Norcal500 wrote: You wouldn't EVER catch me at such an event!
Good.
.
Lampman tragedy and greed
by theCryptofishist » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:34 am
I hate to see this thread back up. I hate even more to see it when I'm already beginning the horrible anniversary reaction I'm having for Scott's death.
I am still outraged by the pure hatred of the title. I am glad that most of the new posts are rational.
Kathy Lampman's death broke my husband's heart. He had a dreadful time that following year. Others suffered more, I know, but he practically came unglued.
I find this harping on the family disrespectful to the "burner community." I think the LLC made the right choice by banning that mutant vehicle configuration. Everyone I talked to was shocked and horrified. I think we all mourned her a little. I think we changed as a community more than we awknowledge in 03.
And I keep coming back to this. Some one young and sweet died a shocking death. Can we have a little respect?
I am still outraged by the pure hatred of the title. I am glad that most of the new posts are rational.
Kathy Lampman's death broke my husband's heart. He had a dreadful time that following year. Others suffered more, I know, but he practically came unglued.
I find this harping on the family disrespectful to the "burner community." I think the LLC made the right choice by banning that mutant vehicle configuration. Everyone I talked to was shocked and horrified. I think we all mourned her a little. I think we changed as a community more than we awknowledge in 03.
And I keep coming back to this. Some one young and sweet died a shocking death. Can we have a little respect?
Lose your legs--Become a merit badge.
Remember, you're just a make-believe soldier in an artificial army.
Remember, you're just a make-believe soldier in an artificial army.
-
theCryptofishist - Posts: 34151
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:28 am
- Location: In Exile
- Burning Since: 1986
by Karma13 » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:28 pm
Norcal said:
"I doubt any of you really know the real details of the lawsuit. "
On the contrary. At least one of us does, and the information given out about the lawsuit here is public information, rather deatiled and mostly accurate. And the reason we're talking about this here is not to debate the merits of the case, but to discuss how this lawsuit, and others like it could impact our attendance at Burning Man.
Norcal said:
"God bless Kathy and her family who's good name is bieng dragged through the dirt in this post. It was not her fault. She was simply a victim of bad circumstances."
Exactly. She was a victim of bad circumstances - an accident. The problem here is that her family is trying to use this accident to make the whole camp pay cash money to her for this accident. At a recent case settlement conference, $50,000 (or thereabouts) was offered to her family to settle the case. It was immediately rejected. They want more cash. It is their choice to try to sue the camp and Burning Man, any mud created here was of their own making.
Norcal said:
"Karma....would you say these same things directly to Kathy's mom or to kathy herself if she was here? You know you wouldn't. SHAME ON YOU !!!"
First of all, would there be a lawsuit if Kathy was here? Second of all, I would definitely say these things to her Mom. To her, this is about money from some names on a piece of paper. To the camp members being sued, some of whom have already spent thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer in order to defend themselves, this lawsuit is a real threat to their families.
Otisserie said:
"I'm sorry you have to read this too. But the reason you are reading it is NOT because Kathy died, but because of a lawsuit filed against a lot of good people. I'm sure every one of them would love to see this sad event end. And it would end tomorrow if the family, or whomever is behind the suit, would follow your advice and "let it go". Perhaps you might ask them to. This lawsuit is not Karma or an act of God, it is the result of deliberate and repeated actions by one or more persons."
Exactly. Amen.
Norcal said:
"If your child were to drown in a neighbors pool at a pool party I'd bet you would sue the owner of the house."
Analogy inapt. A better one: your sister chokes to death while attempting to swallow a too-big piece of meat in a restaurant. You sue the restaurant, the employees of the restaurant, the EMTs who responded, the police, the farm on which the cow was raised, the manufacturer of the knife, the state of California AND all the other people who ate at that restaurant that day.
Norcal said:
"You wouldn't EVER catch me at such an event, especially at the ripoff price of over $200 a ticket. who's the sucker now??? and for what, to look at a bunch of sweaty,naked hippies. sorry thats not really my style."
