Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dmek25
you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?
|
I can't effing stand this argument. Since when can a dollar value be put on someone's life? Why do we insist on assigning a dollar value to it? First off, punitive damages like that are ineffective. The only people that care if Aramark loses 109 million are the shareholders, and the CFO and CEO of Aramark. And they won't make any sweeping changes as a result of the punitive damage ruling, they already have mechanisms in place not to sell to visibly drunk people. It's stupid to ask Aramark to pay $109 million. The primary responsibility rests with the guy who got behind the wheel.
The only reason Aramark was named in the case was because this family was out for jackpot justice, and when they realized that they could only milk a couple thousand out of the drunk driver, they went after whoever had money. And that was Aramark.
What, paying $109 million is supposed to make anybody any less hurt or any less dead? It's retarded. It accomplishes nothing, other than get the family rich off their daughter's misfortune.