Should people bring wrongful death cases against the person responsible?
In this article, I will discuss whether people should bring wrongful death cases against the person responsible.
I recently read an article in which the author said “People should not sue because it was an accident. The person didn’t intentionally kill this person”.
Some people have this opinion, and others believe that wrongful death cases or South Dakota Wrongful Death cases are only about money. I have settled or tried dozens of wrongful death cases; therefore, I know the reasons that families bring claims against the people responsible for the death of a family member.
First of all, oftentimes the people who kill other people are remorseful, but sometimes they are not remorseful. If a person is killed in an accident through the actions of another person, should the person responsible be held accountable? The first reason that families bring wrongful death cases, in my experience, is that they want to make the person responsible accountable for his or her actions. If no one makes this person accountable for his or her actions, what is this person’s motivation to change?
Secondly, families want to improve safety in their communities or to ensure that the responsible person does not kill another human being. By holding the person responsible for his or her actions, this person learns the results of his or her actions and understands the enormity of the families’ loss. This helps the families in their grieving process, but it also helps the negligent person to understand the effects of their negligence.
Lastly, families use a claim to help in the healing process as it illustrates the life of the person killed and shows society the loss brought about by the actions of a careless person.
If your family or someone you know is in this situation, I would be happy to discuss this with you or with them. Best wishes.
The Ongoing Attempt to Justify Murder
Cory at the Madville Times is excited because he thinks he's finally found a way to justify abortion: a "fetus" (a human fetus?) and an adult are "different," and that people disagree on criminal penalties.
How is a human "fetus" different than a human "adult?" Perhaps it's because they're different in things like size, development, their environment and their level of dependency.
The human fetus is a lot smaller than the human adult. Oh, but toddlers are smaller than human adults, too. Does that mean they aren't human? Should we allow toddlers to be killed for convenience?
Well, the human fetus isn't nearly as fully developed as the human adult. Oh, but 5-year-old girls aren't capable of reproduction as adult females. Five-year-old-boys also aren't capable of reproduction like adult males, either. They're also a lot smaller, don't have the same set of teeth that adults have, and so on. Does that mean these 5-year-olds aren't human? Do they lack value because of their lack of development? Should we allow 5-year-olds lacking in development to be killed?
Okay, but the human fetus is inside the womb, while human adults are outside the womb. What, you say location doesn't change the worth and dignity of a human being? You mean I'm worth just as much on this side of the street as that side of the street? I have the same human dignity in Asia as I do in South America? You mean I'm just as human in orbit or walking on the moon as I am here on earth? You mean a child has the same human value when they're being carried on daddy's back as they do when they're walking on their own, or the baby has just as much value being held in someone's arms as they do when they're an adult holding another baby?
Some positive news about preemption
Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corp. (“GSK”) manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals, including Paxil, an antidepressant. Plaintiff Debra Tucker brought this South Dakota wrongful death suit under Indiana state law against GSK, claiming that her older brother, Father Rick Tucker, committed suicide as a result of taking Paxil. She contends that GSK breached its duty to warn of an increased suicide risk in adults taking Paxil. Finding that the federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) required GSK to include language in its drug label that conflicted directly with the warning that Tucker argues was required under Indiana law, this court dismissed Tucker’s state law claims as preempted by federal law. See Tucker v.SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2007 WL 2726259 (S. D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2007).