Kathy was a burner. When you attack burners, you attack her and dishonor her memory. Please stop.
Memory said:
"One point, ask yourself why none of the money "raised" for Kathy went to her charities. It didn't and that should make you all very mad."
Oh, it didn't? The funds raised from her burning man campmates (most of whom knew her for a week and some who had never met her) totalled several thousand dollars. The cash went to the family and the checks were made out to a trust in her name for the benefit of an art program at a local school. The checks were cashed, the cash was received. Perhaps you should either direct your inquiry to the trustee (probably Kathy's Mom or Sister) or more clearly make an accusation about where the money went.
----
To those who urge silence, who would rather not deal with the issues presented in this thread: I understand your feelings, but I do not share them. Why should the burners who are facing financial ruin suffer silently in the face of this lawsuit in order to preserve Kathy's "dignity" in death, when her own family so clearly is not concerned with dignity or her legacy?
This could have been ended up being a very positive situation for Kathy's memory and her family. The camp her family is suing is full of loving, caring, generous and creative people. If her mom and sister had, following the period of grief after her death, taken the time to learn about what Burning Man is about and what makes it so special for so many people, she would have sixty volunteers ready to sponsor a street fair, put on a concert, organize a fund raiser, any number of things, for a charity in Kathy's name. Instead, we have this: 30+ defendants all paying 30+ lawyers in the hopes of extracting large sums of money from people only tangentially connected to the incident. Where's the dignity in that?
"I doubt any of you really know the real details of the lawsuit. "
On the contrary. At least one of us does, and the information given out about the lawsuit here is public information, rather deatiled and mostly accurate. And the reason we're talking about this here is not to debate the merits of the case, but to discuss how this lawsuit, and others like it could impact our attendance at Burning Man.
Norcal said:
"God bless Kathy and her family who's good name is bieng dragged through the dirt in this post. It was not her fault. She was simply a victim of bad circumstances."
Exactly. She was a victim of bad circumstances - an accident. The problem here is that her family is trying to use this accident to make the whole camp pay cash money to her for this accident. At a recent case settlement conference, $50,000 (or thereabouts) was offered to her family to settle the case. It was immediately rejected. They want more cash. It is their choice to try to sue the camp and Burning Man, any mud created here was of their own making.
Norcal said:
"Karma....would you say these same things directly to Kathy's mom or to kathy herself if she was here? You know you wouldn't. SHAME ON YOU !!!"
First of all, would there be a lawsuit if Kathy was here? Second of all, I would definitely say these things to her Mom. To her, this is about money from some names on a piece of paper. To the camp members being sued, some of whom have already spent thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer in order to defend themselves, this lawsuit is a real threat to their families.
Otisserie said:
"I'm sorry you have to read this too. But the reason you are reading it is NOT because Kathy died, but because of a lawsuit filed against a lot of good people. I'm sure every one of them would love to see this sad event end. And it would end tomorrow if the family, or whomever is behind the suit, would follow your advice and "let it go". Perhaps you might ask them to. This lawsuit is not Karma or an act of God, it is the result of deliberate and repeated actions by one or more persons."
Exactly. Amen.
Norcal said:
"If your child were to drown in a neighbors pool at a pool party I'd bet you would sue the owner of the house."
Analogy inapt. A better one: your sister chokes to death while attempting to swallow a too-big piece of meat in a restaurant. You sue the restaurant, the employees of the restaurant, the EMTs who responded, the police, the farm on which the cow was raised, the manufacturer of the knife, the state of California AND all the other people who ate at that restaurant that day.
Norcal said:
"You wouldn't EVER catch me at such an event, especially at the ripoff price of over $200 a ticket. who's the sucker now??? and for what, to look at a bunch of sweaty,naked hippies. sorry thats not really my style."
