RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking.

RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

laurell3 -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/23/2008 11:53:23 PM)
I'm fairly certain the bar association would have some rather strict opinions on such an arrangement. I think the thing these posts may not understand is that the tort system is such these days that any lawsuit is worth some money for nuisance value in the majority of situations. Thus ridiculous suits are encouraged by the system. The McDonald's case misquoted here many times was a perfectly legitimate suit based on forseeable harm to it's patrons. The problem with the case was the award was overly generous and obviously emotions were in play when the number was decided and it was reduced because of that. There was nothing inappropriate in the finding of liability. They clearly breached their duty to their patrons in that suit and their own witnesses admitted that. She in fact did have permanent injuries however, unless you truly believe that repeated deep debridement of one's genitals has no permanent effect. Read the actual testimony, McDonalds admitted they took no precautions and didn't consider them and she sufferred rather extreme treatment to very sensitive areas repeatedly. This is not about someone with just hot coffee winning a frivilous suit against a big company.

GreedyTop -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/23/2008 11:55:49 PM)
Thanks, Alumbro.... I stand corrected.. :) (but not with a flogger or cane, dammit!) LOL

Emperor1956 -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/23/2008 11:59:48 PM)
quote: laurell3: I'm fairly certain the bar association would have some rather strict opinions on such an arrangement. What do you think they would say? I'm offering, with clear terms, and no unequal bargaining power. I'm suggesting, even insisting, that you have counsel. I think it may be an unorthodox arrangement, but surely not unethical. And you are correct in the McDonald's suit analysis, basically. But in every one of these stories, I assure you, you will find a nugget of "correctness" in the lawsuit. And often you will find a plaintiff who was truly injured. Indeed, you essentially make my point. E.

laurell3 -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 12:02:29 AM)
I'm not actually arguing against your point. I'm responding to the thread and replies. The McDonald's case was more than a "nugget" it was a very good suit against a very reckless Defendant. If you really believe that giving a client $10 and taking all the proceeds of any lawsuit they may have in their entire life is ethical, I have to say your bar association is much much different than the one here.

Emperor1956 -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 12:09:39 AM)
Laurell, are you suggesting my offer is too low? Then negotiate with me! That's surely not unethical. I'm reminded of the story of the gentleman who approaches a lovely young woman at a bar and says "would you have sex with me tonight if I give you $100,000? She looks at him -- he's reasonably attractive, well-dressed, and appears quite normal, and she smiles and says "Yes. Yes I think I would." The man smiles, sits down next to her and says "Would you have sex with me tonight if I give you $10?" The woman jumps up, deeply offended, and says "WHAT do you think I am?" And he says "We already established that. Now we're negotiating." E.

laurell3 -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 12:11:38 AM)
Haha I don't need an attorney, I'm not taking you up on your offer, merely commenting on it. Thanks, you have mail!

samboct -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 6:49:24 AM)
For another source on the McDonalds case- check the Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, 20th edition. Basically McDs served coffee at 180F versus 140F- and yes, that 40F Fahrenheit difference matters a LOT! It's the difference between 1st degree burns and 3rd degree burns which can happen in several seconds. The reason the suit stuck and the damages were reasonable was because it was a known problem with over half a dozen reported injuries. McDs knew that people were being burned, but wanted to sell more coffee and serving it hotter was a way to distinguish themselves from other vendors. Also note that the woman injured- she was elderly, (received 3rd degree burns over her thighs and genitals) was a passenger in the car and admitted to making a mistake with the lid which is where the idea of 80/20 responsibility enters the picture. She originally asked McDs for her medical bills which IIRC- were some $12k. McDs offered her $800 hence prompting a call to a lawyer. On the other hand, while the McDs lawsuit is often trotted out as an example of frivolous lawsuits which it obviously isn't, there are plenty of lawsuits which are- one of which IIRC from the 80's involved a moron who in a fit of anger with his wife, tried to use his lawnmower as a hedge trimmer, cutting off several fingers in the process. That the mfg then had to placard the lawnmower, "Only operate when on the ground." shows the idiocy involved here. So Emporer-I might be happy to sign your contract- if the damn gov't would do it's job. Because many of these lawsuits such as McDs illustrate a breakdown of gov't regulatory process. Pulling the teeth out of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, reducing the FDA while increasing its responsibility, cutting the number of examiners at the patent office, etc have lead to a disfunctional gov't where often the last possible option involves a lawsuit. And from my persepective- legal "remedies" tend to be very poor solutions indeed. But lawyers don't like to point that out- now do they? Sam

AMaster -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 7:30:04 AM)
Sad, very sad.

Nosathro -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 9:18:31 AM)
What seems to be missing here is that she placed the hot coffee, knowing it was hot between her legs. No one forced her etc, that in my mind shows personal responsibility. Lawsuits are wonderfuly things they blame others for what we do and get them to pay for it. As to Lawyers I quote "The first thing we have to do is shot the lawyers" Richard III by William Shakesphere quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 I'm fairly certain the bar association would have some rather strict opinions on such an arrangement. I think the thing these posts may not understand is that the tort system is such these days that any lawsuit is worth some money for nuisance value in the majority of situations. Thus ridiculous suits are encouraged by the system. The McDonald's case misquoted here many times was a perfectly legitimate suit based on forseeable harm to it's patrons. The problem with the case was the award was overly generous and obviously emotions were in play when the number was decided and it was reduced because of that. There was nothing inappropriate in the finding of liability. They clearly breached their duty to their patrons in that suit and their own witnesses admitted that. She in fact did have permanent injuries however, unless you truly believe that repeated deep debridement of one's genitals has no permanent effect. Read the actual testimony, McDonalds admitted they took no precautions and didn't consider them and she sufferred rather extreme treatment to very sensitive areas repeatedly. This is not about someone with just hot coffee winning a frivilous suit against a big company.

laurell3 -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 12:13:22 PM)
Well the law doesn't agree with your opinion. Assuming the risk doesn't include things that are reasonably forseeable. McDonald's was aware of that. It's clear from the testimony. Blaming the lawyers isn't novel nor is it really all that applicable in a case where the Defendant's own witnesses admitted liabilty and that they took no safety precautions whatsoever. I do however agree there are many lawsuits filed out there that the attorneys should be smacked upside the head for filing.

YourhandMyAss -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 1:51:01 PM)
can we not hijack the thread about funny lawsuits with debates about mcd's lawsuit it's been hashed to death already in past threads, lets not re hash it in a thread ment for humorous replies.

Alumbrado -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 1:51:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro What seems to be missing here is that she placed the hot coffee, knowing it was hot between her legs. No one forced her etc, that in my mind shows personal responsibility. Lawsuits are wonderfuly things they blame others for what we do and get them to pay for it. As to Lawyers I quote "The first thing we have to do is shot the lawyers" Richard III by William Shakesphere And once again, everything in your post is completely wrong, including the mangled 'quote'. If you cannot grasp the difference between 'hot' and 'scalding 3rd degree burns'... "Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn." ...then I suggest you do NOT try experimenting on yourself or anyone else.

DesFIP -> RE: These lawsuits will make you wonder what in the hell the jury who approved them was smoking. (1/24/2008 1:54:24 PM)
The major flaw with McDonald's argument in the coffee burn case is that the board of health had cited that particular restaurant more than once because of the temperature of the coffee. In other words, they were in direct defiance of the law by serving it at that temperature, especially at a drive through window knowing what the odds were of it spilling while in movement. And since it was a drive through, it was a given that the coffee would be jolted around.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125