Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawyers . . .
RandFan said:
I saw that woman's attorney on a talk show. He explained the case quite well. I DON'T think she should have recieved millions. Their coffee is STILL hot as it damn well should be because that is how most of us who drink coffee like it. I have always known that it is really hot. I get the fact that driving with a container of hot liquid is a RISK! She accepted the risk when she purchased the coffee. I wouldn't have minded so much her medical bills paid but why does she have to win the lottery. And guess what, the coffee is STILL hot. It's just now dumb people are warned that coffee is hot.
And people are warned:
- 7 Up: Contents under pressure. Cap may blow off causing eye or other serious injury. Point away from face and people, especially when opening.
- Energizer AAA 4 Pack: If swallowed, promptly see doctor.
- Caution: Avoid dropping air conditioners out of windows.
- White-Westinghouse 1600 Blow Dryer Keep away from water
- Rowenta Iron: Warning: Never iron clothes on the body.
- McDonald's Coffee: Warning - Contents may be hot.
- The problem here is the use of a qualifier. Simply calling that coffee hot is quite misleading, as usually a coffee burn doesn't require a skin graft.
Do you really think companies like to throw away money coming up with stupid warnings like, "avoid dropping air conditioners out of windows"? You can be sure that every warning is backed up by litigation and some moron who hit the lottery because Darwin's law has been replaced by Tort.
Actually, I can't be sure. Many of these may very well be overkill in anticipation of possible tort claims, spurred on by the kind of careful research reflected in the link at question.
Please check out M-LAW
Oh, and yes, it is appropriate for you to question the examples of loony law suits. I think M-Law is a better resource for stupid lawsuits.
They do happen, although by a quick examination any problems with M-Law seem to be more in that "interpretation" of what happened than anything else... My problem is more with the global message in that:
1) If it is unsuccessful, what remedy is there besides cutting off access to the court? The loony lawsuit lost. The system worked. So it cost a few bucks.... price of a fair society where people can access the courts. Plus, there are laws on the books banning people from raising the same crap over and over, and a truely loony suit can be defended quite simply. Perhaps those with this problem need to assess the efficency of their response by keeping an eye on the lawyers they hire.
2) If it is successful, it is highly likely that the lawsuit was by definiton not frivilous seeing that .... it was successful, that whole jury thing where a group of people just like you and me agreed... Usually this is where the interpretation comes in, the facts discussed from the losing party's point of view. Almost anything can be portrayed in an absurd light.
3)
The Biggie: I didn't look to closely, but does that M-Law site have a single example of the frivilous
defense of a lawsuit, where a party obviously injured is forced ot threatened with lengthy litigation in order to force a smaller settlement?
I have my doubts.
However, this is also a problem, but it just doesn't catch the eye in the paper when some insurance company forces litigation in an obvious case. This kind of wasteful crap benefits insurance companies and big business so there is never an outcry over it among these "anti-lawsuit abuse" camps...
That was the shocking thing about defending against these types of personal injury cases... from my POV my side was guilty of far worse and systematic abuses than the plaintiff's side. There were a few real stinkers on the plaintiff side, to be sure, but the abuse on my side seemed quite shocking to the objective eye, but it was so ingrained into the practice that it was largely ignored.
Loony lawsuits are a problem, but having been under the hood the outcry seems a bit out of proportion to the reality...
But, as they say, what is good for the goose...