Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

[joecct]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Did you know that in San Jose, CA car washes are illegal?? Amazing!

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

I recall seeing a movie in which this case was discussed, as part of a larger discussion about "tort reform." As I recall, there were no cup holders in the car she was in, but that's neither here nor there since I think the jury did hold her partially responsible, and the award was reduced accordingly.

The one thing I remember about that movie was the photos. I've spilled hot coffee on myself, and burned myself with hot pans, etc..., but holy crap those photos were unbelievable. They looked like someone took a blowtorch to that woman's thighs. When I saw those photos I remember remarking to my wife that it wasn't surprising that McDonalds lost that case. That and the testimony from the risk assessment officer at corporate McDonalds who testified that McDonalds had received at least 700 reports of people being burned by it's coffee, but considered the number to be "insignificant." Maybe could have chosen a better phrase.


I think this is a big misconception.

I had this discussion once with a guy who manufactures propane furnaces, and faced a lot of lawsuits relating to burns and fires. What people forget is that the "English Rule" is a two-way street. The loser, regardless of whether it's the plaintiff or the defendant, pays the other side's attorneys fees, in addition to their own.

The "American Rule" is that each side pays their own, unless there is a contract or statute which provides otherwise. But one of the things you see in the U.S. is that certain types of claims in which the plaintiff has the opportunity to recover not only his or her damages, but also have the defendant pay attorneys fees, can be very attractive. Examples are things like discrimination claims. Lawyers look at it like they are essentially working on the defendant's dime.

My manufacturing friend told me he is adamantly opposed to any sort of fee shifting statute which is a two-way street. It just creates even greater exposure for the defendants. Furthermore, it would frequently be next to impossible for the defendant to collect attorneys fees from the losing plaintiff.

That's why you don't see these rules getting adopted. The only way the manufacturing sector sees it as "fair" is if you adopt fee shifting only if the plaintiff loses, and not if the defendant loses, which of course strikes most people as unfair.

Another thing I've been thinking about is this would make corporations almost untouchable. How many people would be willing to chance paying a corporation's attorney's fees?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

The one thing I remember about that movie was the photos. I've spilled hot coffee on myself, and burned myself with hot pans, etc..., but holy crap those photos were unbelievable. They looked like someone took a blowtorch to that woman's thighs. When I saw those photos I remember remarking to my wife that it wasn't surprising that McDonalds lost that case. That and the testimony from the risk assessment officer at corporate McDonalds who testified that McDonalds had received at least 700 reports of people being burned by it's coffee, but considered the number to be "insignificant." Maybe could have chosen a better phrase.

3rd degree burns happen real fast if you hand out liquid lead and it gets soaked into clothing.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Another thing I've been thinking about is this would make corporations almost untouchable. How many people would be willing to chance paying a corporation's attorney's fees?

What most people don't understand is this. There is already a risk to plaintiffs, and their attorneys, who pursue litigation.

Start with their attorneys. Contrary to what most people think, attorneys take only those cases they think they can win. They might be willing to take a chance on a case with less than perfect liability issues if the the potential damages are high enough, but an attorney who looks at them like a "lottery ticket" as someone else wrote, will soon go broke. They spend significant amounts of time and money pursuing claims.

In many states the losing party has to pay the winner's "costs and disbursements." This is a phrase that typically means money the winner has spent on filing fees, expert witnesses, deposition costs, etc... I have no idea what the "average" costs and disbursements are in any given trial, if there even is such an average, but I suspect it will easily run into the thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars when you are talking about cases with expert witnesses/doctors, etc...

The losing plaintiff, in most instances, probably can't write a check for that kind of money. Adding on $50-100,000 in attorneys fees does nothing to change it. It only changes the amount of the claim that is bankrupted out by the losing plaintiff later on.

Now, McDonalds on the other hand, can clearly afford to pay the winning plaintiffs attorneys fees, which I can guarantee you won't be cheap.

 

[burd]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Hovey makes some excellent points. Most states have frivolous claim statutes that award attorney fees to the party defending a frivolous claim or motion, and lawyers who have a habit of bringing weak claims end up broke and harmless.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

I recall seeing a movie in which this case was discussed, as part of a larger discussion about "tort reform." As I recall, there were no cup holders in the car she was in, but that's neither here nor there since I think the jury did hold her partially responsible, and the award was reduced accordingly.

