Judicial Activism
NOTE: Probably only another amputee can fully appreciate this. But talk about flawed judicial reasoning!!!
I have been waiting to hear the verdict on a local court case for several months. The case was about a good friend, who eight months ago stepped on a nail and his foot became infected. The doctors at the Cleveland Clinic treated him for weeks but nothing helped and the infection was growing worse. Finally his doctors decided to amputate his leg. Somehow on the day of the scheduled surgery, the surgical intern read his charts wrongly and the doctors amputated his good leg. More sad was the fact that even though the mistake was quickly discovered, there was nothing the doctors could now do except amputate his remaining infected leg.
Hearing of this terrible mistake, numbers of attorneys approached him about representing him and suing both the doctors and the hospital. He finally chose the one that promised him the larger settlement. The case was heard and the evidence for negligence was overwhelming. The consensus of everyone was that my friend would receive a huge settlement. Well the verdict came in and the judge dismissed the case against both the doctors and the hospital.
Can you believe it? When the local TV station asked the judge the reason for his verdict, the judge simply said, “Well, the plaintiff clearly didn’t have a leg to stand on.”
*Source photo Google clip art - Seamartini Graphics
Your joke is very entertaining. But it also highlights for me the issue of suing.
Even if someone successfully sues a government agency for wrongdoing - who is it who really pays? Is it me, the absoutely innocent taxpayer who certainly did not approve of the government agencies actions and may even have campaigned actively against said agency even having the powers to do what they did. Or is it the negligent or otherwise culpable government employees?
I think every aware person knows the answer to that question.
I doubt anyone can dispute what you say onceuponatime