Frivolous Law Suits

[FrugalFloyd]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

like the McDonald's coffee(spilling) law suit? i suppose it's just a fairy tail right?

What's frivolous about third degree burns over 6% of your body from scalding hot coffee? The plaintiff was willing to settle for $20,000 to cover her extensive medical costs, but McDonalds wouldn't do it, forcing plaintiff to sue. You're quick to side with the heartless corporation and ridicule the injured party who was forced to sue to recover her hospital costs. If you think it's a waste of the court's time to settle a case like that, what kinds of cases qualify as useful uses of the court's time?

During discovery, McDonalds produced 700 other claims from people burned by its coffee. It knew its coffee was injuring people, and continued its dangerous practices, in spite of its knowledge. It kept its coffee at 185?F, 50? hotter than the average home coffeepot, a temperature guaranteed to burn any drinker's tongue. That's like Ford continuing to sell Pintos with the unsafe gas tank location, knowing that a few fatalities are the ccst of doing business.

A jury of peers found McDonalds guilty, and awarded plaintiff $200,00 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge deemed McDonalds conduct reckless, callous, and willful. So this is frivolous in your opinion. Thanks for letting me know where you are on the reality scale.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

That's like Ford continuing to sell Pintos with the unsafe gas tank location, knowing that a few fatalities are the ccst of doing business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pi...ms_and_scandal
However, a 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz[17] claimed the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. The number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires, according to Schwartz, was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the twenty-seven recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz argued that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs claimed showed Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.

I followed up with the cited sources and it's legit - in fact, after following up it became clear (rather than merely questionable as Wikipedia says). Ford did nothing wrong. The scandal was just overblown media hype for the sake of making headlines and making money for some lawyers.

[bowtieguy]

i wonder, as HC, has speculated, how many responsible jurors were on that panel? or how many were anti-corp types? or how many were anti-McDonalds? or how many dream of a "lottery" type payout? or how many voted a certain way to get the trial over?

see, unlike you, i consider REAL LIFE possibilities.

now, i wonder if McDonalds had complaints about their coffee getting cold before reaching it's "drinking" destination? you know, for those responsible drivers that would not drink and drive!

you really are pro big brother, pro lawyer, and VERY shortsighted. what a terrible nation we will become if we do not reverse that trend!

edit: HC posted at the same time as my last--his post is a PERFECT example of what i've been saying--real, alternate possibilities, muffled by a liberal media! precisely why i listen to conservative radio, read conservative writers, and yes, OH NO!, watch FOX news--'cause they DO report what others will not!(i do of course listen/watch the liberal view)

[bowtieguy]

just like welfare fraud, frivolous lawsuits slow and take from those that have legit needs and suits. for those that would try to prove otherwise, well, that requires a willing suspension of disbelief!

[FrugalFloyd]

HC,

A friend of mine worked for Ford in the 60s. He was an engineer, and quit Ford in disgust, vowing never to buy another Ford. He ended up working for Bendix. What did Ford do to anger him? It made a cost analysis to use $1.25 wheel bearings that it knew would fail after 25,000 miles, instead of opting for $2.50 wheel bearings that would have lasted 50,000 miles.

From Schwartz' analysis

Consider now, however, the combination of a stronger bumper, a smooth (bolt-free) differential, and the addition of both hat sections and horizontal cross-members. This combination of design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto's safety to some appreciable extent. According to the evidence, the overall cost of this combination would have been $9, and it makes sense to assume that these items were turned down by Ford in planning the Pinto primarily on account of their monetary costs. It is plausible to believe, then, that because of these costs, Ford decided not to improve the Pinto's design, knowing that its decision would increase the chances of the loss of consumer life.

So, yes, Schwartz' analysis indicates the media may have overstated the case against the Pinto. It doesn't deny that Ford probably did a cost/benefit analysis, and decided a few deaths was the cost of doing business.

[bowtieguy]

it seems toyota is learning this lesson as well. tho, i'm not suggesting that it was/is malicious negligence.

[FrugalFloyd]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

i wonder, as HC, has speculated, how many responsible jurors were on that panel? or how many were anti-corp types? or how many were anti-McDonalds? or how many dream of a "lottery" type payout? or how many voted a certain way to get the trial over?

Doh. If there was any hint of jury impropriety, you don't think McDonalds' high paid staff wouldn't have challenged the verdict on appeal? You don't think they would have eliminated any anti-corporate jurors during voir dire? Why don't you wonder about something applicable to the discussion?

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

now, i wonder if McDonalds had complaints about their coffee getting cold before reaching it's "drinking" destination? you know, for those responsible drivers that would not drink and drive!

??? You're the one who brought up this case as your example of a frivolous lawsuit. Since it's your example, you should know that McDonalds argued its coffee customers bought its coffee to drink at work and at home, while its own research showed that customers actually drank the coffee immediately while driving. You'd also know, if you did your homework, that the plaintiff, Mrs. Liebeck, was a passenger, and wasn't drinking and driving. You gain no points by implying that your "frivolous" suer was irresponsible.

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

you really are pro big brother, pro lawyer, and VERY shortsighted.

You finally got one right, despite it coming from your disrespectful ad hominem attack. I enforced the law for big brother, so you wouldn't have rat turds and maggots in your food. This is the thanks I get from you?

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Doh. If there was any hint of jury impropriety, you don't think McDonalds' high paid staff wouldn't have challenged the verdict on appeal? You don't think they would have eliminated any anti-corporate jurors during voir dire?

You'd also know, if you did your homework, that the plaintiff, Mrs. Liebeck, was a passenger, and wasn't drinking and driving. You gain no points by implying that your "frivolous" suer was irresponsible.

You finally got one right, despite it coming from your disrespectful ad hominem attack. I enforced the law for big brother, so you wouldn't have rat turds and maggots in your food. This is the thanks I get from you?

your short sightedness again amazes me. do you ever discuss anything beyond your OPINION of other's shortcomings? have you lived and worked among the working class? do you believe MDs did this maliciously?

i've served on a jury, and have seen first hand the emotion of people and how it clouds judgment. and i've tried to fully reveal my views [understanding the rational(or lack of) in criminal behavior] as well those on "do the crime, serve the time." to no avail, it get called anyway!

does passenger or driver make a difference? i simply was trying to dig deeper, something the media fails to do. and points? is this a game to you? i'm not looking for points, are you?

i got "one" right? trust me, i've made a lot of mistakes(and learned from them), but experience has allowed me to get much right. and there are those here that share my world view. i got news, this view is awakening around the nation, get used to it!

your dogmatic view apparently won't allow you to see that i'm anti-big govt, not anti-govt. yes we need laws and such, but we also need to make mistakes and learn from them or fail as individuals. there are so many leaning on big brother WHO NEVER PLAN TO WALK ALONE!

entitlements, illegit law suits, and over regulating will hurt us all--especially the poor! come on sentra seriously, it's time for a wake up call.

this thread like Sentra's idealism, is going no where. HC or Jay please close it!

[GasSavers_JoeBob]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

I have a motorcycle helmet that I have wrapped with an entire roll of aluminum foil to wear to prevent my mind being altered by the gov't while I sleep.

That's also why my Cad has the stainless-steel top. I don't want the guv'mint trying to alter my thoughts while trying to slalom through rush-hour traffic! That could get really dangerous!

[FrugalFloyd]

BTG,

Stop your name-calling, and explain how the Liebeck v. McDonalds case is an example of a frivolous lawsuit. There was a 79 year-old woman suffering third degree burns (the worst) over 6% of her body. She only asked for $20,000 in compensatory damages for her hospital bills. That's chump change for McDonalds - about a nanosecond's worth of its annual worldwide profits. Yet McDonalds refused to settle, forcing Liebeck to sue.

So why is this suit frivolous? Are you claiming Liebeck was an ambulance chaser? She didn't really suffer any harm? McDonalds shouldn't have to put up with lawsuits? Explain your reasoning.