Kathy was a burner. When you attack burners, you attack her and dishonor her memory. Please stop.
Memory said:
"One point, ask yourself why none of the money "raised" for Kathy went to her charities. It didn't and that should make you all very mad."
Oh, it didn't? The funds raised from her burning man campmates (most of whom knew her for a week and some who had never met her) totalled several thousand dollars. The cash went to the family and the checks were made out to a trust in her name for the benefit of an art program at a local school. The checks were cashed, the cash was received. Perhaps you should either direct your inquiry to the trustee (probably Kathy's Mom or Sister) or more clearly make an accusation about where the money went.
----
To those who urge silence, who would rather not deal with the issues presented in this thread: I understand your feelings, but I do not share them. Why should the burners who are facing financial ruin suffer silently in the face of this lawsuit in order to preserve Kathy's "dignity" in death, when her own family so clearly is not concerned with dignity or her legacy?
This could have been ended up being a very positive situation for Kathy's memory and her family. The camp her family is suing is full of loving, caring, generous and creative people. If her mom and sister had, following the period of grief after her death, taken the time to learn about what Burning Man is about and what makes it so special for so many people, she would have sixty volunteers ready to sponsor a street fair, put on a concert, organize a fund raiser, any number of things, for a charity in Kathy's name. Instead, we have this: 30+ defendants all paying 30+ lawyers in the hopes of extracting large sums of money from people only tangentially connected to the incident. Where's the dignity in that?
- Karma13
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:25 pm
by Teo del Fuego » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:49 pm
Am I the only one to chuckle that BRC's lawfirm is "Low Ball and Lynch?"
In our civil sytem there is no gatekeeper to filter out from the filing desk those suits lacking in merit. You can literally sue anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason you can dream up, period. You pay a filing fee and the court takes your money...the clerk of court does not sit down and review the complaints to check for merit.
That, of course, does not mean a defendant cannot get an unmeritorious suit kicked out on a motion to dismiss, motion for failure to state a claim, or motion for summary judgment. In some cases, costs and/or legal fees may be assessed against the plaintiff in a frivolous suit.
It is difficult to tell solely from the court's listing of defendants and documents, without actually being able to open the documents and read the pleadings filed in this case, who brought which defendants into the case. One thing though, comments about an insurance company being the instigator of expanding litigation is highly unlikely, procedurally, at least. An insurance company that has paid benefits probably would assert a lien against any recovery by the plaintiffs. But again, this cannot be known without pulling the court file and reviewing the pleadings.
It appears to me from the docket that the individual camp mates were brought into this action via cross-claim filed by defendants Hermosillo, New Vision Designs and Emata. It also looks like REMSA has asserted some type of claim against BRC, LLC. (probably contribution and indemnity.)
Often, a plaintiff's attorney will file suit against a large number of defendants in a shot-gun approach out of an abundance of caution. The attorney fears that one or two years into the case he or she will discover through the discovery process an entity that has culpability only after the statute of limitations on filing a claim has expired. After conducting an investigation using the discovery process, it is far easier to dismiss a party you feel comfortable has no liablity than begging the court to allow you to amend your complaint past the expiration of the period of limitations.
The person, Badger I think, who noted that comments in this forum could be used by the plaintiffs' attorneys (or other attorneys) is actually, not off the mark. The comments themselves would be rank heresay, but anyone posting to this forum purporting to have actual knowledge of the facts could be tracked down, possibly, and interviewed or deposed.
I do not practice law in California and I am certainly giving no legal advice here, but as a lawyer I would think the claims presented in the Lamplighter suit to be very weak, particularly as against BRC. Cal500 raged about putting a dance platform atop a vehicle, but the fact is, there is no evidence that there was any defect in the platform or the artcar itself. Conservatively, several thousand people have encountered art cars sporting platforms with no incident whatsoever. When common sense is used, art cars are not inherently dangerous. Without common sense a toothpick can be a dangerous instrumentality.
