Well, I'm sorry the guy has this illness, and he certainly paid for his action in pepper-spraying the driver so I don't think he needed any further sanctions, but none of that says that the driver was in any way in the wrong -- how was he supposed to know, and what difference would it make? If the guy wasn't in his right mind, he might have gone ahead and tried to rob the truck or do worse to the driver than he'd already done. This after-the-fact analysis of what people ought to have done -- NOT knowing the facts -- is ridiculous. I am glad that the lawsuit was dismissed right off.
"Right off" still entails work by the lawyers and fear on Martin's part. I definitely lost sympathy for Green at that point; he went from being a victim of nature to being a jerk looking for the deep pockets.
His complaint was filed on 4/24/2025, exactly one year after the incident. The response from Loomis (technically two companies, Loomis Armored US, LLC and Loomis Armored US, Inc.) was dated September 12, 2025. The judgment was given April 22, 2026. That's two solid years from the incident, and a solid year from the initial complaint.
Funny, I only just now noticed that the judgment was given literally two days ago. Timing is everything.
I had the impression of a shorter timeline, but then I was half asleep while reading! Yes, a year is a long time to deal with something that could have cost Martin an awful lot. I guess there are plenty of lawyers who don't care about facts and context but just see deep pockets somewhere.
If you look a the timeline in ARCourts, there aren't a lot of actual filings, and those that are there can be tedious. In the timeline of the argument, if you will, summary judgment came pretty quickly. In calendar days, though, it was almost exactly a year.
Well, I'm sorry the guy has this illness, and he certainly paid for his action in pepper-spraying the driver so I don't think he needed any further sanctions, but none of that says that the driver was in any way in the wrong -- how was he supposed to know, and what difference would it make? If the guy wasn't in his right mind, he might have gone ahead and tried to rob the truck or do worse to the driver than he'd already done. This after-the-fact analysis of what people ought to have done -- NOT knowing the facts -- is ridiculous. I am glad that the lawsuit was dismissed right off.
"Right off" still entails work by the lawyers and fear on Martin's part. I definitely lost sympathy for Green at that point; he went from being a victim of nature to being a jerk looking for the deep pockets.
His complaint was filed on 4/24/2025, exactly one year after the incident. The response from Loomis (technically two companies, Loomis Armored US, LLC and Loomis Armored US, Inc.) was dated September 12, 2025. The judgment was given April 22, 2026. That's two solid years from the incident, and a solid year from the initial complaint.
Funny, I only just now noticed that the judgment was given literally two days ago. Timing is everything.
I had the impression of a shorter timeline, but then I was half asleep while reading! Yes, a year is a long time to deal with something that could have cost Martin an awful lot. I guess there are plenty of lawyers who don't care about facts and context but just see deep pockets somewhere.
If you look a the timeline in ARCourts, there aren't a lot of actual filings, and those that are there can be tedious. In the timeline of the argument, if you will, summary judgment came pretty quickly. In calendar days, though, it was almost exactly a year.