Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That can't happen. The law requires the money first be used to pay medical bills and attorney's fees. The balance than goes into a trust account or structured settlement for the child. The family and child have no access to this money. However, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know that. I guess it goes to show that a "little bit of knowledge" is a dangerous thing.
The law firm has no such restrictions on its cut of the profits. It can spend the money on office furniture, salaries, or trips to the Bahamas or the French Riviera.
Settlements can be used for any purpose after the liens have been paid. The law does not require a settlement to be invested into a trust account. So the family can (and probably will) go on a binge in Atlantic City. I'm sure you would do the same.
In my opinion, we should move to a "loser pays" system as in Britain, and limit lawyer compensation to hourly fees, similar to how physicians, plumbers, electricians, and accountants are paid. It's a built-in conflict of interest to allow a law firm to get a huge payday when they win a tort case. They have massive incentive to win big, or settle big, rather than come up with a fair settlement, let alone to reject cases that have no merit.
Assuming this random website has the "actual facts":
She put the cup "between her knees" and tried to remove the top. Now, two things here. First of all, what is she, a baboon? If we're talking about "reasonable," who removes cup tops this way, rather than simply removing the top with one hand while holding the cup in the other? You mean if she tried balancing the cup on her foot while roundhouse kicking the top off, that would be McDonald's fault, too? Second of all, if you're going to do this, the knees would be far less stable than thighs.
There's a lot of emphasis placed on the 185 degrees of the coffee. So much so that the website emphasizes that liquids at that temperature "are not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat." And yet, people do consume the coffee, therefore that's basically an outright falsehood. The article then cites the supposedly more common temperature of 135-140 degrees used by "other establishments." Except that temperature is also hot enough to burn an individual. So is the jury and court stating that if the burns had "only" been first- or second-degree burns, they would have just said "that's the industry standard!"?
The article also states that the reason she was burned was because she was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the liquid and held it close to her for a prolonged period. In other words, she just sat there in burning liquid. She was close to 80 years old and yet would rather get her entire pelvis burned than pull her pants down. But that's McDonald's fault.
This is a frivolous lawsuit, as is the Denny's one. Americans have been conditioned to believe that someone must be held accountable for anything that happens to them ever. In other words, if you slip on a wet floor, you have to sue the person who owns the building. Why? Because floors cannot ever be wet. If you trip on a sidewalk crack, you sue the city. Why? Because cracks should never exist in the world. It's a silly and childish mentality, yet lots of people have it.
Here's the other point: nobody's life is worth $1 million. Now, that may shock and offend most of you, but it's quite true. You may have no problem in SUING someone for some ridiculous amount -- like $50 million, if your mother dies, for example -- but the fact is that nobody on Earth has ever SPENT $1 million of their own personal money keeping someone alive. I always laugh at how people say "my life is priceless." Yeah, but if the cost of a medical procedure to you is $3000 you refuse to pay it? Then your life is worth less than $3000 to you. And that's to YOU. Your life is worth way less than that to me, if it's worth less than that to you. People use these emotional arguments to win jury arguments, but they're complete B.S.
P.S. This guy is attempting to justify settlements by saying they're made because there are so many lawsuits that judges are overwhelmed. First of all, that is, in and of itself, a condemnation of the legal system. That's the point: about 80% or more of those cases are frivolous and merely generated by lawyers who are looking for cash payouts. They literally don't care if the cases are pretty much garbage, since the only thing they have wasted (personally) is their own time. There's no cost to them, since in most jurisdictions for most types of cases loser does not pay. It's also why these litigation lawyers are terrified of any type of tort reform where the loser would pay, since they would then actually have to care about their case being total B.S.
Second of all, the reason for settlements is NOT because the system is overwhelmed. It's because most juries are inclined to just side with the plaintiff against a corporation such as McDonald's on the basis that "they can afford it." Therefore, settlements are made in order to minimize the amount of money to be paid out, which is a fact. If you talk to 90% of people, the amount of thought they put into these types of cases is "awww, she's so old and my grandma is old and she sure is sweet, I sure love my grannie." It's like watching water meander over a pile of mud. There's no actual thought about the case or the facts involved. Corporations and lawyers on both sides realize this is the case, which is why the most important thing in the world to one of these lawyers is "does the litigant LOOK sympathetic?" That should be irrelevant, yet it is the MOST IMPORTANT THING. That should tell you something right there.
