Apparently, if you have a Ferrari and it gets stolen and while it's in Federal custody and a couple FBI hacks steal it and take it for a joyride and total it, there is no liability at all on their part. So what they're saying is, the Feds can do anything, anything at all, with your propery. Nice.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-wrecked-750g-ferrari/?...
That's FOX news, you can't believe anything they say. They are the only biased news agency out there.
Actually I posted that yesterday http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/surprise-the-fbi-is-immune-from-prosecu...
Not surprising really.
carguy123 wrote:That's FOX news, you can't believe anything they say. They are the only biased news agency out there.
Actually I posted that yesterday http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/surprise-the-fbi-is-immune-from-prosecu...
To say MSNBC isn't biased is just silly.
I see MSNBC and Fox as "entertainment" channels......if you like shortsighted people yelling at each other.
carguy123 wrote:That's FOX news, you can't believe anything they say. They are the only biased news agency out there.
Actually I posted that yesterday http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/surprise-the-fbi-is-immune-from-prosecu...
Fox may be the only conservatively biased new organization, but you are pretty naive if you think they are the only biased news agency.
I'm calling sarcasm on the "only biased" comment. 
What Matt B said...
What I've read about this case is that the agent will be on the hook, as he was acting outside of his purview within the FBI. So, if he has property or anything else worth about $750k, he's going to on the (probably) losing side of a civil suit very soon. But, on a government salary, who knows if the F50 owner will ever see any monetary compensation. As they say, the first rule of tort law is 'Don't sue poor people.'
Matt B wrote:I'm calling sarcasm on the "only biased" comment.
Yes, where is that sarcasm font when you need it?
I didn't want to be as tacky as many people are when they call a repost.
alex wrote:What I've read about this case is that the agent will be on the hook, as he was acting outside of his purview within the FBI. So, if he has property or anything else worth about $750k, he's going to on the (probably) losing side of a civil suit very soon. But, on a government salary, who knows if the F50 owner will ever see any monetary compensation. As they say, the first rule of tort law is 'Don't sue poor people.'
Wouldn't it be the insurance company who owned it? They paid out the owner for it.
"I didn't want to be as tacky as many people are when they call a repost."
In reply to Salanis:
I'd like see the insurance company pursue litigation towards the agent, if only to send a message to any other prospective government joyriders.
I think the car owner's insurance company was who started the law suit.
Anyone know if you can sue a Gov employee?
Paul B
Donebrokeit wrote:I think the car owner's insurance company was who started the law suit.
Anyone know if you can sue a Gov employee?
Paul B
You can sue a large, multinational corporation for your own dumb ass spilling hot coffee on your lap, I would assume you can sue just a person.
Twin_Cam wrote:Donebrokeit wrote:I think the car owner's insurance company was who started the law suit.
Anyone know if you can sue a Gov employee?
Paul B
You can sue a large, multinational corporation for your own dumb ass spilling hot coffee on your lap, I would assume you can sue just a person.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
"A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. "
Yeah, that sounds like nothing.
I regret to inform you all that Federal employees aren't a special breed. 
My wife is a Federal employee. She is liable for damages done to property when it's in her possession (such as a Federal vehicle). I don't know where the law stands on evidence / confiscated property but I would think the FB Iagents involved would be in hot water, both within the FBI, and with the vehicle's insurer.
z31maniac wrote:Twin_Cam wrote:Donebrokeit wrote:I think the car owner's insurance company was who started the law suit.
Anyone know if you can sue a Gov employee?
Paul B
You can sue a large, multinational corporation for your own dumb ass spilling hot coffee on your lap, I would assume you can sue just a person.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
"A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. "
Yeah, that sounds like nothing.
I always hated it when people bring up that suit.. she was BADLY burned by the coffee.. more so than I would have expect.. and certainly a LOT more than by something you home brew...
Just imagine putting liquid that hot into your mouth
mad_machine wrote:z31maniac wrote:Twin_Cam wrote:Donebrokeit wrote:I think the car owner's insurance company was who started the law suit.
Anyone know if you can sue a Gov employee?
Paul B
You can sue a large, multinational corporation for your own dumb ass spilling hot coffee on your lap, I would assume you can sue just a person.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
"A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. "
Yeah, that sounds like nothing.
I always hated it when people bring up that suit.. she was BADLY burned by the coffee.. more so than I would have expect.. and certainly a LOT more than by something you home brew...
Just imagine putting liquid that hot into your mouth
it was too hot to put in her mouth, so she dumped it on her crotch..
3rd degree burns of the perineum and genitals...
NOPENOPENOPENOPE
Twin_Cam wrote:Donebrokeit wrote:I think the car owner's insurance company was who started the law suit.
Anyone know if you can sue a Gov employee?
Paul B
You can sue a large, multinational corporation for your own dumb ass spilling hot coffee on your lap, I would assume you can sue just a person.
someone already posted the important bits of that litigation, so my only comment is dont be EDITED: silly. Its amazing what a multinational corporation is willing to spend in PR to make someone who was irrevocably injured due to one of their employees carelessness (they had that coffee only a few degrees shy of boiling) look like they are just greedy. Apparently the tactics are effective on sheeple.
