What's new

Yet Another Stupid Lawsuit (1 Viewer)

John_Berger

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
2,489
Good point! If she did not file this frivolous lawsuit (which it is regardless of how Bruce is trying to spin it :p) ) I would not have wasted these valuable minutes having to talk about it, which of course she forced me to do since personal responsibility and choice are obviously ludicrous concepts. I'm suing her for 50 million dollars, which should be sufficient compensation for my lost time, and I'm also suing her lawyer for 2 billion since he thought that it was a good idea to bring this lawsuit to court.
 

Joseph DeMartino

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
8,311
Location
Florida
Real Name
Joseph DeMartino

Last time I checked, juries were part of the legal system - a "vital" part, even or so I'm told. And yes, juries, out of an abundance of sympathy, a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude and a desire to "punish corporations" often hand out truly idiotic judgments. Many of which are not reduced by courts. Juries are one of the parts of "the system" that people most complain about. (And with good reason.)

As I understood the facts of that case the real liability that McDonald's bore was in the severity of the women's injuries due to the coffee's being extremely and unusually hot. But even if you assign 10% or 20% of the blame for the totality of the woman's injuries to McDonald's you have to be willfully ignoring facts (and common sense) if you assign them 100% responsibility and forget that even extra hot coffee could not have produced those injuries (or any injuries at all) if the woman had exercised due caution in handling a hot liquid and not placed the damned cup between her legs in the first place. Let me tell you something, I never voluntarily let hot liquids get anywhere near my crotch, and I heartily recommend the practice to others. :)

If I get drunk and wrap my car around a light pole, it might be reasonable for me to try to get some money out of Mitsubishi if the airbag fails to deploy and I therefore incur medical expenses above and beyond what would normally be sustained in such a crash. But I shouldn't expect to get a new car, to have all my medical bills paid, and to collect several million dollars in pain, suffering and punative damages against Mitsubishi because the ultimate cause of all of my problems would be my own decision to drive drunk.

Regards,

Joe
 

Scott Leopold

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
711
Here's a wacky idea: Why not write your congressmen and tell them you want court reforms? Tell them you want to see people who lose frivolous lawsuits held responsible for the court costs. Granted, so many of them are lawyers that it may take forever to get such a bill passed, but at least then you can say you've made an effort when idiotic suits like this pop up in the news.

My wife was in a wreck before we were married. It was wet out, her ABS didn't kick in, and she skidded into the back of a guy's truck. Her car was totaled, while his bumper was dented. She approached his truck from the passenger side, and he leaned over, talked to her, and let her use his cell phone. He then leaned all the way back over and took it back. He had called the cops and kept looking around to see when they'd arrive. When they got there, he was suddenly in great pain and unable to move his neck or back. He and his wife both sued for $15,000 apiece--him for pain and suffering, medical bills, and loss of work, and his wife because he was unable to perform his "marital duties" due to his bad back. Even though this was the 6th time he'd sued for back injuries in under 2 years, and even though one of the other cases was dismissed because they caught him on video playing basketball with some friends, we weren't allowed to bring any of that information into my wife's case. My wife was still under her parents' insurance at the time, and when they found out that their liability wouldn't cover the $30,000 they were asking for, they quickly asked to settle for whatever the maximum was. Since it wasn't worth their time to try to catch the guy in a lie, the insurance company settled.

While idiots like this get away with this crap, people with legitimate claims seemed to get ignored. My best friend got his leg crushed in an industrial accident 10 years ago. The machine that crushed his leg wasn't designed properly, and the company he worked for, knowing that it was unsafe, took no additional precautions. The company he worked for was protected from prosecution, so he couldn't go after them. The manufacturer's pockets were too deep, so he had to go out of state to find a law firm that would represent him. He asked his employer about going in on the lawsuit with him to try to get a bigger settlement, but they said they had no intention to sue. As it turned out, the employer had talked with the manufacturer, and they worked out a settlement between themselves. I don't know the law, but for some reason, this settlement severely limited the amount my friend was able to sue for. He'll have pretty much constant pain for the rest of his life, and continues to have complications with the injured leg. Shortly after his case started, the story of the McDonald's coffee settlement came out. We both figured that, if someone pouring coffee on themself can get them millions, his leg injury--which wasn't his fault--and the resulting pain and complications should be worth a pretty hefty amount as well. After lawyer's fees, he got a total of about $2,000.
 

bruce townley

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
53
John_Berger - I was not trying to "spin" it:) I was simply stating that most people who refer or mention the McDonald's case have no idea of the actual facts behind it. In fact, the point of the site that I referred to is that the spin was negative on the suit, depsite the lack of knowledge of the actual facts.

Joseph, while I agree that jurors are a vital part of the system, even intregal, they are COMPLETELY IGNORED when the McDonald's case is debated. People remember "$2 Million dollars" for a spilled cup of coffee, and forget that it was a judge (dare I say LAWYER) that reduced that amount by almost 75%. We lawyers cannot win. It is because of us that a spilled cup of coffee causes an outcry, and when we try and rectify the verdict, no credit is given. Listen to me whine.....

Almost every opening statement in a personal injury case, I make mention the McDonald's case because I am concerned about jurors reacting and "punishing" my client to "make up" for the McDonalds' jury.

Scott - in Michigan we already have a law that if you file a frivolous law suit, the judge MAY find it frivolous and assess not only court costs, but the other side's attorney fees. Also if you have a frivolous (i.e. no) defense. Unfortunately, the key that statement is "may" not "shall." Which means that judges rarely impose this sanction even when it is obvious to every person in the courtroom that the case should NEVER have gone to trial.

So--what do you propose? Every person who loses a case should pay the other side's attorney fees? Sounds good in principle and would make one think twice before starting a lawsuit, however, practically it does not work. It would case an inordinate amount of appeals, and bankruptcies. (Even MORE money for these evil lawyers. :) )

Bottom Line - the Wal-Mart case certainly appears frivolous on its face. Absolutely more ballsy than anything I would try (I believe too much in personal responsiblity), yet I would reserve judgment until I know ALL of the facts
 

Chris

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 1997
Messages
6,788
The thing is, in most states frivolous lawsuits are not punished, and so they just go on and on and on.

Now, here's the deal, too many jurors act not as a sympathy against the big corporation, but because the mentality pushed on them of lottery-winner type odds tends to make them think "hey, in a few years, -I- could be the one suing, and -I- sure would want a big chunk of cash, so I'll keep the ball rolling.

The thing is, if you get a lawyer willing to take the big risk on the big payout, and you really force the issue, you can find people who will sue for anything.

Admittedly, there are lawsuits that go on that really offend me, these aren't them (I am always, always deeply, personally offended by "wrongful birth" cases, which burn me up to no end) but frivolous lawsuits hurt everyone.
 

wally

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 12, 2001
Messages
473

McDonalds attitude towards the consumer was anything but cavalier. Marketing surveys showed that customers were choosing McDonalds coffee for the very fact that is was served hotter than competitors.

She should have gone after her pant and underwear manufacturing for not making her garments with an asbestoses crotch. That would have been bad too huh? :D
 

Robert_Gaither

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,370


Forget that, I believe if they lose they should be sterilized, as someone said earlier we need a lot more chlorine in the gene pool!:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Carl Johnson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,260
Real Name
Carl III

That could never and will never happen. Making the loser pay court costs puts an unfair burden on the plantiff. If I had a legit case I certainly wouldn't take McDonalds to court if I knew in advance that if I loose i'd have to cover their fees which are sure to be hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
 

Robert_Gaither

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,370
Gotta agree with Carl, look at all the plantiffs that fought big tobacco and under handed way they fought. Instead of money if we had accountability of those in charge going to jail this would get rid of the frivolousness (now there isn't a "money" compensation) and some of the big wig in charge may raise some standards so they won't have to include "soap-on-a-rope" in their corporate packages.
 

Garrett Lundy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
3,763

But candle-wax would just gum-up my nipple rings!


At any rate, I think I'm going to sue the Atlantic Ocean for having too many sharks. Anybody else want in on this?
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick


Too many plastic bags as it is - non-biodegradable. Wish all the stores would go back to paper. A bit harder to carry, but a lot easier on the environment.
 

LewB

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 11, 2002
Messages
1,282


Is that really the case ? I heard that it doesn't matter when you are talking about stuff thrown into a garbage dump. I remember seeing someone dig into a dump and find perfectly readable newspapers from the 1960's. Seems that when stuff is buried in a pile it doesn't get a chance to decompose, it needs to be exposed to the elements.
 

Stacy Huff

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 13, 1999
Messages
378
If it is any consolation to people, my experience has been that Wal-Mart almost never settles these type law suits. I remember one case that could have been settled for under $2,000.00, which most likely was less than the cheapest cost of going to trial, but Wal-Mart refused. Settle one questionable lawsuit, and get thousands more filed tomorrow. So they go to trial.

As for the McDonalds case, as has been pointed out, the problem is that McDonalds chose to have the coffee at 170-180 degrees or so, so hot that it was dangerous. So high that it caused severe burns immediately and required surgery to repair. That was the problem. And while we've all been led to believe that the plaintiff was driving with the coffee between her legs, I don't think that was the case. I was right there with everybody else thinking that the McD's case was stupid until I read the facts. That changed my mind.
 

Tim Holyoke

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
268
The December 15, 2003 Newsweek's cover story was on this very subject. It was a good article, easy for dumb people like me to understand (like most Newsweek articles). Unfortunately, I looked and they make you pay to view archives online. I think we sould sue them!
 

Brian Perry

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
2,807

I do believe it was the case (though I think she was the passenger and the car may or may not have been in motion). In addition, I think the woman was wearing sweatpants, which greatly increased the amount of time the hot liquid was in contact with her skin. Liquid at 170-180 degrees does not cause "immediate" burns requiring surgery. If it did, McDonald's would have had thousands of lawsuits prior to that one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,816
Messages
5,123,861
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top