RE: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingency Fees

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

I'm referring to her (estate's) claim against the malicious individuals who

perpetrated the fraud.



Jack Earley

Radiological Engineer





-----Original Message-----

From: BLHamrick@aol.com [mailto:BLHamrick@aol.com]

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:11 PM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingency Fees





In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002  5:45:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Jack_Earley@RL.gov writes:



> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> <SPAN class=240482322-11032002>BLHamrick wrote:</SPAN>

> <SPAN class=240482322-11032002></SPAN>

> <SPAN class=240482322-11032002><<It is different than the fear caused by a



> potential murderer, for example, who fails his (or her...as if) goal,

because 

> the intent of the murderer is to DO you harm, so the fear has a basis in

the 

> knowledge that there was an event that actually threatened your life, and

the 

> intent was to actually take your life, and your life would have been taken

by 

> that event but for some intervening, possibly arbitrary, action. This is 

> entirely different than an event, which is completely unplanned, and which

does 

> you no harm, did not intend to do you any harm, and nothing specific

prevented 

> the event from doing you harm, because it was in its essence a harmless

event. 

> >></SPAN>

> <SPAN class=240482322-11032002></SPAN>

> <SPAN class=240482322-11032002></SPAN>

> <SPAN class=240482322-11032002>I'm 

> not an attorney Barbara, but I see thisa little differently. Let's take a 

> different example, and it's not really off-topic; I think there's a close 

> parallel. Let's say that a woman is told by a malicious individual that

the man 

> she was with until recently has AIDS. Not knowing she's being set up,

she's told 

> the same thing by several other people. Thoroughly distressed and

embarrassed, 

> and convinced that what she's been told is true, she buys an EPT and it

says 

> she's pregnant. Not wanting to bring a child into the world w/ AIDS, she

goes in 

> for an abortion and dies (or pick your own nightmare) from complications.

(BTW, 

> how many of those 10,000? women died from abortions post-Chernobyl?) No

intent 

> to murder/maim/disfigure, but the end result was the same. Now what's the 

> outcome? I think some of the real victims (like the 10,000 women) have a

valid 

> claim against the purveyors of fear.>>



In your example though the AIDS is "deadly radiation" and the malicious

individual is the media/government or whoever promotes the fear.  In both

cases, there is no AIDS, there is no deadly radiation.  The "harm" is caused

by the perpetration of fear.  The woman should no more be able to sue her

ex-boyfriend (who didn't actually have AIDS), than she should be able to sue

TMI, who didn't actually expose her to "deadly radiation."



Barbara 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/