The problem, however, is that the suit is filed in California, and forgive me Californiaians, but if there is to be a bizarre jury verdict it is more likely to happen in California than in, say, Kansas.
It is not claims like this that will alter or shut down Burning Man, rather, it is the ill-informed and unfounded fears of the participants concernig the legal system. As a lawyer, I think I have the right to say that there is little in America that can shut down innovation and creativity as quickly as lawyers, particularly those that are afraid to ever risk advising a client that a claim has no merit and should not be dignified with a settlement.
Okay, I haven't parsed every single sentence here and I am sure you guys can find holes all in my post. Blast away...but I challenge you guys to be civil and courteous...live the spirit of Burning Man year round!
In our civil sytem there is no gatekeeper to filter out from the filing desk those suits lacking in merit. You can literally sue anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason you can dream up, period. You pay a filing fee and the court takes your money...the clerk of court does not sit down and review the complaints to check for merit.
That, of course, does not mean a defendant cannot get an unmeritorious suit kicked out on a motion to dismiss, motion for failure to state a claim, or motion for summary judgment. In some cases, costs and/or legal fees may be assessed against the plaintiff in a frivolous suit.
It is difficult to tell solely from the court's listing of defendants and documents, without actually being able to open the documents and read the pleadings filed in this case, who brought which defendants into the case. One thing though, comments about an insurance company being the instigator of expanding litigation is highly unlikely, procedurally, at least. An insurance company that has paid benefits probably would assert a lien against any recovery by the plaintiffs. But again, this cannot be known without pulling the court file and reviewing the pleadings.
It appears to me from the docket that the individual camp mates were brought into this action via cross-claim filed by defendants Hermosillo, New Vision Designs and Emata. It also looks like REMSA has asserted some type of claim against BRC, LLC. (probably contribution and indemnity.)
Often, a plaintiff's attorney will file suit against a large number of defendants in a shot-gun approach out of an abundance of caution. The attorney fears that one or two years into the case he or she will discover through the discovery process an entity that has culpability only after the statute of limitations on filing a claim has expired. After conducting an investigation using the discovery process, it is far easier to dismiss a party you feel comfortable has no liablity than begging the court to allow you to amend your complaint past the expiration of the period of limitations.
The person, Badger I think, who noted that comments in this forum could be used by the plaintiffs' attorneys (or other attorneys) is actually, not off the mark. The comments themselves would be rank heresay, but anyone posting to this forum purporting to have actual knowledge of the facts could be tracked down, possibly, and interviewed or deposed.
I do not practice law in California and I am certainly giving no legal advice here, but as a lawyer I would think the claims presented in the Lamplighter suit to be very weak, particularly as against BRC. Cal500 raged about putting a dance platform atop a vehicle, but the fact is, there is no evidence that there was any defect in the platform or the artcar itself. Conservatively, several thousand people have encountered art cars sporting platforms with no incident whatsoever. When common sense is used, art cars are not inherently dangerous. Without common sense a toothpick can be a dangerous instrumentality.
The problem, however, is that the suit is filed in California, and forgive me Californiaians, but if there is to be a bizarre jury verdict it is more likely to happen in California than in, say, Kansas.
It is not claims like this that will alter or shut down Burning Man, rather, it is the ill-informed and unfounded fears of the participants concernig the legal system. As a lawyer, I think I have the right to say that there is little in America that can shut down innovation and creativity as quickly as lawyers, particularly those that are afraid to ever risk advising a client that a claim has no merit and should not be dignified with a settlement.
Okay, I haven't parsed every single sentence here and I am sure you guys can find holes all in my post. Blast away...but I challenge you guys to be civil and courteous...live the spirit of Burning Man year round!