The one thing I remember about that movie was the photos. I've spilled hot coffee on myself, and burned myself with hot pans, etc..., but holy crap those photos were unbelievable. They looked like someone took a blowtorch to that woman's thighs. When I saw those photos I remember remarking to my wife that it wasn't surprising that McDonalds lost that case. That and the testimony from the risk assessment officer at corporate McDonalds who testified that McDonalds had received at least 700 reports of people being burned by it's coffee, but considered the number to be "insignificant." Maybe could have chosen a better phrase.


I think this is a big misconception.

I had this discussion once with a guy who manufactures propane furnaces, and faced a lot of lawsuits relating to burns and fires. What people forget is that the "English Rule" is a two-way street. The loser, regardless of whether it's the plaintiff or the defendant, pays the other side's attorneys fees, in addition to their own.

The "American Rule" is that each side pays their own, unless there is a contract or statute which provides otherwise. But one of the things you see in the U.S. is that certain types of claims in which the plaintiff has the opportunity to recover not only his or her damages, but also have the defendant pay attorneys fees, can be very attractive. Examples are things like discrimination claims. Lawyers look at it like they are essentially working on the defendant's dime.

My manufacturing friend told me he is adamantly opposed to any sort of fee shifting statute which is a two-way street. It just creates even greater exposure for the defendants. Furthermore, it would frequently be next to impossible for the defendant to collect attorneys fees from the losing plaintiff.

That's why you don't see these rules getting adopted. The only way the manufacturing sector sees it as "fair" is if you adopt fee shifting only if the plaintiff loses, and not if the defendant loses, which of course strikes most people as unfair.

Unethical, scumbag lawyers advertise on TV all the time in every city. Begging for clients on whose behalf they can file suit, on contingency. Many (most?) companies put a cost/benefit analysis on these suits and frequently decide it would be cheaper in the long run to just pay off these people and make the suit go away.

The most adamantly opposed to the English Rule are (wait for it) members of the plaintiff's bar. I wonder why. Like the man said: "Jesse James did it with a gun." It is so easy to get half wit jurors to side with the "poor old lady who stupidly burned herself with coffee" against the big corporation and to convince them to award astronomical amounts of "punitive damages."

Only in America are victims of some accident or malfeasance by a manufacturer customarily expected to live the rest of their lives like oriental potentates. After the tragic release of MIC gas in Bhopal, India that killed dozens (hundreds?) of people, Melvin Belli, the king of scumbags, suggested the families of the victims should be compensated in amounts comparable to what they would have received if they had been American. So, these folks whose loved ones had been making 100 dollars a month, should be compensated in the hundreds of thousands. 'Course old Melvin wouldn't have a dog in that hunt. I recall after a wide body belly flopped into DFW in the 80's, Melvin's son, Ceaser, arrived in Dallas that night and began drumming up business with the families in their hotel. Classy and typical at the same time. Erin Brockovich was able to make a pile of money by dealing in junk science and credulous jurors. And she's far from alone. John Edwards is also a huge scumbag.

Lawyers will say anything. Do anything. Including waving the bloody shirt of victims, to improve their bottom lines. Next time some "victim" or his lawyer says something along the lines of: "I'm not doing this for the money, I just want to send a message this bad behavior won't be tolerated" ask them if they'd care to donate any takings beyond expenses to the United Way and watch them choke.

On the criminal side, in Britain you get the first 12 jurors who don't have obvious conflicts of interest. There's none of that jury consultant nonsense: "We want unmarried females under age 30 who believe in UFOs" Nobody complains their criminal proceedings are less fair than ours.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Hovey makes some excellent points. Most states have frivolous claim statutes that award attorney fees to the party defending a frivolous claim or motion, and lawyers who have a habit of bringing weak claims end up broke and harmless.

The question is: how widely or narrowly "frivolous" is defined. Laws written and interpreted by lawyers don't impress me much when it comes to dissuading the bottom feeders. "Weak" claims are not necessarily "frivolous."

 

[burd]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

The question is: how widely or narrowly "frivolous" is defined. Laws written and interpreted by lawyers don't impress me much when it comes to dissuading the bottom feeders. "Weak" claims are not necessarily "frivolous."

You are right on a couple of points. It is true that the question is how frivolous is defined or, more to the point, interpreted by elected judges. Weak claims are not necessarily frivolous, but they usually get dumped on summary judgment and almost always end up with costs being assessed against the plaintiff. Insurance companies usually hire the "best and brightest," who build their reputations by hammering plaintiffs' lawyers. Bottom feeder lawyers you refer to (and they do exist, just as there are bottom feeder plumbers, carpenters, accountants, business advisors, journalists, etc) are more of a danger to their own clients than they are to others.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Mom: Child care let toddler wander away

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

You are right on a couple of points. It is true that the question is how frivolous is defined or, more to the point, interpreted by elected judges. Weak claims are not necessarily frivolous, but they usually get dumped on summary judgment and almost always end up with costs being assessed against the plaintiff. Insurance companies usually hire the "best and brightest," who build their reputations by hammering plaintiffs' lawyers. Bottom feeder lawyers you refer to (and they do exist, just as there are bottom feeder plumbers, carpenters, accountants, business advisors, journalists, etc) are more of a danger to their own clients than they are to others.

