In article . com,
Red wrote:

On Aug 4, 8:29?am, BTR1701 wrote:
In article .com,

Red wrote:
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.

Why?

I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?

Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.

On Aug 5, 3:31?pm, BTR1701 wrote:
In article . com,

Red wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:29?am, BTR1701 wrote:
In article .com,

Red wrote:
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.

Why?

I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?

Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.

If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.

On Aug 5, 8:46 am, Red wrote:


Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!


You're gonna need the *other* John Edwards to get the dead guy's
testimony,

Bonus points for not knowing the difference between "in absentia" and
"post mortem".

In article .com,
Red wrote:

On Aug 5, 3:31?pm, BTR1701 wrote:
In article . com,

Red wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:29?am, BTR1701 wrote:
In article .com,

Red wrote:
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.

Why?

I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?

Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.

If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.

Not necessarily.

On Aug 5, 7:50?pm, Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 5, 8:46 am, Red wrote:



Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!

You're gonna need the *other* John Edwards to get the dead guy's
testimony,

Bonus points for not knowing the difference between "in absentia" and
"post mortem".

Lighten up Bo, it was a joke!

On Aug 5, 8:51?pm, BTR1701 wrote:
In article .com,





Red wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:31?pm, BTR1701 wrote:
In article . com,

Red wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:29?am, BTR1701 wrote:
In article .com,

Red wrote:
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.

Why?

I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?

Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.

If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.

Not necessarily.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, you were responsible, how's that!

Red wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:50?pm, Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 5, 8:46 am, Red wrote:



Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!

You're gonna need the *other* John Edwards to get the dead guy's
testimony,

Bonus points for not knowing the difference between "in absentia" and
"post mortem".

Lighten up Bo, it was a joke!

Yes, you are ...

Red wrote:
On Aug 5, 8:51?pm, BTR1701 wrote:
Red wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:31?pm, BTR1701 wrote:
Red wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:29?am, BTR1701 wrote:
Red wrote:
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his
money.

Why?

I think the answer has something to do with personal
responsibility. Perhaps you have heard of it?

Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally
responsible, it seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of
his money.

If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.

Not necessarily.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, you were responsible, how's that!

Well, there are some crimes that BTR1701 is indirectly responsible
for .... but Ving Rhames dogs ain't one of them.

BTR1701 wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
comadrejo wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:

Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and
probably didn't earn that much per
year.

Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.


My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he
died could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from
a heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the
caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's
insurance liability could be limited...

It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own
death. Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs,
etc. before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was
the one who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked
them to attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.

Wanna bet?

respondeat superior

Independentus contractus

TX CODE TITLE 4 § 101.07, § 106.02, § 106.025, § 106.04, § 106.07, § 106.071
TX PENAL CODE TITLE § 32.51

In article ,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:

BTR1701 wrote:
"¥ UltraMan ¥" wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
comadrejo wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:

Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and
probably didn't earn that much per
year.

Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.


My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he
died could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from
a heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the
caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's
insurance liability could be limited...

It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own
death. Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs,
etc. before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was
the one who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked
them to attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.

Wanna bet?

respondeat superior

Independentus contractus

TX CODE TITLE 4 § 101.07, § 106.02, § 106.025, § 106.04, § 106.07, § 106.071
TX PENAL CODE TITLE § 32.51

And since the incident happened in California, citations to the Texas
Code are absolutely irrelevant. I wouldn't expect anything different
from you. Glad to see you're still operating true to form.

Let me ask you a question, do you EVER post anything relevant or are you
constitutionally incapable of doing so?

[Feel free to copy and paste some random article that has nothing to do
with any of this as a response. Oh, and be sure and repeat one line from
the article a half dozen times, too.]