McDonalds getting sued.... (1 Viewer)

[JoshF]

XBOX, PSII, Game Cube. These Kids would rather play the Video Game Version of a Sport than Acually Going out and play it for real.

Please, let's not blame video games. They're the easiest scapegoat out there. I had videogames available as a kid, and I didn't get fat. There are always distractions from getting exercise, and there always have been.

But if someone of influence isn't telling you that you're gonna get fat if you don't move that ass, you're gonna get fat. If they're rewarding you with junk food, you're going to associate it with good things and want more of it.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Patrick Sun said:

If we could implement some form of "Loser pays" for frivolous lawsuits, then many of these lawsuits would go away. But I will leave it at that (so we don't get too deep into political ramblings).

That's a very, very dangerous suggestion. By that logic, only the rich and wealthy would be able to sustain themselves in court. There was an article in Medical Economics concerning the rising costs of malpractice insurance for surgeons and physicians. The basic gist was that whenever a physician got sued, regardless of whether or not they win the case, the malpractice insurance premium always skyrockets. One of the interviewed physicians suggested "loser pays" but it was made very clear that this would lead to only the wealthy being able to afford attorney privalages.
Back on topic, I passionately agree with the opinion that people need to start taking responsibility for themselves. I'm now beginning to wonder if ignorance is even an acceptable excuse anymore.

 

[Brian Perry]

There was an article in Medical Economics concerning the rising costs of malpractice insurance for surgeons and physicians. The basic gist was that whenever a physician got sued, regardless of whether or not they win the case, the malpractice insurance premium always skyrockets.

The problem, as in the McDonald's case, is the need for people to find blame with someone else, even if the blame lies with themselves or if the tragedy was simply bad luck. The malpractice premiums for ob/gyn doctors is absolutely through the roof because some people are convinced that any problem with a newborn "must" somehow be the fault of the doctor.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I can't help but wonder if any of 'these' parents are overweight. Not that it matters...

Glenn

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Glenn,

I saw one of the "parents" on tv this morning, the one with the 400 pounder, she was enormous.

 

[Chris Knox]

I think we are losing site of a few things here (other than the fact that Ron-P should be noted as the sanist person in this thread):
McDonald's is being sued because they have money, just like every other Fortune 500 company that's being sued these days (and you would be shocked at the percentages). They have money and someone wants some of it. There are people out there that go around and look for wet spots on the floor, or over stacked display items in a grocery store, or a loose lid on a coffee container. There are people out there that work harder in their lives trying to avoid work then if they just went out and worked.
...And there are lawyers that sit around and wait for these me-monkeys to come swinging through their offices. I know there are lawyers in this forum that take exception to these kinds of remarks (and I'm not accusing EVERY lawyer), but before you get all bent out of shape, riddle me this:
Why is it that lawyers are accused of being "ambulance chasing legalistas"? There must be a reason that lawyers are below used car salesmen on the ladder of respectful careers, what is the reason?
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about McDonald's. After finding one too many bone pieces in their hamburgers I don't eat there anymore (plus their fries suck now). But I do have a problem with these kinds of lawsuits against companies like this because carma dictates that if I ever do decide to have a fast food burger it's going to cost me more than a fucking DVD to get one.
I think it's high time that we started suing these asses for misappropriation of the judicial system and wrongful allocation of my tax dollars through your get rich quick schemes! And understand this while you're weighing the moral good of such a person who would tie up the courts with this kind of crap: Fat boy and shitty mom don't want to go to court and have their lawyers duke it out with McDonald's team of lawyers. Fat boy and shitty mom are betting that McDonald's will settle out of court in an attempt to sweep it all under the rug so that this kind of thing will be forgotten and no more lawsuits will sprout up. And do you know what the truly sad thing is? McDonald's will probably settle out of court.
And furthermore, if we are supposed to protect these idiots from themselves, then the last thing we should do is give them money!!!
God, if I were a judge these people would leave my court room crying, not because they lost, but because of the machine gun rapidity of insults that I would throw at them like monkey shit from a cage at the local zoo! "You want how much?! 20,000,000.00 becuase the coffee was too hot? It's supposed to be hot, you fucking idiot!"
"What say? You wanna sue the government because they wouldn't let you in to Area 51, because you think they have aliens hidden there? Aliens that crashed there? Yeah, I see. Well scooter, let me explain it to you like this: I can see why you'd think that, because, you know, those little green bugers can fly lightspeed across the universe navigating the cold depths of space, dodging asteroids and black holes and comets, but those New Mexico power lines are a real bitch, right? You know why they won't let you in Area 51? Becuase it's a fucking military installation!!! You think if you go to areas 1-50 you're going to get some gooda and a nice chardonay??? get your retarded ass out of my courtroom, and take your pin-stripped parasite ambulance chasing goon with you! Next case!!!
"Okay sir, that's a number 4 with cheese no onions. That'll be $657.67, please drive to the first window where one of our on site legal experts will help you with the paperwork."
I don't have much hope for the human race...
Chris

 

[DeathStar1]

>Why is it that lawyers are accused of being "ambulance chasing legalistas"? >
Reeeeerrrrroooooo(Ambulance Siren )..
Raises Hand to ear: "Eh, I'll get it later" .

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Steve, I just got my laugh for the day. Thanks!

Glenn

 

[BrianB]

"You want how much?! 20,000,000.00 becuase the coffee was too hot? It's supposed to be hot, you fucking idiot!"

Try enough money to cover her medical costs.

 

[Michael Reuben]

for misappropriation of the judicial system and wrongful allocation of my tax dollars through your get rich quick schemes! (Emphasis added.)

There you have it, folks. It's the reflex answer to almost every gripe in America: sue somebody. And that's why we have so many lawsuits.
M.

 

[Chris Knox]

Nope. No reflex at all, just an attempt to get some of my money back. If we start suing the ones who draw up silly law suits maybe we'll stop this crap from destroying us...

What else are you going to do, sit around and say "oh, all of this suing is bad"? Well, thank you, Dr. Insight, but it does nothing to solve the problem. By suing them back, maybe we can make some of these people really consider their motivations before using the justice system as a springboard for their own financial gain.

Your saying that it's wrong doesn't stop them from suing. Suing them for the above once they've won is a successful deterent from bringing up a faux lawsuit in the first place.

Of course, you could just continue doing what your doing... and the suits just keep on coming. "Hey dude, pass me one of those 30.00 ketchup packs, will ya? Hey, do you remember when they used to just GIVE these things away?"

 

[Patrick_S]

It's also an example of the mind set that everyone else's lawsuits are foolish except mine!

That's not a slam against anyone in particular just a general observation of our society.

 

[Jay Taylor]

Perhaps we need everyone to sign a "Life Warning Letter" upon reaching their 18th birthday.

It could read something like this:

You are an absolute idiot. Even if you have IQ test results to show a high level of intelligence you still have no common sense regardless of what your mother tells the neighbors.

We could put warning labels on everything on the planet Earth, but we won't. Idiots like you will find a way to hurt yourself or others with any object or idea in existence no matter what steps we take.

We will put up warning signs where rational humans need to be warned of an exceptional danger, such as a warning sign in a radioactive hazard area. However, no matter how many warning labels we put on a pair of scissors you are so stupid that you will still run with one. No matter how many warning labels we put on a BB gun you are so stupid that you will either shoot your or your sister's eye out. No matter how many warning labels we put on a ladder you are so stupid that you will still plant it's legs on a banana peel.

Any damage you cause by interacting with anything on the planet Earth is your fault. The taxpayers, shareholders, business owners and homeowners are not responsible for the damage caused by your idiotic actions. You're the idiot. You're responsible.

If by some miracle you manage to reach your 40th birthday you will receive a letter from the United States Congress notifying you that they consider you to have common sense. If you don't receive such a letter it means you're still an idiot.

Jay Taylor

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Loser pays system would be good because a lot of the crap cases would be filtered out by the plaintiff's attorney(because obviously, they would not get paid for bad lawsuits). It would not mean that only the wealthy could sue but it would require that the case brought was strong. One of the good things about England is that they have a loser pays system.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Loser pays system would be good because a lot of the crap cases would be filtered out by the plaintiff's attorney(because obviously, they would not get paid for bad lawsuits).

I think you may be confusing "loser pays" with contingent fees. In theory, contingent fees are supposed to weed out bad lawsuits, because lawyers won't bring them since they only get paid if they prevail. In practice, it hasn't quite worked out that way.

"Loser pays" adds an extra discincentive for a plaintiff with limited means. Now you not only have to find a lawyer who thinks the case is good enough to take on contingency, but you also have to take the risk that if you lose -- and lots of non-frivolous claims don't succeed -- you'll be stuck with the defendant's legal bills. For someone thinking about taking on a big corporation, which has the capacity to run up enormous legal bills, that's a powerful deterrent in its own right. Sure, it would dissuade a lot of frivolous claims, but it would deter a lot of meritorious ones as well.

M.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Who's "we"? A defendant named in a frivolous lawsuit already has avenues of redress against the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's lawyer, IF the suit can be demonstrated to be frivolous. There are sanctions rules, claims for malicious prosecution or abuse of process, and the inherent power of courts to fine parties for abusing the system. Are you saying there should be something more?

I think that's what people who want "loser pays" are really looking for. A mechanism for frivolous lawsuits to be thrown out and the plaintiff penalized for bringing it. You say such a mechanism exists. Should there be something more? Yeah. We need judges and/or juries to invoke the damn thing. Because apparently it isn't happening often enough to dissuade frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

The idea of "loser pays" is inherently unfair and blatantly favors corporate interests over common citizens, just the opposite of the current screwed up system where predatory lawyers are victimizing any entity percieved to have deep pockets.

Limit contingency fees so the lawyer is working on a cost+x% or cost+$10k basis instead of the current 30-40% of total awards, thus eliminating the potential huge windfall to the lawyers without requiring them to suffer financially for their zeal in righting real wrongs via the courts.

Make punitive damages payable to the government or an appropriate non-profit organization dedicated to redressing the particular injustice rather than to the plaintiffs. For example, punitive awards in Tobacco lawsuits could go to the American Cancer Society, Auto related awards to the National Transportation Safety Administration.

In the case of suits that are thrown out as frivolous, fine the lawyers (not the often clueless "plaintiffs") 10% or so of the original settlement they sought in the action, money to be put toward a pool for retraining of said lawyers for some useful occupation like sewer treatment plant maintenance, Fast food restaurant grease disposal, or Auto repair.

 

[Cees Alons]

For someone thinking about taking on a big corporation, which has the capacity to run up enormous legal bills

In my country (and several other countries too) we do have a "loser pays" system. It would be rather strange if anyone (including big companies!) could force you - threaten you - to spend lots of lawyer's costs if you were absolutely right to begin with.
The difference is: the judge sets the amount (in a rather conservative manner as far as the height is concerned). He/she can also rule that both parties bear their own costs.

It still favours larger companies over individuals, BTW.


Cees

 

[Dick]

I think there should be some sort of clearing house at which time an issue is either approved for legal action, or tossed out as frivilous and moronic, as this one is. I am so f***ing sick and tired of this litigious society trying to make a small fortune from some dumb-ass situation that is more often than not the fault of the complaintant. Now you have doctors unwilling to help many patients for fear of being sued; you have bystanders witnessing a neighbor in some sort of trouble (heart attack, whatever) who don't want to step in and help for fear of being sued (or at least involved); you have skyrocketing insurance fees...etc, etc. I truly think there should be some sort of preliminary hearing during which a complaintant is either granted the right to proceed with a lawsuit based upon a truly legitimate circumstance, or told to go elsewhere for his fifteen minutes of fame and fortune. If this suit actually ends up absorbing any taxpayer money, I will lose most remaining faith in the system.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think that's what people who want "loser pays" are really looking for. A mechanism for frivolous lawsuits to be thrown out and the plaintiff penalized for bringing it. You say such a mechanism exists. Should there be something more? Yeah. We need judges and/or juries to invoke the damn thing. Because apparently it isn't happening often enough to dissuade frivolous lawsuits.

We have traffic laws and police, but some people still run red lights. Does that mean the laws aren't being enforced? No, it just means that there's no such thing as a deterrent that's 100% effective.

In fact, sanctions for frivolous lawsuits are handed out on a regular basis. They just don't make the news. Most people's knowledge of what happens in the American legal system is based on their own infrequent contacts with it and the handful of cases that the media chooses to publicize (often incompletely and inaccurately).

M.

P.S. Note to everyone worried about "taxpayer money" being wasted. It costs a certain amount to pay salaries and provide facilities for the court system. Those costs don't increase or decrease because of any particular suit.