US govt. being sued by Tsunami survivors and victims! (1 Viewer)

[Phil_L]

Let's not allow these suits to taint our image of every lawyer. These cases are not representative of America's legal system, they are merely extreme examples that grab headlines. Screaming bloody murder about the McDonald's verdict is a waste of time. It was an isolated incident that just happened to attract nationwide attention. It is not evidence of a broader trend. Remember, we hear about murders on the news everyday. There are really very few murders, however. They just get lots of media attention.

I believe these tsunami lawsuits were filed by some very greedy lawyers who are not representative of the larger legal community.

PS: The woman who sued McDonalds actually had very serious injuries, so let's not pretend she was just being litigious. And this is coming from a third year law student whose professional legal experience has been DEFENDING suits like this for insurance companies and corporations.

 

[Ken Chan]

And she sued because they wouldn't pay (supposedly) reasonable medical expenses, and the compensatory damages were reduced by 20% because that's how much the jury figured she was at fault.

A lot of money for an individual, but practically chump change for McDonald's. This is a problem when corporations get so large, the punitive damages required to get them to pay attention are completely out of scale. Maybe if you took the "someone" out of the "pay" it wouldn't seem so outrageous?

 

[Chris Farmer]

Which then begs the questions of, should the punishment fit the crime, or should it be large enough to make the person feel it? As a medical student whose primary income source is student loans, a $100 speeding ticket hurts a lot. Bill Gates wouldn't notice. So should his speeding ticket be a higher cost then mine to get him to notice that he received one and change his behavior?

 

[Kenneth]

But, in a sense we do have that for speeding tickets where there is definitely a punitive approach. If you are only going 5 miles over the limit you will get a drastically different penalty than if you go 50 miles over the limit.

Although it is sometimes handled unevenly in the legal system, the punitive damages are designed to operate in the same way. I think where it gets messy is when punitive damages are awarded inappropriately. They are not so clear cut as whether you are only 5 or 50 miles over the limit

Kenneth

 

[Chris Farmer]

Not what I meant Kenneth. people above said that McDonald's needed a large settlement against them because a smaller number wouldn't be felt. At this point it's not about making the punishment fit the crime, it's about making the punishment painful. Graduating speed limit fines depending on how badly you're speeding is punishment fitting the crime. 5 over isn't as bad as 50 over. Giving Bill Gates a bigger fine for 15 over then I would get because he's rich and needs a larger fine to feel it is what's being discussed.

 

[Kenneth]

Except that punitive damages are intended to work the same way, they just don't always in practice.

The theory is that if a company willfully engages in behavior they know is detrimental they should not just suffer the monetary penalty of their actions but an additional fine (intended to discourage future behavior). However, since juries interpret this it sometimes gets poorly implemented.

The McDonald's case had elements that supported some punative damages. The tobacco cases had elements that really supported punitive damages.

I agree that punitive damages shouldn't be applied simply because the company has deep pockets.

Kenneth

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Now if McDonalds kept its coffee at 190 degrees but told people it was only 130, then I'd understand the need for legal action.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Agreed. A good friend of mine is a litigation lawyer who deals solely in cases where malpractice or negligence has led to genuine and often appalling injuries. He says that a lot of the legal profession are just as appalled by frivolous cases as the general public are - perhaps more so, because inevitably some people tar all lawyers with the same brush.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that litigation is in principle a good thing. It is often the only way that the little guy can get back at a large company. Because the system gets abused does not deny its fundamental usefulness, any more than a murder by stabbing denies the utility of kitchen knives.

 

[Chu Gai]

You've got to be insane to drink McDonald's coffee.