Since 2007, Pascal Metrics has been helping hospitals understand how, why, and how
much harm happens.
Not exact matches
All of this might take some time since the insurance company usually wait to see proof, which in this case the cost of the
harm happens much later in life.
That said, if it
happens or not, I won't be
harmed much.
When that
happens, as
much as you probably want to discipline your dog right then, you should know that it will do more
harm than good.
It's going to
happen just as
much as with any other game where you can
harm animals in a relatively realistic way.
So for San Francisco and Oakland to build a claim on
harms from future sea level rise is a stretch when there is so
much uncertainty as to what will
happen, the argument goes.
I don't know if Mr Ridgway has grandchildren, but suppose that he does and consider what might
happen if they look into the history of climate change in fifty years time when everyone has seen how
much harm it has done and is continuing to do.
So
much for your «beyond a shadow of doubt»... which I frankly think is a bit extreme when the idea is to * prevent *
harm from
happening in the first place.
Practically speaking, however, victims are
much better off leading evidence to prove the nature and extent of their emotional and other
harms if they want to maximize their compensation, and this is generally what
happens in a civil sexual assault case.
But, no facts above suggest that this has
happened, proving that the
harm was caused by the wrongful actions of a responsible person (like a foster parent) rather than, for example, a fellow child in foster care, showing damages, and overcoming the qualified immunity of the persons who allegedly caused the
harm, is pretty
much an insurmountable barrier as well.
It may seem strange that you actually have to account for this, but since
much of the protection built in to your policy works to cover the other person's potential
harm, you have to have some protection for yourself in the event this
happens to you.