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.
Obviously, you think the life of the average human being life is near worthless and that physical injuries are to be mocked, so why is it no surprise that you will find fault in every verdict that awards some plaintiff money for injuries? What is the point of arguing with you about the merits of a lawsuit when in your mind regardless of fault a life is worthless or without intrinsic value? I suppose one's estimate of another person's worth is proportionate to the estimate of one's own worth....but I am not a psychologist so I would not know.
It's interesting that while I explained exactly what I meant, you were forced to ignore it entirely in order to fixate on an out-of-context portion that you could use as a strawman. (In other words, for people who don't understand what he did: I said "nobody's life is worth $1 million, as demonstrated by their own actions, and here's why" and all he did was start screaming "he thinks everyone's life is worthless!!!") And moreover, you still ignored the entire remainder of my post where I addressed every part of the McDonald's ruling.
In other words, you only proved that you are desperate to keep in place the frivolous lawsuits that you support. And you proved what kind of a person you are, too.
Here's the entire post, for people who are interested:
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.
It's interesting that while I explained exactly what I meant, you were forced to ignore it entirely in order to fixate on an out-of-context portion that you could use as a strawman. (In other words, for people who don't understand what he did: I said "nobody's life is worth $1 million, as demonstrated by their own actions, and here's why" and all he did was start screaming "he thinks everyone's life is worthless!!!") And moreover, you still ignored the entire remainder of my post where I addressed every part of the McDonald's ruling.
In other words, you only proved that you are desperate to keep in place the frivolous lawsuits that you support. And you proved what kind of a person you are, too.
Here's the entire post, for people who are interested:
Quite a polemic you are carrying on here today.... I havent' counted your total number of posts here, but its far more than anyone else.
Anyway, listen up...
Plenty of lives are worth a $1,000,000 or more.
Let's assume I make approximately $150,000 a year. Now, let's further assume that I am a healthy 55 year old who works for himself and that I plan on working until age 70. I cannot be laid off. Plus my parents both lived to be 84 and 95 years of age, respectively. I have also earned this as an average income for the last ten years.
If I work until age 70, my earnings would be 15 years X $150,000 or $2,250,000. This sum should be discounted to reflect present value. However, even if we do this, the present value of those future earnings still exceed $1,000,000. Also, note I am the older end of the employment spectrum. The numbers would be far higher for a 20 year, a 30 year old, or a 40 year old.
If I die this year, my wife will have to do without those earnings.
Now, this is pure economic loss. I am not getting any credit under this analysis for my simple value being a father and a husband. Perhaps, those things are hard to value in terms of dollars and sense, but its nonsense to pretend they have no value at all.
Just the economic loss to my family and nothing more is worth more than $1 million.
But, go ahead with your pop fiction that no life is worth a million dollars.
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.
Trial lawyers are one of the biggest donors to the Democrat Party and one of the most influential lobbyist groups in Washington. Just throwing that out there.
If I die this year, my wife will have to do without those earnings.
Wow, who knew that financial decisions were made so wildly? It's like "hey, just assume that I'll live this long, I'll make this much, I cannot be laid off ...then I'm actually letting you off on the cheap! Oh, by the way, ignore the fact that I'm still not willing to pay even a few thousand dollars out of my own pocket for my supposedly invaluable life."
That's the argument you have to buy. He's like "my death would devastate my family! Why, it would take ...uh ...like $200 MILLION to dry their eyes!! They constantly tell me that they would only be consoled by at least $200 million!" Meanwhile, if he was hospitalized and I told his family they'd have to pay $50,000 -- merely a third of his salary for one year -- out of pocket, it would be like "no way, someone else should pay that, of course, but not us! What are you, crazy??"
Wow, who knew that financial decisions were made so wildly? It's like "hey, just assume that I'll live this long, I'll make this much, I cannot be laid off ...then I'm actually letting you off on the cheap! Oh, by the way, ignore the fact that I'm still not willing to pay even a few thousand dollars out of my own pocket for my supposedly invaluable life."
I just proved your statement that a life couldn't be worth a million dollars is silly and that's your reply.
Its about as intelligent as your other comments here. We don't let people off the hook for carelessly harming others in this country because the person didn't carry adequate life insurance.
I just proved your statement that a life couldn't be worth a million dollars is silly and that's your reply.
No, you didn't, you just made a statement that was completely irrelevant and which actually proved my contention. It's easy for someone to SUE for any wild sum they want, but they won't PAY for their "invaluable" life.
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.
There was an Italian restaurant (not a family one) who would be bothered by kids running around. All it takes is one of them to run into a server, and the contents of hot pasta on a relatively flat bowl would come pouring down and perhaps burn one of them.
I expect to see Denny's restaurants to have large signs warning them of the dangers of hot coffee.
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.
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.
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.
