Monday November 30, 2015
Jump to content
David Jimenez was determined to save his wife from the deadly ovarian cancer with which she had been stricken. During the two-year waiting period after her operation he often stopped and prayed for her before a crucifix outside St. Patrick's Church in the city of Newburgh, New York.
When his wife was declared free of cancer, Jimenez was so thrilled he offered to clean the large crucifix where he had spent many hours praying for her to beat the disease, as well as to pick up the trash around it.
However, while using rags and soapy water to clean Christ's face he couldn't quite reach as high as he wanted. Instead of going inside and asking to use a ladder, he decided to stand on the base of the crucifix, reach up, grab the cross beam of the cross, and pull himself higher up.
The overloaded crucifix snapped off at its base, falling on Jimenez and crushing his right leg so badly it had to be amputated.
Even though charitable organizations paid his six-figure medical bills, Jimenez is suing the church for $3 million dollars.
His lawyer commented that, "He attributed [his wife's] recovery to his devotion to the cross and Christ hearing his prayers." The lawyer did not explain what that had to do with the lawsuit.
Not at all odd Tom. In my career, I often saw attorneys handing "victims" their business card even before transport to the hospital arrived. With the "aura" of this story, I suspect that some attorney was aware of how the events unfolded and encouraged Mr. Jimenez to proceed with a lawsuit. The figure of $3 million smells to high heaven of some attorney needing to make his Porche payments. Mr. Jimenez will see very little of that award if one is made. They (attorneys) truly have no principles other than the how much $$$$ they can make.
ya know the difference between a dead lawyer, and a dead skunk in the road?
Skid marks before the skunk!
what do you call 12 lawyers burried up to their neck in sand?
Not enough sand.
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
Yeah Gary, I know. Attorneys take a lot of flack. It seems in their case, the 90% give the other 10% a bad name. Not hard to appreciate the challenges they face since most people only need attorneys when something goes wrong or one needs a "specialist" to help them wade through the legalese inserted into so much of our lives by, wait for it,.....attorneys. Let's face it, many of our CongressCritters are attorneys. Think theres a connection between their respective reputations amoung mainstreet folks?
And then attorneys grow up to be judges.
I have the same feeling; namely that someone prodded the man into suing. I can't imagine someone coming up with this on his own.
But that doesn't excuse the man.
In any event, the minute he climbed that crucifix he created his own problem. It goes to "proximate cause." The legal definition of proximate cause is, "An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred."
In other words, if he had not grabbed onto that arm of the crucifix to hoist himself up where he could work better there would have been no "accident."
If I were on that jury it would be a cold day in hell before he got a nickel. My opinion: He has no case unless someone can pack the jury with people who are willing to listen to a lot of tripe. Since that so often happens, who knows how the case will come out?
But no matter what, if the man truly believes in divine intervention he could not possibly file such a lawsuit. He'd be saying, "Gee, God. Thanks for doing right by my wife, but as far as not looking out for me when I screwed up...."
Did he have permission to climb on it? Maybe that could be called trespassing?
He should have to be replacing it instead of trying to collect money for his stupidity.
The original article said he had permission to clean the crucifix and to pick up the trash around it.
Unless a judge doesn't do his job there is no way this can be anything except damage caused to the church by an individual who did something reckless, causing his own damages. Frankly, if I were the judge, after hearing the evidence, and unless there are some things we do no know, I would dismiss the case as groundless. But if the judge decides to do that he should point out to the jury that in any negligence case it is the proximate cause of an accident which is paramount. If the man had not climbed up and put undue stress on that crucifix it probably would have stood another 300 years.
Posting comments requires a free account