You deem the McDonald's suit a "frivolous case". The problem is that you are not a judge and you were not on the jury that decided this case. They felt differently and their opinions are the ones that count, not yours. FYI, "frivolous" is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. It means a case that is brought that has no merit. In this case, after hearing evidence of prior incidents a jury returned a verdict indicating it was negligent on the part of McDonald's to serve coffee through a drive-through window kept at a temperature of 185 degrees. You can blame Ms. Liebeck until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that McDonald's should have been able to forsee that some people would spill the coffee under these circumstances and massive burns might result. Ms. Liebeck was not the first situation in which this had occurred and its why McDonald's was slapped with punitive as well as compensatory damages in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
The law firm has no such restrictions on its cut of the profits. It can spend the money on office furniture, salaries, or trips to the Bahamas or the French Riviera.
Settlements can be used for any purpose after the liens have been paid. The law does not require a settlement to be invested into a trust account. So the family can (and probably will) go on a binge in Atlantic City. I'm sure you would do the same.
In my opinion, we should move to a "loser pays" system as in Britain, and limit lawyer compensation to hourly fees, similar to how physicians, plumbers, electricians, and accountants are paid. It's a built-in conflict of interest to allow a law firm to get a huge payday when they win a tort case. They have massive incentive to win big, or settle big, rather than come up with a fair settlement, let alone to reject cases that have no merit.
More conjecturing and speculating huh? You made a specific comment and now I am going to hold your feet to the fire because its just simply untrue. What the lawyers do with their share of the money has nothing to do with a comment you made about the family going out and throwing a party with "drugs and a live band". (your words not mine) Lawyers have a right to spend their fees any way they choose too. Just like ad executives, business owners, physicians, bricklayers, and plumbers are not scrutinized as to how they spend their earnings.
I'm citing to a link from the American Bar Association that makes it quite clear that minor's settlements cannot be handed over to the minor's family to be spent as they choose. The money must be held in a guardian and conservatorship, approved by the court. A lawyer who broke such a rule could be disbarred. Actually, insurance companies have to follow these rules too and will not tender money in a settlement to a family or an attorney until court approval is obtained and until such a trust is set up.
The next link is to a provision in my state's code. The provision will only allow for payment of money directly to a minor's family when the amount of the settlement is $10,000 or less.
The "loser pays system" is another topic entirely, but I will comment on it. If you could always count on juries to make the right decision than it would be fine. However, some in this very thread are angry about the jury verdict in the McDonald's coffee cup case. Now, imagine, in addition to having to pay this award if McDonald's had to pay another 1/3 for attorney's fees. I doubt that would make you or most of corporate America very happy.
The reality is that even if John Q. Public had a meritorious case, he could not take the chance on having a jury hear his case if he knew that a loss would mean he'd end up paying thousands of dollars of his own limited funds to the attorney for the insurance company. I agree that "loser-pay" would reduce court filings. It would do it by locking the court house door to millions of middle income American people who have legitimate claims, but not take a 10% chance they might lose the case if the wrong people somehow got on the jury panel.
Anyway, talk about it all you want. Loser-pay is not happening in this country and its a darn good thing.
Last edited by markg91359; 10-26-2014 at 02:27 PM..
If nothing else, some of these lawsuits tell you it pays to be stupid.
Pretty much, I could see someone suing if the waitress outright spilled it on the person and injured them, but to sue because the waitress placed a cup of hot coffee on a table, then the baby decides to grab it and pour it on itself, that is just pathetic.
You deem the McDonald's suit a "frivolous case". The problem is that you are not a judge and you were not on the jury that decided this case. They felt differently and their opinions are the ones that count, not yours.
That's actually a wholly irrelevant point that you just made. Since you cannot demonstrate that any of the points I made were incorrect, you just said "well ...well ...well, the jury disagreed, so there!" OK. In fact, all you are proving is that you don't care about the actual issues, which is why you'd be perfect to serve on a jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
FYI, "frivolous" is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. It means a case that is brought that has no merit. In this case, after hearing evidence of prior incidents a jury returned a verdict indicating it was negligent on the part of McDonald's to serve coffee through a drive-through window kept at a temperature of 185 degrees.
