suing b/c she can't get a job

If she graduated in april, and is suing now, that means me graduating in may means I can sue UT in a month. Just kidding, UT did the best they could
 
Just being devil's advocate, but I've heard that many "technical" colleges are scams such that they will teach you things yet sell you on attending their school because the skills they teach you are in high demand. The dishonest part is how much they tell potential students that getting a job from their program is a cinch.

A gentleman who worked in my father's furniture store learned how to repair jet engines in San Antonio- and then left the school jobless and 30k in debt.

The girl in this article however sounds like she has other issues which a lawsuit will not help.
 
Yeah read that article and just thought WTF is wrong with some people. She has a 2.7 GPA and the job market is tight. I think this girl is not the sharpest knife in the drawer if she thinks its the schools fault she doesn't have a job.
 
The media loves reporting when nutcase, frivolous lawsuits like this are filed somewhere, but never bothers to report when they are summarily dismissed shortly thereafter.

It's like showing a couple of crazed skinheads at an A&M game and assuming all Aggies are morons...errr...nevermind that analogy. But you understand the point I was trying to make.
 
Not saying her case is particularly meritorious, but I don't read that article as saying she suing because the school failed to get her a job. I read it as saying she's suing because the school failed to deliver promised advice and assistance concerning job placement.
 
^ Exactly Fried JJ.

It is one thing for a person to responsibly choose a trade school for them. It is another when this school tells the student in just 12 months you will have your choice of high paying jobs after completing our program- guaranteed.

It is not dissimilar from the repugnant tactics used by some mortgage brokers on lesser qualified, less savvy folks. No one here is saying people should not be responsible for their actions, but it's a lot easier for them to do so when they don't have to deal with people who work in large buildings with suits who outright lie to them.
 
1. There are some shady trade schools out there

2. This wasn't one of them (edit: probably, but I'm not 100% certain)

3. This lady is an idiot (edit: this, i'm pretty certain of)

4. This has nothing to do with tort reform
 
Until you see the promotional materials offered by the school to prospective students and see whether the school actually has and offers all the promised help in job hunts and placements, you don't know if she has a case or not.

To me, this looks like a pretty straight forward deceptive trade practices claim. The college is alleged to have promised prospective students services of certain qualities. If they misrepresented the services they offer, they can be held liable for damages.

Again, she seems to be claiming the college didn't provide the services it promised. I think she's going to have a hard time proving up a damages model under a value received vs. value promised theory, and I don't know if New York law will allow a recovery of tuition as "out of pocket" expense without some kind of offset for value bestowed, but I have a hard time agreeing the case must be frivolous without access to information regarding what services were promised vs. what services were provided.
 
Blackman,
I hear what you're saying about defendants being required to spend incredible amounts of money to defend against BS lawsuits. That is a reality of the American justice system. The answer, of course, is a "loser pays" system like in the UK. There, if a plaintiff loses a lawsuit, he/she has to pay the defendant's attorneys fees.

That would certainly cut down on frivolous lawsuits in the US, but at what cost? Can you imagine the enormous disincentive for Joe Consumer to sue a company on a valid claim? Big companies tend to put high-priced teams of lawyers on cases and spend wads of cash. If you're a working stiff and you've been sexually harassed or injured by a defective product, etc, you couldn't afford the risk of losing.

So, yes, our system breeds frivolous suits, but I think ensuring access to justice for all citizens is an overarching concern.
 
Most plaintiff's attorneys would LOVE a loser pays system. In most PI cases, there is no other way to recover attorney's fees.
 
That ***** needs to get a clue
mad.gif
 
It is one thing for a person to responsibly choose a trade school for them. It is another when this school tells the student in just 12 months you will have your choice of high paying jobs after completing our program- guaranteed.

It is not dissimilar from the repugnant tactics used by some mortgage brokers on lesser qualified, less savvy folks. No one here is saying people should not be responsible for their actions, but it's a lot easier for them to do so when they don't have to deal with people who work in large buildings with suits who outright lie to them.
__________________________________________________

There aint no free luch as my grandfather used to tell me. People have been scamming people since the beginning of time. Life is about survival of the fittest. The strong survive and the weak perish...until about the last 100 years and its gotten progressively worse over the last 40.

You dont like the decisions you have made, blame someone else, sue, even if it means getting a few free bucks and whatever you do, blame the suits, they owe you...
 
I don't know what your political leanings are or even care, but you really ought to reconsider your "judge suspends system" idea. It is just a terrible idea. The very same case (deserving or not) would have wildly different outcomes based upon who got the judge elected. Just a horrible idea.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top