-
Teo del Fuego - Posts: 1407
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:31 am
- Location: Denver
- Burning Since: 2005
- Camp Name: Whiskey & Dust
by KAL831637 » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:04 pm
Something about this message board grabbed my attention. First off, I just want to say that Kathy's death really hurt me in ways I don't think anyone could understand. She was by far my best friend, not to mention girlfriend for a long time before Burning Man was ever a dream of hers. I said it at her funeral, and I'll say it again - I'm glad she got to go and experience everything. It was really all she talked about for months leading up to it. Her pictures alone show what an amazing time she had out there on the playa. She was so upset that her friends, who had said they would go with her, all backed out or couldn't afford to go with her. I would've been there, but unfortunately I went off to boot camp a week and a half before BM happened that year.
Enough about me.
It's hard to believe anything you hear, or read for that matter. I've heard things as extreme as the Bar Car was going 20-30 mph when it happened, and that Kathy was dragged for some time before finally becoming untangled from some chains that were wrapped around her ankle. I've heard that the driver was intoxicated, on drugs, not all there, etc. etc. I've heard that people were meeting after the accident, before law enforcement showed up, agreeing on what "The Story" would be. And there is much, much more that was relayed to me through various medias that made me angry.
This was 3 years ago.
Now, I don't know what really happened, and I'm not going to let a bunch of heresay stir up emotions causing me to point fingers. The fact of the matter is that Kathy died doing something she loved, and we should all be sad that she isn't with us anymore, sad for her niece and nephew, her mom, and her sister.
If someone is responsible, if the Bar Car was dangerous, if there are people at fault then the lawsuit makes sense. I am amazed at how many people are listed on the suit itself. There is no way that many people had something to do with her death.
Sorry it took so long for me to post a reply, being out to sea kept me from even knowing this was around. So I'm sure this comes too late. I may not be in the picture for those people who were close to Kathy anymore, but it is still something I think about often.
Would Kathy want this lawsuit to be happening? Who knows, right? But if it is something the family feels they need to pursue for closure, so be it. However, if it is something that is being pursued by some lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes, shame on them. I'm sure it will drag out for years to come, and in the end (as with most suits of this nature), it will end up doing more hurt than good.
Some people said some hurtful stuff on this board, and I'm sorry you felt that was the best way to express yourself. But to each his own. Sorry for stirring this thread back up.
Enough about me.
It's hard to believe anything you hear, or read for that matter. I've heard things as extreme as the Bar Car was going 20-30 mph when it happened, and that Kathy was dragged for some time before finally becoming untangled from some chains that were wrapped around her ankle. I've heard that the driver was intoxicated, on drugs, not all there, etc. etc. I've heard that people were meeting after the accident, before law enforcement showed up, agreeing on what "The Story" would be. And there is much, much more that was relayed to me through various medias that made me angry.
This was 3 years ago.
Now, I don't know what really happened, and I'm not going to let a bunch of heresay stir up emotions causing me to point fingers. The fact of the matter is that Kathy died doing something she loved, and we should all be sad that she isn't with us anymore, sad for her niece and nephew, her mom, and her sister.
If someone is responsible, if the Bar Car was dangerous, if there are people at fault then the lawsuit makes sense. I am amazed at how many people are listed on the suit itself. There is no way that many people had something to do with her death.
Sorry it took so long for me to post a reply, being out to sea kept me from even knowing this was around. So I'm sure this comes too late. I may not be in the picture for those people who were close to Kathy anymore, but it is still something I think about often.
Would Kathy want this lawsuit to be happening? Who knows, right? But if it is something the family feels they need to pursue for closure, so be it. However, if it is something that is being pursued by some lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes, shame on them. I'm sure it will drag out for years to come, and in the end (as with most suits of this nature), it will end up doing more hurt than good.
Some people said some hurtful stuff on this board, and I'm sorry you felt that was the best way to express yourself. But to each his own. Sorry for stirring this thread back up.