Which hardly excuses them.

 

[burd]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Which hardly excuses them.

Agreed.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

After the tragic release of MIC gas in Bhopal, India that killed dozens (hundreds?) of people, Melvin Belli, the king of scumbags, suggested the families of the victims should be compensated in amounts comparable to what they would have received if they had been American. So, these folks whose loved ones had been making 100 dollars a month, should be compensated in the hundreds of thousands. 'Course old Melvin wouldn't have a dog in that hunt. I recall after a wide body belly flopped into DFW in the 80's, Melvin's son, Ceaser, arrived in Dallas that night and began drumming up business with the families in their hotel. Classy and typical at the same time.

Didn't the Belli firm suffer the fate I mentioned below, going bankrupt?

You have a pretty cynical, but admittedly not unique, view of our civil justice system. I suggest for anyone who has the time to go down and watch a civil trial in your local community, with your friends and neighbors as jurors. Don't pick the same case Nancy Grace is following. I've done it. I think most people would be pleasantly surprised at how well the system works, and the common sense applied by your community in the form of 6 or 12 jurors.

 

[bigmrg74]

Did you know that in San Jose, CA car washes are illegal?? Amazing!

Why do they hate America???

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Didn't the Belli firm suffer the fate I mentioned below, going bankrupt?

You have a pretty cynical, but admittedly not unique, view of our civil justice system. I suggest for anyone who has the time to go down and watch a civil trial in your local community, with your friends and neighbors as jurors. Don't pick the same case Nancy Grace is following. I've done it. I think most people would be pleasantly surprised at how well the system works, and the common sense applied by your community in the form of 6 or 12 jurors.

Mr. Smith, I presume. As I have said, and your pleasant generalities don't refute, product liability law is a racket. Engaged in by many bottom feeding louts who care not the slightest for the economic impact their extortions have on our economy or the people struggling to stay employed. "I got mine" looks great on a mantle piece (John Edwards, after all, has an indoor basketball court). It ain't exactly the way to run a railroad. The lawyers who completely dominate our legislatures (national and state) continue passing laws which wind up being full employment bills for lawyers.

 

[burd]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Mr. Smith, I presume. As I have said, and your pleasant generalities don't refute, product liability law is a racket. Engaged in by many bottom feeding louts who care not the slightest for the economic impact their extortions have on our economy or the people struggling to stay employed. "I got mine" looks great on a mantle piece (John Edwards, after all, has an indoor basketball court). It ain't exactly the way to run a railroad. The lawyers who completely dominate our legislatures (national and state) continue passing laws which wind up being full employment bills for lawyers.

Give in to your anger. Let the hate flow through you.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Give in to your anger. Let the hate flow through you.

When you got nothin', it's always easy to throw out stereotypes and prejudice, isn't it?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

As we read recent reports about the progress Iran's nuclear weapons program is making, it's comforting to see a photo of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, and the B-2 that will carry it.* A 30,000 lb precision weapon that can penetrate 200 feet of concrete and then explode! Like Dennis Leary says in the pick up commercials: "Think about that."

http://theaviationist.com/2013/10/28/b-2-mop/#.UnBJOfvn9CG

*The B-2s that have been retrofitted to carry MOPs will carry two of them, internally. Since the MOP is a precision weapon, that will permit attacks in which two of these bad boys strike the same target, at exactly the same spot, just a few seconds apart.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

It's reassuring that Sybrina Fulton now has a full time job: lecturing the country about "stand your ground" laws (which weren't involved when her thug son jumped George Zimmerman and got his a*s shot for his troubles). This is political mythology. Designed to keep the black lofos fired up. Ms. Fulton, her ex and the lawyer Crump have already shared a million dollar settlement from the condo complex. She's just a racist entrepreneur.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-20131029,0,1411734.story

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

Woman arrested for second drunk driving offense after 3-car crash

 

[burd]

Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here

When you got nothin', it's always easy to throw out stereotypes and prejudice, isn't it?

Just throwing you an old line for a little comic relief to keep you from crusting over completely.

Because we care.