Not to defend the indefensible, but the article mentions the truck jacknifed while trying to avoid rear-ending another car, suggesting the driver was following too closely, or was inattentive, etc...

The last time I heard though, rear-enders happen to people who aren't getting paid by the mile, also.

The Dept. of Transportation would classify this as a "preventable" accident, for the reasons Jeff mentioned.

Most non-union trucking companies would fire the driver for jackknifing the rig anyhow, unless he had a very compelling story to tell.

Just the other day I heard Mr. Edwards complaining during the Democratic debate that all the textile mills have left his home state. "The jobs that put shoes on our feet, food on our table"...yada yada yada.

A bit ironic that he did his little part here to drive up the costs of running a textile operation in the United States.

These lawsuits are geared toward shifting the blame to the parties with the deepest pockets, no matter how tenuous or contorted the connection is. By making big business responsible for every tragedy, we are both undermining individual accountability in society, and sending the dangerous message that every tragedy must result in a monetary payout. As much as I feel for the families of the victims of 9/11, I think that the compensation fund for them was the wrong thing to do. We all must face the fact that life is tragic, and not expect monetary compensation for our grief.

Then again, most people don't understand that the reason a truck may have such a large gap between it and the car in front is because of its longer stopping distance. I've seen cars cut into this gap, then suddenly slow down forcing evasive action behind them. Not all rear-end collisions are due to inattention.

There was an article about the Werewolf in the NYTimes a couple of weeks ago.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

As a lawyer, I am appalled that the Judge allowed that kind of "argument" in a trial. The Judge did grant a remittiture, but he should have declared a mistrial and sanctioned Edwards.

Furthermore, the case is based on bad science. From the same article:

Then a series of randomized trials challenged the notion that faster delivery could prevent cerebral palsy. Reviewing data from nine countries, two researchers reported last year that the rate of the disorder had remained stable despite a fivefold increase in Caesarean deliveries.

Dr. Karin B. Nelson, a child neurologist with the National Institutes of Health, says the notion that paying greater heed to electronic monitoring will prevent brain injuries remains just that, a notion. "Evidence of high medical quality contradicts the assumption that the use of electronic fetal monitoring during labor can prevent brain damage," Dr. Nelson said.

Robert--

Are you sure you live in the Twin Cities? Certainly not in my neighborhood...and guess which one THAT is...

I mean Robert Duquette here, of course.