Dennis Quaid being sued by horse rider

So basically, Dennis Quaid was kind enough to let the man use his land...and then finds himself being sued despite the fact that the man wasn't wearing a hat and wasn't paying attention to his horse at the time :confused:
 
That's terrible, it sounds like Dennis Quaid was doing the guy a favour by allowing him onto his property.
I hope he doesn't win
 
I think the main problem and the cause for so much sueing in America, is the cost of medical treatment. If you have to pay and your insurance doesn't cover it, then you may well try and find someone else to blame, thus making them responsible for the cost. Yet one more reason to fight for the NHS.
 
If a sprinkler caused a spook that bad then he shouldn't have been sat on it without a hat and without paying attention.

I'd sue straight back for damage to reputation through negligence!
 
The sue mentality in America is ridiculous but its a way of life to them - they simply must blame someone for everything, its quite frightening. I had a very serious accident on a livery yard and there were people who when I told them, the first thing out their mouth was "sue". Why? It was an accident!! - Just like I didn't sue the garage when I fell over in their forecourt and hurt myself even though I slipped on spilled petrol - stuff happens - doesnt mean its anyone's fault
 
YorksG said:
I think the main problem and the cause for so much sueing in America, is the cost of medical treatment. If you have to pay and your insurance doesn't cover it, then you may well try and find someone else to blame, thus making them responsible for the cost. Yet one more reason to fight for the NHS.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. I bet he'll find it hard to prove that Quad gave him permission in the first place - it was probably a verbal thing in which case Quad could simply say the guy was trespassing. Quite odd that the man admitted to looking at his watch at the time though...? The fact he wasnt wearing a hat, well not many in the States do.
 
Another reason, aside from medical costs, for frivolous lawsuits in America is that, unlike in the UK, legal costs are not awarded, i.e. if this guy sues Dennis Quaid and loses, he will not be responsible for meeting Quaid's legal costs, whereas here, costs can be awarded to the 'winning' party. There has been debate for many years in the US about bringing in what they call 'the English rule'. That, coupled with the fact that most lawyers will work on a no win-no fee basis encourages this type of ridiculous action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top