Is that what you want? |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:02 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library Company makes a clear monetary cost-benefit analysis and deems they are better off, from this perspective, by firing someone. You deem this to be immoral.
What exactly is the absurdity? I just ask that you be consistent. If the firing someone on the grounds of financial considerations is immoral, say so.
"You are supporting the idea that it's better to just watch someone drown because of some minuscule chance of liability (we're talking actual expected values on the order of pennies at best here). Is that what you want?"
I never said nor implied that. I have not made a value-call on either the lifeguard or companies' actions. You have. Now defend it. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:07 PM Author: exhilarant station Companies are owned and operated by people, you know. Should these people simply throw out all standards of morals and ethics because they are operating through a corporate entity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015463) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:13 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library The people that decided to fire the lifeguard simply performed an assessment that the potential legal liability was sufficiently high enough to try and avoid through firing of the lifeguard. They are not passing judgement on the morality or "goodness" of him saving the man. They were not there on that day chaining the lifeguard to his spot stopping him from saving the man. You are trying to ascribe actions on their part that never occurred. What you are calling immoral is simply the act of firing someone on the grounds of financial considerations.
Have the intellectual discipline to separate the two in your mind. The firing of the man is not a rejection on the moral appropriateness of the lifeguards actions. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:19 PM Author: exhilarant station Yes, I am calling firing him immoral. People are not merely financial drones.
You perceive people acting within a corporation as mindless automatons whose sole goal is to maximize shareholder profits. This is, of course, completely absurd. I'm not saying that they're rejecting the moral appropriateness of the lifeguard's actions--I'm saying they're horrible people for firing him, for acting in such an amoral manner. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:28 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library Not firing someone who is costing the business is actually immoral. Management, as the agents to the owners, have a fiduciary duty to them. If management therefore makes a conscious decision not to act in the best interests of the owners THAT is immoral. It is effectively stealing money from the pockets of the shareholders.
The duties management and owners have to employees is to adhere to the signed employment agreements (plus any reasonable constructive obligations). This means paying them on-time, appropriate severance, etc. Management going beyond that in a manner that hurts the company would be wrong. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:25 AM Author: walnut meetinghouse bbw lol not acting in the best interests of shareholders is more immoral than telling your lifeguard employees to literally watch some guy drown, just lol cow goes moo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018663) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:39 AM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
Oh look, people disagreeing about what actions an actor should take in order to behave "morally" - this isn't a subjective and inherently unanswerable debate at all. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:20 PM Author: orange forum I'm not a lawyer so someone please chime in to correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the company fire him so as to send a message to other employees not to break company rules which are presumably in place to prevent potential tort liability. But wouldn't that vicarious liability against the corporation for its employee's actions only exist if the employee agent was acting within the scope of its duties. And wouldn't a rescue outside the demarcated boundary be just that -- outside the scope of the employee's lifeguard duties, and thus had the lifeguard abandoned rescue midway or performed the rescue negligently he would risk direct liability, but the corporation would escape vicarious liability?
this of course assumes that there was a backup lifeguard on duty to cover him while he was performing the rescue |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:26 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library No idea, I am assuming for this discussion that there was potential legal liability due to the lifeguard's actions and firing of him would dampen or minimize the likelihood of this liability (or future liability) bearing fruit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015580) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:25 AM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
Pretty hard to argue, from a legal perspective, that just because he swam a few feet outside of the designated area, he therefore wasn't still acting in the reasonable course of his duties when he was perforing the same job outside that he was hired to perform within the zone. At the very least, on those grounds alone the insurance company - which you better believe exists, and which only agreed to cover rescues performed in the designated area (which is why it's called a "safe" area to begin with - because it's been vetted for hidden dangers, etc.) - isn't forking over jack shit if the lifeguard company gets sued for shit the occurs outside of the zone, or because of legal negligence which took him away from his post over the zone (and the insurance company's refusal to pay up could in and of itself put the lifeguard company out of business.)
All of the MAF bleeding hearts ITT who want to skewer the company for this are idiots. The lifeguard did the right thing, but there's a strong argument to be made that so did the company. NEWSFLASH: Sometimes "doing the right thing" is hard and carries bad consequences, which is why a lot of people don't do it all the time. Guy's a local hero now, I'm sure he can find solid employment elsewhere (which I'm sure the company took into account as well.) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:15 PM Author: exhilarant station We can back up a bit to show how ridiculous you are.
I said: "They made a horrible decision from a moral and ethical perspective, asshole. But I guess only legal and business decisions matter to you."
You said: "Better to risk the capital of debtors and owners due to legal liability? By your definition, it is immoral to fire anyone for financial considerations."
First of all, you're jumping straight from the idea that this particular case is completely immoral to the idea that firing anyone is immoral, which is completely ridiculous. I didn't say anything of that nature at all.
And yes, in this case it is better to risk an expected value of a few pennies (if that) in order to avoid being horrible people. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:25 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library Exactly. You think that the firing of someone to "save a few pennies" (or in this case avoid the risk of loss), is immoral. You realize that in almost EVER case of firing for financial purposes, this is the context? The point is those pennies add up. The real immorality would be if the managers, who are agents of the owners and creditors, did not save these pennies because of their personal biases. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015573) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:30 PM Author: exhilarant station Wow, now you're implying that corporate law is the ultimate morality, and that not acting in accordance with a certain brand of libertarian corporate theory is actually immoral.
Saving lives >>> saving a few pennies |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:31 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library The decision here, by the companies management, was not between savings lives and saving "a few pennies" you asshat. This assumption has been underlying in all your posts from the start and it is fundamentally wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015601) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:34 PM Author: exhilarant station The few pennies we're talking about is the expected value of the liability of leaving his post for a few minutes to attempt to save someone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015612) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:36 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library And the dude who fired the lifeguard is not saying that he should have stayed at his post. How fucking hard is it for you to understand? Every single person in the company probably thinks the lifeguard made the right call. That however is irrelevant. What matters, and what played into the decision to fire the guy, is the potential legal liability.
Again, and this is a problem that arises from your pseudo-anarchy mutualist/syndicalist positions, you are unable to understand nuance. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:42 PM Author: exhilarant station Here's what you're saying:
Lifeguard sees someone drowning outside his contracted area. He has a choice now--save that person and get fired, or sit at his post and keep his job.
You're saying that it would be immoral for the company to not fire him, even.
You don't seem to understand that this creates an incentive for lifeguards to sit and not bother saving someone. I'm saying that the company's decision to fire someone for doing this is immoral because it's creating this incentive. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:48 PM Author: sable fiercely-loyal therapy library I'll accept your subjective definition of morality for a second and tell you what you should have originally posted:
"This firing demonstrates how our legal system breeds immorality (or at least the stopping of morally correct actions). It creates an incentive for the company and lifeguard employees to avoid doing the right thing and saving someone even if they are a few feet outside of the lifeguard's zone"
Do you understand the stark contrast? If you want to blame the company for now putting incentives in place to stop lifeguards from doing what you think is the right thing, than you have to take another step back and look at why the company is doing that in the first place. In this case the real incentive starts on the legal front and filters to the company which then filters to the lifeguards.
So, again the following post, even under your moral framework, is still invalid:
Reply
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:52 PM Author: fucklaw
They made a horrible decision from a moral and ethical perspective, asshole. But I guess only legal and business decisions matter to you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2#21015372) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:51 PM Author: orange forum this is tcr. it's the current state of our tort system perpetuated by libs and plaintiff's lawyers that led to these perverse incentives. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015713) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 8:31 PM Author: exhilarant station I can certainly agree that our legal system is fucked up. However, at some point people need to take moral responsibility for their actions and not just cop out and say that they were only doing it because they had a responsibility to shareholders. This includes the people working for this company, who should feel ashamed of themselves for this. They didn't have to fire the guy--corporate law certainly doesn't require it--but they did anyway.
Additionally, I question the reality of actual liability for a lifeguard's actions. In the extremely unlikely event that someone else had drowned because the lifeguard went away to help someone for a few minutes, there's actually a rather high probability that no liability would result. The corporate operatives are overestimating liability, which is typical for risk-averse executives who like to hide behind this excuse.
So, yes, I blame the legal system, but I also blame the people in the corporation for their actions. It seems that you think the people shouldn't be blamed for whatever they do as long as they're operating within the law and trying to maximize shareholder value. I disagree that we as a society are better off that way. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:02 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster No, no he doesn't (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015431) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:08 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster Only justification I can find to fire him would be if he left the secure area unmanned; thereby putting others at risk. But there was a backup lifeguard in this case so it was just downright stupid decision to fire him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015474) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 5:09 PM Author: appetizing violent place of business piazza "They made a horrible decision from a moral and ethical perspective, asshole. But I guess only legal and business decisions matter to you."
Beat me to it.