- KAL831637
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:39 pm
by Bay Bridge Sue » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm
Why does this post just strike me as wrong? Not only the hidden name and single ost to post this, but the statements trying to draw a conversation? Kind of like the "innocent inquiries" made by attorneys party to the suit did a while ago to try to get more info for the suit?
Not to mention dragging this up again.
I hope I'm wrong, but this smells like the last time lawyers were sneaking around here trying to find out info posing as "friends" of Kathy, "Friends" of her family, "relatives", "Sweeties", etc.. EXACTLY like it, trying to get people into conversations to push some aspect of this suit?
Damn. If you really ARE who you said you are, then (a) use your name, not a hidden pseudo, (b) be mournful and respectful of the deceased, and (c) stop with the hidden inquisitive, OK? You want info look at the suit. You want sympathy then don't hide, using a story a known legal sock used. Or talk to the family, since you were attached to it.
Thank you for your time...
bb
Not to mention dragging this up again.
I hope I'm wrong, but this smells like the last time lawyers were sneaking around here trying to find out info posing as "friends" of Kathy, "Friends" of her family, "relatives", "Sweeties", etc.. EXACTLY like it, trying to get people into conversations to push some aspect of this suit?
Damn. If you really ARE who you said you are, then (a) use your name, not a hidden pseudo, (b) be mournful and respectful of the deceased, and (c) stop with the hidden inquisitive, OK? You want info look at the suit. You want sympathy then don't hide, using a story a known legal sock used. Or talk to the family, since you were attached to it.
Thank you for your time...
bb
-
Bay Bridge Sue - Moderator
- Posts: 5343
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:35 pm
- Location: Where it's always... Wednesday. Don't lose your head over it.
by KAL831637 » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:18 pm
You know what? I really did just find this thread today. I use the name "KAL 831 637" because that's what is tattooed on my calf. My name is Tony, if you really care. I thought I could just put my two cents in about the whole issue. Not trying to pose as anybody, trust me. I never once asked for any information; I have seen the lawsuit. Don't really understand it, but I've seen it.
I don't have to defend my identity. Just thought I'd put my thoughts out there.
I don't have to defend my identity. Just thought I'd put my thoughts out there.
- KAL831637
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:39 pm
by spectabillis » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:53 pm
a sock is short for sockpuppet, an account someone signs up under a different name. it has a negative connotation now because there have been many cases of people signing up alternative accounts to pick fights, attack someone, fight some issue...
its more common around topics of high conflict and controversy like this one. you may or may not be doing this, my guess is you're not, but unfortunately many people have become cautious and will question it.
its more common around topics of high conflict and controversy like this one. you may or may not be doing this, my guess is you're not, but unfortunately many people have become cautious and will question it.
- spectabillis
- Posts: 3572
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
- Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface
by Cabana Springs » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:26 pm
A legal sock is what your wife wears when she is fucking your best friend and then she takes all your shit away from you and hires lawyers that you have to pay to take all of your money away from you too.
Sometimes it's also referred to as hose. (not Hoes - but can sound like hosed.)
So from now on instead of "Legal Sock," let's call it "Legal Hose."
Sometimes it's also referred to as hose. (not Hoes - but can sound like hosed.)
So from now on instead of "Legal Sock," let's call it "Legal Hose."
Filing taxes is not truely voluntary!
-
Cabana Springs - Posts: 136
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:16 pm
- Location: P Valley - where the dogs roam
by spectabillis » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:45 pm
the artist was probably from auschwitz.
/badbad, very bad.
/badbad, very bad.
- spectabillis
- Posts: 3572
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
- Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface
- spectabillis
- Posts: 3572
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
- Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface
by KAL831637 » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:43 am
Yeah, I guess when you see it spelled out it does look like a prison tattoo. Actually it is in honor of Kathy, "Katharine Ann Lampman", and the numbers are "pager code" of things we used to send back and forth while we were in high school together. It stands for "I love you" & "Always and forever" kinda cheesy but it was something small that I did to remember her by. I also had a quarter moon put next to her initials, because anyone who knows her knows how much she loved the moon.
