I had a bet with myself, reading about this in the morning Chron, whether it would be the Beep or the Box whose saliva would first reach the bottom of the cage once this bell was sounded. My money was on you, Bill, and you did not disappoint.
The plaintiff is a vindictive nutcase, and I hope that when the matter is at last adjudicated he has his ass handed to him with the additional requirement that he underwrites all costs incurred to date. So we're on the same page so far.
But no, you think this means we must needs have "tort reform." My homeward commute is frequently disfigured by billboards urging this same agenda. These announcements have been paid for by...well of course, by simple citizens who have spontaneously risen up, moved by simple outrage at the plight of humble mom-and-pop Korean drycleaning operations, and pooled their modest savings to purchase public space that they might cry out against these injustices.
Ya think?
Well, Beep, I hate to be the one to break the news, but so-called "tort reform" isn't being pushed and financed by the little people, but rather by the big, who would dearly love to "reform" the rights of their sundry collateral damages to seek redress in court right out of existence. Does the system as presently constituted permit egregious abuses of the type this sorry episode describes? It does (there are avenues of retribution, and I hope that this plaintiff ultimately weeps bitter tears as he travels thereupon). Ought we then "reform" the tort system as those who are already exploiting the case would have us do? In that case I await your appeal to rescind the Second Amendment on the basis of its abuse last month at Virginia Tech. But of course, "a foolish consistency" and all that...
litigiously,