di to the defense
By Diogenes (articles ) | March 14, 2007 2:20 PM
Yes, it's a sad incident recounted below. But in this case, the head man is innocent:
(CBS) LOS ANGELES. A woman severely burned when her skirt caught fire while she was praying near a statue of a Catholic saint can seek punitive damages against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Josefina Martin, then 56, suffered third-degree burns to her ankles, legs, back, arms and hands during the Oct. 16, 2005, incident in a courtyard of Mary Immaculate Catholic Church in Pacoima, according to her lawsuit.
In January 2006, Martin and her husband, Salvador Martin, sued the archdiocese, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, Mary Immaculate Church and the manufacturer of the skirt she wore, alleging negligence and premises liability.
Your honor, members of the jury, learned counsel: I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles had nothing to do with the candles. Or the saint.
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($17,114 to go):
$80,000.00
$62,886.45
21%
79%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 16, 2007 12:59 PM ET USA
Would His Eminence be liable if she was part of the 99% who desire a more vibrant liturgy. I don't think it gets much more vibrant than that. Watch out.
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 14, 2007 11:54 PM ET USA
I'm confused: No VAT. So the Italian gays are against the Value Added Tax? Well so am I.
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 14, 2007 10:33 PM ET USA
And she also sued the manufacturer of her skirt, who was liable because..... I believe it is possible to cut down on this kind of nonsense by allowing the PREVAILING party in a civil suit to obtain attorney fees. That means that a defendant who wins would be entitled to remimbursement from the plantiff for the cost of defending such rideculous suits.
-
Posted by: Art Kelly -
Mar. 14, 2007 10:33 PM ET USA
And she also sued the manufacturer of her skirt, who was liable because..... I believe it is possible to cut down on this kind of nonsense by allowing the PREVAILING party in a civil suit to obtain attorney fees. That means that a defendant who wins would be entitled to remimbursement from the plantiff for the cost of defending such rideculous suits.
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 14, 2007 6:40 PM ET USA
Perhaps the candles were strategically placed to prevent kneeling?
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 14, 2007 4:57 PM ET USA
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? Such actions betoken a society in which it is taken for granted that someone else is always to blame for your misfortunes. The law that supports this is an ass.
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 14, 2007 2:54 PM ET USA
It must have taken this poor soul a great amount of effort to catch her skirt on fire. I wonder if she prays that hard? That aside, I am delighted you note that the great choreographer and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles has nothing to do with either saints nor sanctity; in these matters especially, he is without blame.
-
Posted by: -
Mar. 14, 2007 2:37 PM ET USA
Or the skirt.