You just destroyed your own argument. If there were "prior incidents," then why have none of them garnered this attention? Why did the website with "the actual facts" not cite them? Why, in fact, have millions of people managed to drink coffee without becoming hospitalized?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
You can blame Ms. Liebeck until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that McDonald's should have been able to forsee that some people would spill the coffee under these circumstances and massive burns might result.
And this, again, is why people such as yourself are the problem. You just blindly say "should have been able to forsee" for any circumstance that occurs. It's why we have labels for lotion that say "not for internal use." Because someone such as yourself will hear testimony and immediately go "Vaseline should have been able to forsee that some people would eat the lotion." Or how we have fine print on commercials that say "cars do not actually fly" because someone like you would hear testimony and say "they should have been able to forsee that some people would think cars can fly."
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Anyway, talk about it all you want. Loser-pay is not happening in this country and its a darn good thing.
This tells you immediately that he is one of these people who function by performing or supporting frivolous lawsuits.
My sister, her 8 year old son, and I went shopping at Target about a year ago. My nephew went to the bathroom and came out a minute later crying. He told her the water was very hot coming out of the faucet. My sister ran to the snack bar, put a ton of ice on his burning hands, and spoke to the manager. After he had put ice on his hand for several minutes, we went into the bathroom to see what had happened. The hot water spigot was scalding and (I mean scalding) hot. She ended up taking him to the doctor, and fortunately his hands were not permanently injured. I told her she should at least get Target to pay for the doctor's visit, but she never pursued it. Target never even called her to find out how my nephew was doing.
If nothing else, some of these lawsuits tell you it pays to be stupid.
After going through much of this, I don't think most people are paid to be so. I think too many to be dangerous left to their own with a thought in their heads.
Something never mentioned in the McDonald's suit is the grandson gave the "too hot" cup o Joe to his elderly grandmother. Shouldn't he be responsible for handing her a million dollar cup of hot coffee?
I have little empathy for those who insist on the drive thru. They want hot coffee and food they can eat while hurtling down the road at 50 mph but will sue the eatery if they burn themselves and kill a carload of kids due to the fact 20 oz of coffee scalded their crotch.
My sister, her 8 year old son, and I went shopping at Target about a year ago. My nephew went to the bathroom and came out a minute later crying. He told her the water was very hot coming out of the faucet. My sister ran to the snack bar, put a ton of ice on his burning hands, and spoke to the manager. After he had put ice on his hand for several minutes, we went into the bathroom to see what had happened. The hot water spigot was scalding and (I mean scalding) hot. She ended up taking him to the doctor, and fortunately his hands were not permanently injured. I told her she should at least get Target to pay for the doctor's visit, but she never pursued it. Target never even called her to find out how my nephew was doing.
You know what happens to most people who encounter scalding water? They immediately move their hands away and there's no permanent injury, as you say. It's only in today's society that people go "someone's gotta pay for this!!"
After going through much of this, I don't think most people are paid to be so. I think too many to be dangerous left to their own with a thought in their heads.
No, it's really that people make a living off of this stuff. There are some people who will defend all of these lawsuits no matter what and say "this is justice!!" You know what would be great? If all of them just lived in their own little world and only bothered each other. It would be great, some small society of a few million people who just endlessly sued each other for hilarious things that the rest of us could read about for entertainment. Someone would trip while exiting a bus and sue the company, they'd fall and bump into a pedestrian who would immediately sue them for their injuries, they'd both fall onto the sidewalk and both sue the city, and so on.
The problem is this extremely small population of people are responsible for thousands of cases of litigation, for supporting trial lawyers, and for exacting hundreds of millions to billions of dollars of penalties upon other people.
This tells you immediately that he is one of these people who function by performing or supporting frivolous lawsuits.
Yes, I was going to say, the person you're responding to, who is so vigorously defending these ridiculous settlements, must be a lawyer. No one else has such a vested interest in protecting this crooked system!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
