Cartoon for February 8, 2010
This is actually true--the part about the child porn victim.
posted by Ted Rall at
12:01 AM
HELP SEND ME BACK TO AFGHANISTAN
EVENTS
- February 16, 2010, 7 PM - Barnes & Noble, 82nd & Broadway - New York
- April 10-11, 2010 - MoCCA Comics Festival - New York
- May 10, 2010 - Wright State University - Dayton OH
- June 16-19, 2010 - Association of American Editorial Cartoonists - Portland OR
- BOOK TED RALL FOR YOUR EVENT
BUY A CUSTOM-SIGNED COPY--BOOK SHIPS IMMEDIATELY!
RECENT BOOKS
TED RALL SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE
TED'S TWEETS
Previous Posts
- Reminder: Subscription Service
- Cartoon for February 5, 2010
- Ted Rall Signing YOLD at UWS NYC Barnes & Noble Tu...
- Cartoon for February 3, 2010
- TED RALL COLUMN: The Contrarian Manifesto
- Ted Rall Live Tonight in NYC
- Cartoon for February 1, 2010
- My Only Error...
- Ted Rall on MSNBC Today
- Cartoon for January 29, 2010
CONTACT
RSS
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
Links
- AAEC
- Asia Times
- Cartoonists with Attitude
- Common Dreams
- Crooks and Liars
- EurasiaNet
- NBM's Cartoonist Blog
- Greg Palast
- Rude Pundit
- Smirking Chimp
- Cole Smithey
- Paul Tullis (Plenty)
Cartoonists
- Kirk Anderson
- Jennifer Berman
- Justin Bilicki
- Ruben Bolling
- Matt Bors
- Clay Butler
- Steven Cloud
- Lloyd Dangle
- Jeff Danziger
- derf
- Barry Deutsch
- Tim Eagan
- Mark Fiore
- Ed Hall
- Keith Knight
- Tim Krieder
- Brian McFadden
- Stephanie McMillan
- Eric Millikin
- Kevin Moore
- Stephen Notley
- Joel Pett
- August J. Pollak
- Mikhaela Reid
- Ben Sargent
- Jim Siergey
- Andy Singer
- Abell Smith
- Jen Sorensen
- Scott Stantis
- R. Stevens
- Tak Toyoshima
- Tom Tomorrow
- J.P. Trostle
- Shannon Wheeler
- Signe Wilkinson
- Jason Yungbluth
U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
- Actual Unemployment Rate (courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics)
- Actual Inflation Rate (courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics)
5 Comments:
The punchline of this cartoon reminds me of the trial against I.G. Farben, where they were forced to pay the former slave labourers...
Something tells me that, like all legal inventions, it will used in a few satisfying high profile cases. Then, after the roar of public approval fades away, lobbyists, legislators, and judges will amend this by laws and rulings. And forevermore it will be used to screw working-people through the floor.
I don't trust the law to promote justice... look at the Civil Rights laws: besides bourgie black talented tenthers (we won't mention any presidents) and various corporate-persons, the advertised beneficiaries are unemployed, CIAcrack-addled, poverty-drafted, beaten by police, and imprisoned. But at least they can sit anywhere they want on the bus now... as long as the bus route wasn't cut and the fare isn't too much. Yessiree, the law is the law.
You know that under joint and several liability, the one person sued can then sue the rest of his associates for contribution, right? It's not like they make one guy foot the entire bill and it's too bad for him. And this is ASSUMING they use joint and several liability, which they might not even use. And out of curiosity, do you know the actual tort she is suing under?
Best not-specifically-political comic I've ever seen from you.
Esteban, this is not a new legal invention, it's been around for almost 100 years...
It's extremely useful when you have a situation where there are two tortfeasors, and one is insolvent while the other is not. In other words, let's say two people crash their cars into you. Now you need 100K in compensation. One of the crashers have insurance while the other doesn't. Assuming they are both found 50% at fault, is it fair that you'll only recover 50K? Under joint and several liability, you can recover the full 100K from the guy with insurance. Then the guy with insurance can sue the guy without insurance to get his fair share, ie, a 50K contribution.
It's a way to make sure a victim can get all the compensation they deserve. So, because this woman is suing people in jail, most of them are more than likely penniless. Should this preclude her ability to get compensation if someone is able to pay more than the rest? Remember, as joint tortfeasors, they are ALL responsible for her injury!
I appreciate Mr. Rall's joke, but it really doesn't make much sense from a legal standpoint. :(
Post a Comment
<< Home