Originally Posted by
MikeR
You have a lot of incorrect presumptions in the your post.
1. I stated in one of my original post that I did NOT want to go after the homeowner.
2. I stated in one of my original posts that the lawyer did NOT want to go after the homeowner.
I guess I should have made it clearer we DID NOT go after the homeowner.
The homeowner was not involved legally - other than dealing with the dog warden.
All legal matters were conducted between the insurance company and the lawyer.
3. I stated in one of my original posts that the homeowner got a fence.
It's obvious that he did NOT loose the home if he got a fence.
4. I stated in the original post that the lawyer got 33% of the settlement.
The other 66% was split between me and my medical bills (mostly the bills).
If the lawyer got enough to send his kids to college then I'm a millionaire - and I'm NOT.
BTW you don't mention the "money grubbing doctors" who got a big chunk of the money.
The doctors earned it and so did the lawyer.
I know how much the lawyer got but I do not know what his expenses were.
I don't know what his profit was but he earned it, plus if the insurance had offered me a minimum just settlement I would have never talked to the lawyer.
To answer your question - Yes, justice was served.
IMHO All these facts were perfectly obvious to any intelligent person who reads my original posts.
I think that you should get your facts straight BEFORE you jump up on you soap box.
That's all I will say on this stupid subject. Go pedal your prejudgement laden cause elsewhere.
Wow. I must have struck a raw nerve. I'll ignore the insults and respond to the obvious.
1.) I believe you when you say that you did not want to go after the homeowner. But, I believe that was financial decision not a legal decision. If the homeowner was a wealthy landowner would your lawyer decide the not to pursue the dog owner? The fact was that there is more money with the insurance company.
2.) If anyone was at fault, it was the neglient but perhaps well meaning dog owner that let his dog loose. Clearly, you suffered injury and should have been compensated. The question is HOW MUCH IS JUST?
3.) Lawyers always get a fat paycheck. That's why they troll for victims to represent and extort cash through the legal system. At least doctors earn their keep in my opinion. They actually do good for mankind.
4.) While I believe you did not intend any harm to the homeowner unfortunately I believe the HOMEOWNER, may have become collateral damage. Certainly, they would have had to hire a lawyer. I don't know if they suffered deep financial hardship as a result. Many innocents have suffered greatly in the tort system.
5.) The homeowner did the right thing. They bandaged you. They comforted you. They called for help. They transported your bleeding self to medical help. They also installed a fence to prevent future occurences.
6.) You were harmed and deserved compensation. Again I ask.. was it worth it? I imagine a big judgement of which you certainly were entitled could have financially destroyed the homeowner. Apparently you are very defensive of this point. Do you care to know the truth? Is justice for your pain and suffering worth the pain and suffering you inflict upon someone else?
7.) These questions will probably tick you off again. No worries. If none of this applies, it matters not. The main thing is you are riding again and healthy. The world turns.