Page 1 of 1

The church should pay

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:37 am
by Arcturus
https://www.ksl.com/article/46655480/60 ... house-leak

My DW has a friend who’s family was in the chapel when this happened. The friend recently posted on social media how the incident has caused serious neurological problems for 2 of her affected kids and they’ve had to miss much of school since Oct. Both kids have had nearly 100 doctors visits between Provo and SLC as they’ve struggled to find specialists who can help. The kids have chronic migraines/nausea and can’t go to school.

Should the church pay for this and will they? I see the possibility of a small class action here... maybe the ensign peak revelation will change members’ willingness to ask the church for help in cases like this?

Re: The church should pay

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:46 am
by Thoughtful
Arcturus wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:37 am
https://www.ksl.com/article/46655480/60 ... house-leak

My DW has a friend who’s family was in the chapel when this happened. The friend recently posted on social media how the incident has caused serious neurological problems for 2 of her affected kids and they’ve had to miss much of school since Oct. Both kids have had nearly 100 doctors visits between Provo and SLC as they’ve struggled to find specialists who can help. The kids have chronic migraines/nausea and can’t go to school.

Should the church pay for this and will they? I see the possibility of a small class action here... maybe the ensign peak revelation will change members’ willingness to ask the church for help in cases like this?
I'm not sure. We looked into personal injury suit against the church and it would cost us 40% of any settlement, and then all attorney costs subtracted from the 60% before we get anything. The legal office said the first step on their end would be to see if there's already a settlement established for claims of our nature, so it sounded like basically file paperwork best case scenario. But worst care scenario might be a drawn out trial and even if we win, we might owe a firm money by the end of it.

Re: The church should pay

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:21 am
by Not Buying It
If you are a Church with $100 billion laying around and some people get injured in your building through no faulty of theirs, doesn't taking care of their medical bills kind of seem like common sense and basic decency?

Re: The church should pay

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:25 am
by Just This Guy
Article states that this was an older building that did not have carbon monoxide detectors. What are the fire codes like in Utah? In my area, any public building or open to the public, regardless of age that use a burnt fuel source in any manner (heating, cooking, etc) inside the building are required to have detectors as part of their fire suppression system. Older building were given time to get up to code, but that expired a long time ago. Now they are required. One look at a building like that by the fire marshal and it is closed down until it can be brought to code.

What is the Utah code like? If code required detectors and this building had none, then yes, the owner is liable for all injury and it's a pretty open and shut case.

Re: The church should pay

Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:33 am
by 2bizE
I really think the church is so focused on legalities it fails to serve its members. I doubt the church will do nothing unless sued. Doing something would be a sign of guilt. And the church knows most members wont sue the church. I would sue for $124 Billion.