An article in the newspaper today discussed the problem of how to successfully sue people over the Rhode Island nightclub fire. The article begins: "As families of the dead and injured struggle with their grief after one of the country's deadliest fires, some are starting to look for compensation."
Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd gone through something like this, but, as I've noted before, I've never understood how people, having just lost a loved one (or several loved ones) seem to so quickly think, "Damn, I need some money."
Underlining the greed behind all this, one attorney was quoted, "The most culpable people seem to be the owners of the bar and the band. But it would appear there is wholly inadequate coverage there. So you have to look elsewhere -- starting with the products involved, the people who supplied them, the people who prepared them and maintained them." The article continues: "Civil lawyers could go after the manufacturers of the pyrotechnics or the soundproofing material that it ignited. Concert promoters, even the architects of the building -- constructed in the early 1940s -- are potential defendants, Decof said."
So, if the people responsible -- or, perhaps more accurately, their insurance companies -- don't seem to have deep enough pockets, you go after whoever you can find with money? It's really hard for me to believe that someone who designed the building in 1940 should be held responsible for a fire that happened 60 years later.
How does this actually help anyone???