Thanks for telling me what a sock is too. Personally I like "Hose" better.
Snickerdoodle
Thanks for telling me what a sock is too. Personally I like "Hose" better.
Snickerdoodle
- KAL831637
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:39 pm
by wedeliver » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:35 am
Hey Dude, thanks for sharing. Feel the love. I want to hug someone while crying for your loss. We will do better. I promise.
KAL831637 wrote:Yeah, I guess when you see it spelled out it does look like a prison tattoo. Actually it is in honor of Kathy, "Katharine Ann Lampman", and the numbers are "pager code" of things we used to send back and forth while we were in high school together. It stands for "I love you" & "Always and forever" kinda cheesy but it was something small that I did to remember her by. I also had a quarter moon put next to her initials, because anyone who knows her knows how much she loved the moon.
Thanks for telling me what a sock is too. Personally I like "Hose" better.
Snickerdoodle
-
wedeliver - Posts: 1892
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:10 am
- Location: Tionesta, CA
by gyre » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:06 am
There are reasons for naming people in a suit that are not going to be held responsible later.
Maybe an attorney out there will field this one.
It's not just about trying to get money from everyone usually.
Maybe an attorney out there will field this one.
It's not just about trying to get money from everyone usually.
-
gyre - Posts: 14808
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: ΦάÏ
by Toolmaker » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:08 am
KAL831637 wrote:the numbers are "pager code" of things we used to send back and forth while we were in high school together. It stands for "I love you" & "Always and forever" kinda cheesy but it was something small that I did to remember her by. I also had a quarter moon put next to her initials, because anyone who knows her knows how much she loved the moon.
1) 143 is for I love you.. I guess you 2 went to public school.
2) If she liked the moon so much why'd ya jip her and only get a quarter moon?
3) If you really wanted to honor a BURNER you would have gotten branded!
4) MOON that spells TROLL
This account has been closed as demanded by Wedeliver.
- Toolmaker
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:44 pm
by Karma13 » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:59 am
[quote]I've heard things as extreme as the Bar Car was going 20-30 mph when it happened, and that Kathy was dragged for some time before finally becoming untangled from some chains that were wrapped around her ankle. I've heard that the driver was intoxicated, on drugs, not all there, etc. etc. I've heard that people were meeting after the accident, before law enforcement showed up, agreeing on what "The Story" would be.[/quote]
1) The Bar Car going 20-30 mph? Ludicrious. First of all, I doubt it could physically hit those speeds with no pasengers, it was a piece of crap old van. Secondly, more than half of the camp couldn't fit on the car, so they walked alongside. Can you walk 20-30mph?
2) There were no chains anywhere on the vehicle with which she may have become tangled.
3) The driver was given a breathalizer test immediately after the accident. He had nothing to drink all night. It's in the police report.
4) Law enforcement showed up within 10 minutes, all the while paramedics were working on Kathy. If you think, in the midst of all the chaos and trauma, that people were meeting to get their stories straight, you have been watching too much "24". Not to mention that it would have been obvious to many of the bystanders there (who were subsequently interviewed by the police).
I strongly suspect that these stories were either (i) made up by you; or (ii) fed to you by her family. They need some way to justify the lawsuit to themselves and others. A lawsuit that is still chugging along, and dragging an entire camp with it. For the sake of a family's sense of "closure"...
1) The Bar Car going 20-30 mph? Ludicrious. First of all, I doubt it could physically hit those speeds with no pasengers, it was a piece of crap old van. Secondly, more than half of the camp couldn't fit on the car, so they walked alongside. Can you walk 20-30mph?
2) There were no chains anywhere on the vehicle with which she may have become tangled.
3) The driver was given a breathalizer test immediately after the accident. He had nothing to drink all night. It's in the police report.
