Suing Over Wi-Fi
Illinois parents sue school over wireless plans
Plans to install a Wi-Fi network in an Illinois school have been halted due to a lawsuit by parents alleging health concerns. As with concerns about the health impact of 3G, there's little research that confirms or disputes such claims. That hasn't stopped a group of parents in Illinois from suing the school for planning to install a WLAN without consulting parents in the community. The filing itself
alleges that there's a "substantial and growing body of scientific literature studying and outlining the serious health risks that exposure to low intensity, but high radio frequency ("RF") poses to human beings, particularly children."
An interesting discussion has developed over at Wi-Fi networking news
. There are those who argue Wi-Fi gear emits less radiation than cell phones, microwaves, or baby monitors. Others suggest there's simply not enough research to warrant such concerns. Of course there is some who avoid wireless technology altogether. In the end, the school district's coffers will probably suffer more harm than the students would have under a bombardment of Wi-Fi signals.
173 comments .. click to read
z9_87Ill - IniPremium
|reply to MadDog3057 |
Re: That's what you get...
DON"T FORGET POLICE RADAR!!!!! GET RID OF THAT TO. Matter of fact, if they win lets all sue the state for overexposure to RF waves from police radar. HEHE!
YowzaaahOurs Go To Eleven
Okay, my dirty little secret
For those of you not aware of the shame I cart around daily.......I'm a lawyer. GASP!!! I know, I know...I'm disappointed in myself as well. My poor mother can barely show her face in public.
I have always believed that our "sue 'em if you feel lucky" system would be better if we borrowed a bit more from the English. No I'm not talking about the silly little horse hair wigs. I mean the "English Rule". Essentially, if you bring a civil suit for damages and you lose, you pay the court cost and all costs associated with the prevailing party's defense of the claim. (I would actually leave out injunctive and mandamus - look it up- relief since there are legitimate public interest groups who have borderline cases that should be brought to court).
The current system allows for well heeled plaintiffs' attorneys to carry the costs of specious tort claims on behalf of nut job (legal term) clients in the hopes of either nuisance money settlements or jackpot verdicts. Currently, the only downside to such expeditionary plaintiffs' lawyers should they lose are the filing fees and their own time.
People should think twice before they sue, the English Rule will not prevent worthwhile claims from being made and it will lessen the load of our judicial system considerably. Hell, I'd even be in favor of apportioning the costs assessment equally between the losing plaintiff and his lawyer.
Don't suspect your friends...Report Them. Brazil (if you haven't seen it, you should)