A rare bit of sanity here. I usually don't like to police morality, but it is absurd that everyone is only arguing the business and legal ramifications of what was done. The options this guy faced was to let someone die or not and the company's response to him saving a life was to fire him. wtf. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2025 4:07 PM Author: arousing box office selfie lmfao tbf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#49074452) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:59 PM Author: Jet lascivious ticket booth SL Steve spotted on a bus to Orlando. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014565) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 1:59 PM Author: dead big tanning salon lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014569) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 2:48 PM Author: Fragrant Legend Toaster 178 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21014874) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:26 AM Author: provocative garrison 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018667) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:49 AM Author: Ivory Filthy Dysfunction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018834) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 3:47 PM Author: exhilarant station Wow.
Susan Ellis (quoted in op) is a horrible person. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:29 AM Author: Mauve Sneaky Criminal Dog Poop sound like a typical shitboomer gremlin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21019163) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 4:11 PM Author: Charismatic canary milk theater twist: guy on lifeguard's sector of beach drowned because he wasn't there (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21015489) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 8:46 PM Author: Drab idiot genital piercing that's the point. if he went out of his way to save some dumbass who was swimming way out in the middle of nowhere and someone dies in the area that's actually supposed to be protected, not only does the company get sued, but it's also fucked up morally. you're rewarding the wrong people.
edit: but the chance of someone else drowning in the time that it took to save that other guy was so slim that i can't defend the company for firing him. give him a warning. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:31 AM Author: provocative garrison there is a 0.00001% chance of that happening. driving to his job would have a better chance of killing someone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018702) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:20 AM Author: titillating ladyboy institution To be fair,
...except this company, like all companies, fails to give a fuck about that because there's a strong argument to be made that he's not "acting in the reasonable course of employment" just because he's driving to his job as a lifeguard. Which means that the company isn't liable for bullshit that he pulls during that time. Which is why you won't get fired for driving drunk to your job on the construction site, but you will get fired for being drunk on the site. And at the end of the day, companies that are literally in the business of saving people have to be extra vigilant and make sure that they set and follow strict rules to preemptively defend against highly-forseeable liability that will pop up when people inevitably die and families are pissed. Or, you know, the companies just cease to exist when they get the shit sued out of them and the market for their services becomes untenable to potential entrants. Good outcome?
If all of this outrages the fuck out of you, blame the crowd of shitty (overwhelmingly liberal) plaintiffs lawyers who sue at the drop of a dime and our shitty (overwhelmingly plaintiff friendly) tort system that regularly assfucks companies over anything and everything. It's amazing how fucking dumb people on this site are now. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 5:13 PM Author: vibrant main people associate lol @ XOers actually entering the thread to defend the company
my guess is these same posters are ugly, boring, and lonely in real life. |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 8:41 PM Author: Vermilion goal in life filthpig handsome, swarthy, and charming (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21016985) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 11:14 PM Author: exhilarant station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018097) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2012 11:51 PM Author: lime death wish Lol at the aspies in here defending this decision. "but what if someone simultaneously was drowning in a protected area and he abandoned his post and then....." and then what? Have you fucks ever tried a case in front of a jury? How does that argument go? " this asshole was off saving a life, MIND YOU THAT LIFE THAT NEEDED SAVING WAS IN A SAVE YOURSELF AREA, and then someone else drowned." jury award .50. Have a nice day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018408) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:32 AM Author: provocative garrison (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018711) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 12:51 AM Author: Ivory Filthy Dysfunction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018842) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:07 AM Author: glittery bawdyhouse cr. aggressive stupidity from CGM up in this biatch (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21018974) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2020 10:04 AM Author: Aphrodisiac love of her life Stuff like this separates Lawyers with Jury Trial experience and the rest.
I have some lawyer friends who can sit and expound on all these insane hypos and once I ask them "have you ever tried a case in front of a jury" they clam up quick. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:02 AM Author: adventurous fantasy-prone personal credit line chad Cow goes moo is such a fucking dumbass its ridiculous. Putting aside the moral questions, this is a PR disaster. They're probably going to lose their contract over this if they have a competitor.
The corporate execs time has value right? Because people (including me possibly) are going to call them up just to scream at them. |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 1:32 AM Author: Mauve Sneaky Criminal Dog Poop someone shd tweet this thread to shame the company (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#21019180) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2012 8:06 PM Author: adventurous fantasy-prone personal credit line chad He was hired back. So where is cow goes moo now?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/05/12582497-lifeguard-who-was-fired-for-trying-to-rescue-man-is-offered-job-back?lite |
|
Date: September 25th, 2020 9:08 AM Author: nudist reading party Jews did this to America, it’s a great metaphor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#40984102) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2020 9:19 AM Author: Passionate carnelian fortuitous meteor property So glad window locker to be fair no longer posts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#40984143) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2020 9:21 AM Author: Disgusting Topaz State disagree, xo could use some more autism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1986092&forum_id=2...id.#40984150) |