4) Law enforcement showed up within 10 minutes, all the while paramedics were working on Kathy. If you think, in the midst of all the chaos and trauma, that people were meeting to get their stories straight, you have been watching too much "24". Not to mention that it would have been obvious to many of the bystanders there (who were subsequently interviewed by the police).
I strongly suspect that these stories were either (i) made up by you; or (ii) fed to you by her family. They need some way to justify the lawsuit to themselves and others. A lawsuit that is still chugging along, and dragging an entire camp with it. For the sake of a family's sense of "closure"...
- Karma13
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:25 pm
by Lorgasm » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:20 pm
Does anyone have a photo of Kathy? Please post it. I have this uncontrollable desire to see her smiling eyes. Lets see the photo and remember her as the smiling angel that she is. PPPLLLEEEAASSSEEE?
anyone? anyone???
Kathy, we love you. You being at the burn was your gift. Thank you.
anyone? anyone???
Kathy, we love you. You being at the burn was your gift. Thank you.
BOOBIES!!!
-
Lorgasm - Posts: 2238
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:44 pm
- Location: to be announced
by geo8rge » Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:28 pm
My guess is that many individuals in the camp have personal wealth or home owners / renters insurance policies (which have personal liability coverage). If you have homeowners insurance you are probably not in too much trouble. I feel sorry for members of the camp who did not have insurance. They will have to hire a lawyer with their own $. I think BM might want to pay some or all of the legal expenses to make sure this does not set a president.
The lawyers seem to be trying to say the camp owned the vehicle and they are liable. I personally think that someone falling off a ladder that is in front of a moving trailer was a foreseeable accident. I think the lawyers have a valid point. Not saying they will be successful, but it is not totally crazy that people operating a vehicle should be responsible for their passengers. BM should not permit people to climb moving vehicles.
My guess is that establishing ownership of the art car will be difficult.
The lawyers seem to be trying to say the camp owned the vehicle and they are liable. I personally think that someone falling off a ladder that is in front of a moving trailer was a foreseeable accident. I think the lawyers have a valid point. Not saying they will be successful, but it is not totally crazy that people operating a vehicle should be responsible for their passengers. BM should not permit people to climb moving vehicles.
My guess is that establishing ownership of the art car will be difficult.
- geo8rge
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:54 am
by Karma13 » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:35 am
Postscript to this tragedy:
About half of the (36) impleaded defendants were able to secure attorneys paid for by insurance. The other half paid out of their pockets for attorneys to represent them, I've heard some paid up to $10k each total throughout the legal extortion process. In summary: an entire camp was sued by the estate of the deceased under a theory of contributory negligence, with their sole connection to her death being the fact that they contributed to a general camp fund, some of which went towards decorating the art car from which she fell.
It was a huge clusterfuck of attorneys making larger and larger offers to the family to settle. One attorney described the mediation sessions as a "zoo" and "like nothing I've ever seen". In the end, the family settled and received an amount of money, and the attorneys walked away happy.
My advice for anyone joining a camp, if you contribute to a "general fund", I would make sure that those funds are not used to construct anything that could possibly cause a death, even if the deceased acts negligently.
About half of the (36) impleaded defendants were able to secure attorneys paid for by insurance. The other half paid out of their pockets for attorneys to represent them, I've heard some paid up to $10k each total throughout the legal extortion process. In summary: an entire camp was sued by the estate of the deceased under a theory of contributory negligence, with their sole connection to her death being the fact that they contributed to a general camp fund, some of which went towards decorating the art car from which she fell.
It was a huge clusterfuck of attorneys making larger and larger offers to the family to settle. One attorney described the mediation sessions as a "zoo" and "like nothing I've ever seen". In the end, the family settled and received an amount of money, and the attorneys walked away happy.
My advice for anyone joining a camp, if you contribute to a "general fund", I would make sure that those funds are not used to construct anything that could possibly cause a death, even if the deceased acts negligently.
- Karma13
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:25 pm
Return to Experiences at Burning Man
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest