Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20041211/ap_en_mu/wal_mart_evanescence
Some people just want to make a quick buck :lol :lol
Some people just want to make a quick buck :lol :lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wal-Mart sued over Evanescence CD lyrics
- Thread starter Funky Papa
- Start date
- Status
Nope, nothing wrong with our tort system at all... </sarcasm>
I hate Walmart as much as the next guy, but it's a bit out of hand, don't you think? Did you guys know that Walmart gets sued roughly 3000 times per day across the country? If you think that even half those claims are legitimate, seeing as how this is a retail chain selling largely safe and sealed products, then you're nuts. It's just insane.
But we can't impinge on people's "right to sue", no matter the social cost or the merit of the claims. :lol
:lol
Assuming that the childrens' psyche was so egregiously damaged by hearing a single expletive, I'd shudder to think what these people would like to do at the local park or elementary school playground where kids hurl curses like gumdrops. OH TEH NOES! WE MUST RECOVER TEH MONETARY DAMAGES!!!!1oneone :lol Or, since kids can't be held accountable for their behaviors, what of an adult who happens to curse around a young one? LET'S GO FOR HIS WALLET! Yes, that's sensible-- rather than just asking him to watch his language and correct his behavior, as should have been done in this Walmart case. But no, everybody wants to get rich. Welcome to America.
I hate Walmart as much as the next guy, but it's a bit out of hand, don't you think? Did you guys know that Walmart gets sued roughly 3000 times per day across the country? If you think that even half those claims are legitimate, seeing as how this is a retail chain selling largely safe and sealed products, then you're nuts. It's just insane.
But we can't impinge on people's "right to sue", no matter the social cost or the merit of the claims. :lol
:lol
Assuming that the childrens' psyche was so egregiously damaged by hearing a single expletive, I'd shudder to think what these people would like to do at the local park or elementary school playground where kids hurl curses like gumdrops. OH TEH NOES! WE MUST RECOVER TEH MONETARY DAMAGES!!!!1oneone :lol Or, since kids can't be held accountable for their behaviors, what of an adult who happens to curse around a young one? LET'S GO FOR HIS WALLET! Yes, that's sensible-- rather than just asking him to watch his language and correct his behavior, as should have been done in this Walmart case. But no, everybody wants to get rich. Welcome to America.
God dammit. On one hand, you have someone trying to sue Wal-Mart, which I wholly support in my greater hope that their special flavor of retail cancer will be stopped. On the other hand, it's because someone found one word in an Evanescence song objectionable, which I think is the height of stupidity.
(Now, if they were suing because Evanescence offended them as a whole, this would be a win/win for me...)
(Now, if they were suing because Evanescence offended them as a whole, this would be a win/win for me...)
Loki said:
You can file a stupid lawsuit and get it thrown out or hope it has enough merit that the company will settle. Whooptie-fucking-doo. Poor Wal-Mart.
The only people who would really benefit from tort reform are huge corporations; if you think they would shift the benefit to everyone else you are out of your goddamn fucking mind.
KilledByBill
Member
[/sarcasm]Yeah, if only there was some motion Wal-Mart could file asking the judge to dismiss the case on it's facts that would only cost them a few hundred dollars tops.[/sarcasm]
Ever hear of summary judgement? :rollyeyes:
Ninja Scooter
Member
i remember my Business Law teacher telling me that corporations like WalMart have a huge team of lawyers that they keep on call (and paid for) 24/7. Im sure they just brush shit like this off their shoulder.
AstroLad said:
"Whooptie-doo"? So the fact that Walmart is not going to go broke defending itself from 3000 lawsuits daily makes such a state of affairs proper? Makes it defensible? Nice mentality. You must be a lawyer-- oh, wait...
