Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gamakatsu

Part of what's wrong with America

Rate this topic

13 posts in this topic

The kid ate stolen drugs, willfully damaging his own brain and wins a pile of money from the place where the drugs were stolen from. I just don't get it...

 

http://truthdive.com/2011/12/24/man-overdosed-on-stolen-drugs-from-pharmacy-settles-for-4-1-million.html

 

New Jersey, Dec 24 (TruthDive): A New Jersey man will receive $4.1 million to settle his claim that he suffered permanent nerve damage after overdosing on drugs obtained illegally from a Ridgewood pharmacy and given to him at a party.

 

The man overdosed on stolen drugs he ingested at a party in 2007 has settled his lawsuit with a pharmacy, several guests, the party’s host Donny Nuckel and his mother for $4.1 million.

 

Scott Simon, then 17, said he took Xanax that was given to him by a former employee of a Ridgewood drug store and suffered permanent nerve damage as a result.

 

Simon’s attorney John Schepisi told The Record of Bergen County that one party guest was a former pharmacy employee who stole Xanax from the drugstore and gave it to Simon. Simon took the drugs at the party and fell into a coma. But instead of calling for help immediately, other guests waited for a while before driving him to the hospital, his lawyer said.

 

Simon suffered permanent nerve damage that impaired his ability to walk and talk, Schepisi said. “He stays at home now, trying to recuperate,” Schepisi said. “He can’t walk without help. He has been declared incompetent.”

 

If Simon had been taken to a hospital right away, the injuries likely would not have been permanent, the lawyer said.

 

Simon sued the pharmacy for not taking proper precautions to avoid the theft of drugs. He also sued several guests, the party’s host and the host’s parents, who were away for the weekend.

 

All of them will contribute toward the settlement except the host’s father, who was not living at the home at the time.

 

The settlement requires Harding Pharmacy to pay $1.9 million. Donny Nuckel and his mother, Linda, will pay $1.2 million, while the pharmacy employee and other guests at the party will pay the remaining amount.

 

Silvana Raso, another attorney representing Simon, said her client shares responsibility for taking the drugs. But she said the case should serve as a cautionary tale for parents whose children host parties at their homes.

 

She also said her client did not pursue a claim against Donny’s father, Donald, because the father did not live at the house at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The kid ate stolen drugs, willfully damaging his own brain and wins a pile of money from the place where the drugs were stolen from. I just don't get it....

 

Sounds like a scam. Like the girl that could only walk backwards after the flue shot. What a waste of money that could have been much better spent on drugs for the elderly or the poor. Some people have no gadamn sense!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Tavern thread about this case.

 

Redistribution of wealth is redistribution of responsibility.

 

In this case, the "wealth" is the amount of $ the plaintiff will receive per the settlement.

 

My comment is notional and not based on knowledge of case details; if I knew all the details my comment may be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Thats part.  its also one of the bigger hurdles of liberty, freedom, and a just and libertarian society.



 



In order to have an honorable society you must have a small group of honorable men. Liberalism erodes honor-as a condition of its own existence.  When that makes its way into a courtroom, its over,there is no place left for an honorable man to turn when he is in need.



 



 



The honorable answer from the judge in this case, if it really is what it appears to be, would be to tell all involved to get out of the courtroom before he threw his stapler at them.



 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The honorable answer from the judge in this case, if it really is what it appears to be, would be to tell all involved to get out of the courtroom before he threw his stapler at them.

 

 

We agree. The only just lawsuit that I can see from the facts in the article would be by the kid against his parents. Where were they while he was OD'ing as a minor?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats part.  its also one of the bigger hurdles of liberty, freedom, and a just and libertarian society.

 

In order to have an honorable society you must have a small group of honorable men.

 

^^^

This is what the Framers meant when they spoke about "God-fearing" men being the key requisite for a society of limited government and maximum liberty.

 

 

Liberalism erodes honor-as a condition of its own existence.  When that makes its way into a courtroom, its over,there is no place left for an honorable man to turn when he is in need.

 

 

The honorable answer from the judge in this case, if it really is what it appears to be, would be to tell all involved to get out of the courtroom before he threw his stapler at them.

 

^^^

Must the courthouse door be open to every claimant?

 

 

HAPPY CHRISTMAS, Little

 

 

sgd. lichum

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what the Framers meant when they spoke about "God-fearing" men being the key requisite for a society of limited government and maximum liberty.

 

There were no "God fearing" men who founded this country, or they would have realized that God didn't own slaves. But they figured it our a few hundred years later. :th:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what the Framers meant when they spoke about "God-fearing" men being the key requisite for a society of limited government and maximum liberty.

There were no "God fearing" men who founded this country, or they would have realized that God didn't own slaves. But they figured it our a few hundred years later. :th:

 

ummm wrong..........

 

they were good fearing men of thier era.

 

and it wasnt a few hundres years (aka 300+) it was abuot 70 years (1789-1860)

 

just correcting ya :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what the Framers meant when they spoke about "God-fearing" men being the key requisite for a society of limited government and maximum liberty.

There were no "God fearing" men who founded this country, or they would have realized that God didn't own slaves. But they figured it our a few hundred years later. :th:

 

 

 

I think that within their concept of "God-fearing" men, the Framers would also have included "good citizens" and "law-abiding citizens" who were not believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.