Supreme Court of Washington State, nutjobs?
The supreme court of the state of washington has sided with a dentist who placed fake boars tusks in a woman's mouth while she was unconscious, took photographs of her and later distributed them to others. He settled out of court with the woman but sued his insurance company, and will now make a whopping $500,000 profit out of it thanks to the court. Are they nuts? I wonder what other sorts of photographs he has taken of helpless patients...
Answers:
I tracked down and read the majority decision and dissenting opinion, and agree with the dissenters. I found the reasoning in the majority decision to be specious. Being a Washington resident, I've noted the names of the justices who wrote/signed the majority decision so that I'll have it handy the next time any of them come up for reelection.
(In case you're also in WA and wondering, the majority: Richard Sanders, Bobbe Bridge, Tom Chambers, Susan Owen, Mary Fairhurst.)
Yes, they are. I read that article in the Olympian. I was disgusted that this person made out like they did. It may have been partly due to the fact that the dentist was part oriental.
And he probably is still a dentist too! What an @ss!
The court supposedly determines if something is legal. Even being a jerk doesn't change the law. I don't want to imply that I would expect the court to not let emotions decide the case, but the legal aspect of whether the insurance company owed the money is all they court should have considered. I don't know the specifics though.
It sounds like he should be disbarred.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: