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.
I don't agree with limits on tort rewards, forcing people to pay if they lose a case, or anything thing else that would make it difficult for the poor to sue in true cases of negligence.
Lately I've been watching an interesting Japanese show about a hospital malpractice case, and the family suing has to give up everything they own to pay for it. That's not right. If somebody really has a case, they should be able to sue. Unfortunately, that's how it really is in Japan, and many other countries. You don't want that in the US.
That's why I say they should just ban out-of-court settlements. If somebody really does have a case, it's worth trying in court. The out-of-court settlements get in the way of true justice. People who don't really have a case, can make up some stupid excuse to sue and pressure somebody to give them a settlement to avoid the expense of dragging it out for months, or years. People who really do have a case would have a chance to be heard. Let the courts decide, instead of leaving it to a battle of "who can afford to keep their lawyers going the longest".
It's not just big businesses that get sued by citizens either. There are cases of big businesses suing smaller businesses, or individuals, to make them shut up, or to change business practices that the big corporations don't like. The smaller businesses, or individuals, usually have to give in, through out-of-court settlements, because they can't afford the expense of endless litigation.
Everyone always says that if there are laws about suing, then the poor people won't be able to sue. OK, two things:
1) Currently, we have a system where poor people view lawsuits as a lottery. That's the problem. Everyone loves to throw out this nebulous "in true cases of negligence," but that's the point. Probably 10% of lawsuits these days are true cases of negligence. Look at the McDonald's case. Some people here are outraged at McDonald's, some people aren't. But it doesn't matter what you feel about the case, the fact is that tens of millions of people have purchased and drunk McDonald's coffee without becoming debilitated for life. That's a fact. Therefore, to say "McDonald's was negligent" is a complete falsehood. If a billion people do something and nothing happens and you do it and die, the problem is probably either bad luck or it's you. The reality is that the woman had an unfortunate incident, much of which was her own fault, as I discussed. And guess what? Unfortunate incidents occur in life. For example, if you're walking in the woods and a tree branch falls on you and kills you ...that's unfortunate. If you're walking in your neighborhood and a tree branch falls on you and kills you ...that's equally unfortunate, but still nobody's fault. But 90% of the time someone will attempt to sue the owner of the property that the tree was on, based on "negligence." What was the difference? Nothing. (P.S. Google for "sue fallen tree limb" and you'll see how pretty much anyone who is hit by a fallen tree limb in North America tries to sue someone.)
1.a.) If you're so into some crackpot belief in social justice that you don't care about anything other than transferring money from a corporation or "rich" person to a poor person, then you still fail because most of the money goes to a rich lawyer. It's often documented that lawyers will take large percentages of the winnings, leaving the "actual victim" with relatively little money.
2) Lawsuits are oddly the only thing in the world where people argue it is so vital for the poor that it should cost less or nothing. That's right, lawsuits are more important to the poor than, say, food or housing. In fact, lawsuits costing nothing (up front) are a relatively new thing and invented by trial lawyers. In the past, people had to pay fees to their lawyers and that was normal for centuries. No lawyer cared about poor people not being able to sue someone. Now, you pay nothing up front, sue, and the lawyer takes a percentage. This also is not because the lawyer feels so badly for the poor, as I mentioned that the lawyer generally makes out like a bandit at the expense of the poor person suing. This was invented in order to maximize the amount the lawyer makes, not the amount the plaintiff gets. If you said to a lawyer "hey, how about we sue, and whatever I win, I just pay your standard rate?" They'll just laugh at you and tell you what to do with yourself, then hang up.
I don't know. It says she put the coffee between her knees to add cream and removed the top. Did this car not come with a cup holder?
Agreed. Anyone that would put a hot cup of coffee between their legs, and attempt to the the lid off...well, that was just stupid beyond belief. I don't care who you are. However, I do agree that the coffee was kept way too hot. And even though I think the lawsuit was over the top, it was effective in changing McDonald's practice of serving 185 degree coffee.
Just some facts to put all this coffee scalding into perspective:
McDonald's serves about 10 million cups a day. Up until the Liebeck case (elderly woman with coffee between her legs in a car) they had about 300 complaints a year of overly hot coffee burning someone. That's about 0.000008 % of all coffees served in a year. They would generally pay out a few hundred dollars per complainant and that was the end of it.
Mrs. Liebeck, however, had relatives who aggressively pursued the case, smelling a big payoff. It grew into a huge case, and ultimately was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount (but it was rumored to be in the $30K-100K range).
Mickey D did serve coffee on the hot side. It became a bit of a cause among anti-personal-responsibility types that it was, well, irresponsible of the franchise to make the drink so hot, because a clumsy person might spill it on themselves and get scalded. It became a notorious case because people were so outraged about the lawsuit for what was clearly an individual's mistake. It's not as though the restaurant directly spilled the drink on the customer; she did it to herself, it was obviously her fault, and it got people's dander up about the entitlement generation (albeit, this woman was slightly older than that generation).
This most recent Denny's incident was unfortunate in that a young child was injured. The insurer obviously decided that it was not worth fighting in court if the jurisdiction was likely to have an anti-corporate populace from which to draw a jury. It's doubly unfortunate that the law firm involved made a huge profit, which will merely fuel more such lawsuits.
I read of a lawyer in Florida who would send crippled people in wheelchairs to visit numerous retail businesses, roll up to the counter, grab a business card, and be on their way. The lawyer would pay them $100 per visit, and then proceed to sue the businesses for violating some obscure detail of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- doorway too narrow, improper doorknob, counter too high, etc. Rather than go to the huge expense of fighting in court, most businesses would settle for $1000 or so. A nice business to be in -- legal shakedowns, a lawyer's version of a protection racket.
The legal profession is out of control, they have too much of Congress in their pockets, and they cater to people's basest instincts. Rather than helping people to right wrongs and see justice done, lawyers have exacerbated injustice and turned the system upside down. There's a Congressman in Iowa named Braley who boasts that he's been fighting tort reform for 35 years. Obviously, the tort lawyers give a lot of money to politicians who will keep things this way. Ultimately, we need caps on tort rewards and more controls on the legal profession.
You do know most politicians are lawyers, correct?
Yes, this is the standard argument that the tort lawyers make to defend what they do. Your posting is practically a press release from the tort lobby.
Of course they're going to characterize their nefarious activities as a sort of Robin Hood "helping the poor" crusade, never mind that they help themselves to most of the money in the end.
In reality, they are parasites exploiting people's pain and suffering for personal gain. You can always dig up examples of injustice or unfairness such as that Japanese family, but that doesn't change the overall picture which is a system out of control.
Why is healthcare, housing, and every other essential aspect of modern living so expensive today, that a modest wage is no longer sufficient to support a family? Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the lawsuit industry.
Look, lawsuits may well add cost to the products and services that we buy. However, until you do something I haven't seen you do in your posts--offer something other than your opinion--to prove a point, there is no reason why anyone here should pay serious attention to it. Does it add 1% to the costs of goods and services? Does it add 30%? We don't know because you haven't produced any hard numbers. I don't think anyone, but you really believes its the major reason why housing prices are high and why you can't support a family on a modest wage.
Its evident from quite a number of your posts that you really have a bone to pick when it comes to lawyers and lawsuits. It might be interesting to learn about your own history.
Plenty of people could justifiably be alleged to be "parasites" in our economy. Accountants don't make money. They simply add up numbers. Advertising people often produce a product that none of us want to watch and wish we could avoid. Auto mechanics sometimes commit fraud by billing us for repairs are car doesn't need. Funeral directors sometimes prey on those overcome with grief and persuade them to buy more expensive funerals than they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pimbolo
Everyone always says that if there are laws about suing, then the poor people won't be able to sue. OK, two things:
1) Currently, we have a system where poor people view lawsuits as a lottery. That's the problem. Everyone loves to throw out this nebulous "in true cases of negligence," but that's the point. Probably 10% of lawsuits these days are true cases of negligence. Look at the McDonald's case. Some people here are outraged at McDonald's, some people aren't. But it doesn't matter what you feel about the case, the fact is that tens of millions of people have purchased and drunk McDonald's coffee without becoming debilitated for life. That's a fact. Therefore, to say "McDonald's was negligent" is a complete falsehood. If a billion people do something and nothing happens and you do it and die, the problem is probably either bad luck or it's you. The reality is that the woman had an unfortunate incident, much of which was her own fault, as I discussed. And guess what? Unfortunate incidents occur in life. For example, if you're walking in the woods and a tree branch falls on you and kills you ...that's unfortunate. If you're walking in your neighborhood and a tree branch falls on you and kills you ...that's equally unfortunate, but still nobody's fault. But 90% of the time someone will attempt to sue the owner of the property that the tree was on, based on "negligence." What was the difference? Nothing. (P.S. Google for "sue fallen tree limb" and you'll see how pretty much anyone who is hit by a fallen tree limb in North America tries to sue someone.)
1.a.) If you're so into some crackpot belief in social justice that you don't care about anything other than transferring money from a corporation or "rich" person to a poor person, then you still fail because most of the money goes to a rich lawyer. It's often documented that lawyers will take large percentages of the winnings, leaving the "actual victim" with relatively little money.
2) Lawsuits are oddly the only thing in the world where people argue it is so vital for the poor that it should cost less or nothing. That's right, lawsuits are more important to the poor than, say, food or housing. In fact, lawsuits costing nothing (up front) are a relatively new thing and invented by trial lawyers. In the past, people had to pay fees to their lawyers and that was normal for centuries. No lawyer cared about poor people not being able to sue someone. Now, you pay nothing up front, sue, and the lawyer takes a percentage. This also is not because the lawyer feels so badly for the poor, as I mentioned that the lawyer generally makes out like a bandit at the expense of the poor person suing. This was invented in order to maximize the amount the lawyer makes, not the amount the plaintiff gets. If you said to a lawyer "hey, how about we sue, and whatever I win, I just pay your standard rate?" They'll just laugh at you and tell you what to do with yourself, then hang up.
I find the argument that "accidents just happen" and we should all silently suffer the consequences a strange argument coming from someone who is obviously a pro-business conservative. Usually, your group is the first to talk about "responsibility and accountability". Apparently, that doesn't apply to those who carelessly injure or kill others. When the employees of a business injure someone, than you think we should all just look the other way.
Your example of a lawsuit being brought because a tree limb fell on someone is a poor example. The only case I know of where this occurred is a case where someone was cutting down a tree and failed to warn others he was doing so. The tree fell on a 23 year old woman and killed her. I suppose you think that's a "frivolous case" too.
Most money doesn't go to attorneys in these cases. Legal fees are generally a third of the amount recovered. That leaves two-thirds for the injured person.
Requiring all people to pay up front for legal services is simply a way to prevent most people from having access to the court system. Most people couldn't come up with $5000 out-of-pocket and that would be the end of that.
In the end, you don't cite any evidence or data to prove your points. Just like anyone, you are entitled to an opinion. However, those of us who have a contrary opinion have an equally strong reason for believing what we do.
There is nothing preventing you from getting legislatures to enact tort reform. Spending your time doing that would be more productive for you than whining on CDF.
I find the argument that "accidents just happen" and we should all silently suffer the consequences a strange argument coming from someone who is obviously a pro-business conservative. Usually, your group is the first to talk about "responsibility and accountability". Apparently, that doesn't apply to those who carelessly injure or kill others. When the employees of a business injure someone, than you think we should all just look the other way.
This is yet another example of a fraudulent argument. Here you are attempting to say that these lawsuits are actually a reflection of "responsibility and accountability," when they are the opposite. In fact, they are people trying to say they are not responsible for anything. The woman who tries to open her coffee while holding it between her knees with one hand and burns herself? Not her fault. The person who eats lotion? Not their fault. The person who thinks that wearing a Superman costume means you can fly? Not their fault.
But guess whose fault it is? That's right, someone with money! And it's interesting you bring up "responsibility" because lawyers don't go after the responsible party. For example, if a company employee does something that injures a person, the lawyer doesn't sue that employee. No, they sue the entire company. That's odd. Oh, wait, not so odd when you realize the employee has little money but the company has the deep pockets. And then people such as markg quickly try to characterize it as something it's not, which is just a money grab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Your example of a lawsuit being brought because a tree limb fell on someone is a poor example. The only case I know of where this occurred is a case where someone was cutting down a tree and failed to warn others he was doing so. The tree fell on a 23 year old woman and killed her. I suppose you think that's a "frivolous case" too.
Ah, interesting. So, let me get this straight. If a tree branch falls of its own accord onto a person and injures or kills them, you would consider that to not be an event that could be sued over? Right? (Watch, now he'll say "no, that would still be fine.") Because there are many such lawsuits and I find it interesting that you're pretending that you're not aware of any of them at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Most money doesn't go to attorneys in these cases. Legal fees are generally a third of the amount recovered. That leaves two-thirds for the injured person.
That's right, lawyers generally charge between 35-40% of the winnings. It's interesting that you don't consider that significant. I'm not going to say "probably because you're a lawyer" because, frankly, your arguments haven't been terribly impressive thus far. I'd wager you're not connected to the legal industry at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Requiring all people to pay up front for legal services is simply a way to prevent most people from having access to the court system. Most people couldn't come up with $5000 out-of-pocket and that would be the end of that.
Interesting how paying for a service is deemed to be "preventing access." Even more interesting is that the people demanding such a fee are the ones who are saying the fee "prevents access," wouldn't you say? And then using that complaint to justify taking around 40% of the winnings? Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd think they were almost not interested in the clients. Nah!
Just so people understand, the reason we have so many lawsuits is because of this "no fee" method which was developed relatively recently. That's because there's no "cost" to sue someone other than the lawyer's fee. The court, for example, doesn't say "it costs you x to bring a lawsuit here for this judge to hear." So with no fee, you can essentially go wild with lawsuits. Now, why does that matter? Because the lawsuit does cost the defense money. The defendant is defending their money, so they pay their lawyers to defend. So, to summarize, poor guy can sue at no cost, person getting sued has to defend at great cost. That's specifically why you see so many settlements because the calculation is that you settle at a lower cost than the cost to defend the case, even if you know you're in the right. Now, markg will hear this and say "win win" because he doesn't care that the case was fraudulent.
This is yet another example of a fraudulent argument. Here you are attempting to say that these lawsuits are actually a reflection of "responsibility and accountability," when they are the opposite. In fact, they are people trying to say they are not responsible for anything. The woman who tries to open her coffee while holding it between her knees with one hand and burns herself? Not her fault. The person who eats lotion? Not their fault. The person who thinks that wearing a Superman costume means you can fly? Not their fault.
But guess whose fault it is? That's right, someone with money! And it's interesting you bring up "responsibility" because lawyers don't go after the responsible party. For example, if a company employee does something that injures a person, the lawyer doesn't sue that employee. No, they sue the entire company. That's odd. Oh, wait, not so odd when you realize the employee has little money but the company has the deep pockets. And then people such as markg quickly try to characterize it as something it's not, which is just a money grab.
Ah, interesting. So, let me get this straight. If a tree branch falls of its own accord onto a person and injures or kills them, you would consider that to not be an event that could be sued over? Right? (Watch, now he'll say "no, that would still be fine.") Because there are many such lawsuits and I find it interesting that you're pretending that you're not aware of any of them at all.
That's right, lawyers generally charge between 35-40% of the winnings. It's interesting that you don't consider that significant. I'm not going to say "probably because you're a lawyer" because, frankly, your arguments haven't been terribly impressive thus far. I'd wager you're not connected to the legal industry at all.
Interesting how paying for a service is deemed to be "preventing access." Even more interesting is that the people demanding such a fee are the ones who are saying the fee "prevents access," wouldn't you say? And then using that complaint to justify taking around 40% of the winnings? Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd think they were almost not interested in the clients. Nah!
Its ok, your arguments are so terribly unimpressive to me that I'm out of this discussion too. Maybe next time we hear this blather, the poster will actually try and cite some evidence for his broad conclusions. Its too much to expect from you.
Its ok, your arguments are so terribly unimpressive to me that I'm out of this discussion too. Maybe next time we hear this blather, the poster will actually try and cite some evidence for his broad conclusions. Its too much to expect from you.
Yes, my arguments were so unimpressive that he's just going to leave without destroying them. I'll buy that for a dollar!
A lot of people seem to be going back and forth, but does anybody know details about the actual case? It's easy to say "an infant was burned, so they deserve money!" or "it's the parents' fault, so they should get nothing!", but it really depends on what actually happened in the restaurant. Unfortunately, the article didn't really give enough details.
People have said that 1st/2nd degree burns aren't that bad. Is that the case just for adults, or for babies too? I don't know the answer, but babies have more sensitive skin, so is it possible that they'll be scarred for life?
People have said that they should only get paid for medical costs. The article mentions $340K in lifetime costs, which isn't a small amount. I would have to think actual costs are lower, but it's possible that there's a lot more damage than people are assuming.
And finally, what actually happened with the coffee cup? Did the waitress put it down, the parents didn't pay attention, and five minutes later the baby knocked it over? Or was the waitress in a hurry so she just put it on the edge of the table while walking by - where babies tend to sit in a high chair - and the baby knocked it over a few seconds later? I would blame the waitress significantly more in the second case than the first case.
My son is 11 months old, and when we take him to a restaurant he's always grabbing at things. We make it a point to move silverware, plates and other things out of the way so that he can only grab the little puffs that we bring with us. If a waitress put something right in front of him and he knocked it over before I could move it out of the way, I'd be pissed. And if it caused severe burns, I can't say that I would chalk it up as a life lesson and just move on.
A lot of people seem to be going back and forth, but does anybody know details about the actual case? It's easy to say "an infant was burned, so they deserve money!" or "it's the parents' fault, so they should get nothing!", but it really depends on what actually happened in the restaurant. Unfortunately, the article didn't really give enough details...
Isn't it true that the victims parents were a Mr. & Mrs. Hamburglar?
My son is 11 months old, and when we take him to a restaurant he's always grabbing at things. We make it a point to move silverware, plates and other things out of the way so that he can only grab the little puffs that we bring with us. If a waitress put something right in front of him and he knocked it over before I could move it out of the way, I'd be pissed. And if it caused severe burns, I can't say that I would chalk it up as a life lesson and just move on.
This is what I was thinking. I used to be a waitress and it's kind of common sense that you don't put anything within arms reach of a baby or toddler because they're quick and will grab for things. Of course I've lost count of how many times I, as a parent, have gone out and had to quickly grab something from my kid because the server decided it was a good idea to set a cup of iced tea down in front of a toddler. On the other hand, it happens frequently enough that I'm on the lookout for it.
I definitely think it was probably both party's fault and Denny's probably just settled to keep the issue out of court. Others have already mentioned the McDonald's case... McDonald's fought that lady too and all she wanted was her medical bills paid - I bet they felt pretty stupid when a jury awarded her way more than just her medical bill expenses.
And fyi, I at one point had a conversation with someone who knows that lady. I always thought it was a BS case too until I heard all the facts. That McDonald's had been warned several times that it kept its coffee too hot and they were intentionally heating it at absurdly high heats for whatever reason. Hot coffee spilling in your lap should hurt but it definitely should not MELT the skin off of you which is what happened to that lady. I also saw pictures of her injuries and it was just awful looking.
You mean to tell me that if a place served you coffee so hot that it (almost) literally melted your genitals off that you wouldn't sue? You're full of it.
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.
I'll buy that for a dollar!
