12 Jul 08
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-12/1215712456203930.xml&storylist=national
A man says he was so consumed by the spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while worshipping.
Now he wants Lakewind Church to pay $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.
Now, he is claiming: Lincoln says he has fallen from the force of the spirit before but has always been caught by someone.
So is the church responsible? Wouldn't this be seen as an "act of god" legally? (pun intended 😉 ).
I just don't get it. If he believes he was being consumed by the holy spirit then he should think that the church couldn't have controlled it and hence shouldn't be held responsible.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe poor lonely fool just wanted to be caught in the arms of loving people and they ignored him. :'(
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-12/1215712456203930.xml&storylist=national
A man says he was so consumed by the spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while worshipping.
Now he wants Lakewind Church to pay $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.
Now, he is claiming: [i]Lincoln says he ...[text shortened]... think that the church couldn't have controlled it and hence shouldn't be held responsible.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm going to side with this man for several reasons. We are always hearing from the faithful that they want to be treated like everyone else. Welcome to the modern age where you can slip in the isle at the grocery store or be burned by hot coffee. Why should this be any different? Clearly proper care of his safety was not insured. Where is Jesus when you need him?
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-12/1215712456203930.xml&storylist=national
A man says he was so consumed by the spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while worshipping.
Now he wants Lakewind Church to pay $2.5 million for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.
Now, he is claiming: [i]Lincoln says he ...[text shortened]... think that the church couldn't have controlled it and hence shouldn't be held responsible.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by kirksey957In the case of the famous hot coffee incident the McDonald's location actually was negligent in one way - that is something the mass media didn't report well and was the main reason why McDonalds lost that case.
I'm going to side with this man for several reasons. We are always hearing from the faithful that they want to be treated like everyone else. Welcome to the modern age where you can slip in the isle at the grocery store or be burned by hot coffee. Why should this be any different? Clearly proper care of his safety was not insured. Where is Jesus when you need him?
This case will probably rest on whether the church was negligent in not catching him and if there was a reasonable expectation that they catch those that get themselves into this kind of a religious fervor then they might lose.
