I think that if you successfully defend yourself in a lawsuit that you should be able to sue the plaintiff's attorney for loss. Since they unjustly took you to court and subjected you to the stress and monetary loss of defending yourself. If we hold other careers to some standard, should we not hold trial lawyers to some? Trouble it that they write the laws and govern themselves so the system really is designed by lawyers for lawyers.

sonicare

Lawyers that often bring frivilous suits often loose and go out of business, and if its really absurd they'll be repremanded by the bar. Lawyers are just used as tools as people usually do not have the knowledge to represent themselves in court, so its the plaintiffs bringing suit that one should blame.

Tort law also doesn't have a high win rate for plaintiffs, and even in things like medical malpractice there is a tribunal in most states that decide the merit of the case before its brought to court. If they find it without merit then usually the plaintiff is required to post a bond paying for defendant's legal fees.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Yes. You can sue an organization if an agent acting on behalf of that organization causes a loss.thegerg

And fistfighting is not in the comission of his duties as its outside the scope of employmeny, therefore there is no liability on the employer's end. And one does not sue for something as general as "losses". Losses are merely the damages plead during a lawsuit. Most likely someone will be suing for a tort or breach of contract which are the causes of action.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

This is somewhat unrelated to the original topic, but I dont like that employers can be sued for the actions of their employees. It's one thing if an employer is facilitating deletrious behavior or covering up bad actions. That's fine that they can be liable for that, but I dont like the fact that you can be sued just because an employee of yours - acting on their own volition - commits a misdeed. I am a part owner of a company and we're always worried about stuff like that. For instance, if one of my employees gets in a car accident while on company time, we are liable. That doesnt seem fair to me. We do our due diligence when we hire people, but obviously we dont have the resources to do extensive pschiatric and criminal background checks to make sure people are who they say they are. Then, to complicate matters, you have all these people who say its unfair to screen prospective employees. That it is an invasion of their privacy to ask them about drug use or personal habits. So you're liable for their behavior but you are not allowed to gather any information about their prior behavior. How is that fair?

sonicare

In that case his employer wouldn't be liable for him getting into a fist fight since he is acting outside the scope of his employment as battering people is not part of a mason's job.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"] But obviously in that particular case, he was committing a felony. He was threatening their life and they told him what he wanted to hear so they could escape with their lives. You could sue me for wearing a red shirt because it affects your ability to enjoy life and thus has caused he irreparable harm. Perhaps my shirt triggered an allergy and caused you pain and suffering. All of these reason are absurd, but people have sued for less and won.StRaItJaCkEt36

INTENT is important.

Intent has nothing to do with negligence. Negligence is just a failure to do or not do what the reasonable person would.

Intentional torts (battery, assault, conversion, etc) do not usually fall under respondeat superior (where employers are responsible for the actions of employees that are within the scope of employment) unless it is a policy of the place of business to commit such acts.

In terms of an employer being sued, the employee who committed tort does not usually does not have the means to pay the judgment against them, while the business usually does. I know it sounds unfair to some, but should the injured party really not be able to collect for their damages? While at times tort law seems like people are just out to get money at its base its just about putting the injured party in the place they were before the tort occurred.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="dodgerblue13"] Oh, dang. You should get used to this then. You're in it for the long haul.BossPerson

As someone in law school (albeit in the U.S.) I can tell you if you think you hate citations now you will hate them even more in the future. We have a little thing here called the Blue Book and I'm sure you have an equivalent where you are. Anyway its not statutes that are a pain, its citing to cases as I assume you're also in a common law country. Get ready to cite precedent cases from 50+ years ago when writing your legal memorandums.

[QUOTE="WTFr0b0ts"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

In terms of compositional ability I've never found anyone I thought was on par with the great classical composers. That was a unique time in history when a small group of people were raised from birth to compose. Not to play an instument extremely well, but to compose.

I know of countless modern virtuoso musicians, but nobody with a compositional mind like Mozart or Beethoven.

superfluidity

That's not entirely true. Composers back then were mostly musicians and wrote music for themselves to play (much like Mozart). It was like going to see a band now, you expected them to play their own music. Later once they gained renown they would either open an opera house (mainstream music at the time) or be hired by a court to compose for parties.

Well I didn't say they weren't incredible players (they were). The point was that there was a unique situation where individuals were instructed by extremely high level composers from a young age, such that music was as much a part of them as their native language. Continue this pattern for several generations and you get geniuses like Mozart.

Very true, and its even more evident with later composers like Brahms and Mendelssohn. Another problem I see is except notable exceptions like Mozart and Beethoven is that most composer's were only known for their playing during life and their compositions gained notoriety after their death usually for teaching purposes and eventually this market became over saturated.

In terms of compositional ability I've never found anyone I thought was on par with the great classical composers. That was a unique time in history when a small group of people were raised from birth to compose. Not to play an instument extremely well, but to compose.

I know of countless modern virtuoso musicians, but nobody with a compositional mind like Mozart or Beethoven.

superfluidity

That's not entirely true. Composers back then were mostly musicians and wrote music for themselves to play (much like Mozart). It was like going to see a band now, you expected them to play their own music. Later once they gained renown they would either open an opera house (mainstream music at the time) or be hired by a court to compose for parties.

Manual, I drive my WRX in the city here (Boston) and the traffic doesn't seem to bother me any more after 6 months.

+1 for Talisman, besides that I also play Carcassonne all the time

I would say...

DC: The Flash (Wally West) and Deathstroke

Marvel: Taskmaster, Daredevil, and Deadpool (before Daniel Way)