Nonsense. The opposite process-- where companies pass along the costs of litigation to consumers through increased prices-- has been proven to occur all the time (most recently seen in the verdicts against tobacco companies). To think that, in the absence of excessive litigation, such as we have now, corporations would not at least somewhat lower their prices is a bit absurd. Would it necessarily happen? No, they could always just pocket the savings realized. But neither does that make the current situation defensible. I also love how you're implicitly painting me as some defender of corporations when anybody with a functioning brain who's seen me post over the years realizes that I loathe corporations-- even more than I loathe unscrupulous lawyers who feel that litigation is the answer to all that ails us. But I realize that it's beneficial to you to try to portray anyone who's against our tort system in any way as a person beholden to corporations. Real sensible, that.
I am beholden to reason. Anybody who defends the status quo vis-a-vis our tort system clearly isn't beholden to that same reason. To paraphrase a famous scholar (or maybe it was just some random law student): "if you think that there's nothing wrong with our tort system, then you're 'out of your goddamn fucking mind'".
Yeah, sure, you can sit there now and say that you "never said that nothing was wrong with it"-- it's an entirely predictable response. The gist of your post was clear, however. Lawsuits are currently paralyzing this nation, and exact tremendous costs on our society, both financially and interpersonally. Oooh, oooh-- for your next trick, can you try to portray me as someone who "doesn't want people to have an opportunity to redress legitimate grievances"? That'd go over big with the non-thinking crowd, I'm sure (you know, the crowd that lawyer sophistry generally affects). :lol Doesn't make it true, though, however much you'd like to paint things in such unabashedly binary terms.
And if you don't like the tone of this post, next time don't tell someone that they're "out of (their) goddamn fucking mind" just because they don't toe the lawyer's line regarding our tort system. It betrays a profound bias on your part. Yes Astrolad, everyone who, after much deliberation, realizes that there are real and grave problems with our litigation system is "out of their goddamn fucking minds". All those who regurgitate the ATLA view of the world are sane; all others are clearly insane. Gotcha.
Let me sum up your stance:
Litigation: a panacea
KilledByBill
Member
Your Business Law teacher was spot on. Nearly all large corporations have law firms "on retainer" who they pay on a monthly basis. These can be hired for normal business use (reviewing contracts) or legal actions/defense. Obviously a company like Wal-Mart can afford to do both at the same time as a normal "cost of business."
LinesInTheSand
Banned
Oh no. The word 'fuck' which she hears everyday in school and more than likely uses as well.
I want to pass a law that would require immediate death for anyone who even thinks of bringing forth such a stupid lawsuit.
I want to pass a law that would require immediate death for anyone who even thinks of bringing forth such a stupid lawsuit.
Well, you're going to get your tort reform Loki. And then we'll get to see who's right, but I have to say that HMOs and other health providers who scream bloody murder pay out LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of their annual budget to court proceedings/awards.
Yeah, our tort system is fucked up. But not the way you think. Did you know that ExxonMobil still has yet to pay any compensatory damages for the Valdez spill, even though there's a mountain of evidence showing that poor maintenance and prevention(and not Capt. Joe's bender) led to the severity of the spill? I'm sure all the Chugach natives and the people who have been wronged by a big corporation or negligent doctor are comforted by your views on tort DEFORM, Loki. You sound like Dubya.
I know you're planning on a career in medicine, but I think you've let the insurancy wonks scare you. You sound like you've got a reasonably good head on your shoulders, so I doubt you're gonna fuck up and take out someone's appendix when they needed a gall bladder removed or something equally stupid. These laws exist so that when someone is WRONGED by another person or organization, they have a legal recourse. Of course some people are going to abuse it, but that's what judges and juries are for. It would be far worse to have deformed tort laws than to just keep what we have(although I do agree that the first thing we do when the Revolution comes, is kill all the lawyers).
Oh, and please, PLEASE someone bring up the McDonald's coffee case. I haven't savagely owned anyone with cold hard facts today, so please, someone bring that up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
Yeah, our tort system is fucked up. But not the way you think. Did you know that ExxonMobil still has yet to pay any compensatory damages for the Valdez spill, even though there's a mountain of evidence showing that poor maintenance and prevention(and not Capt. Joe's bender) led to the severity of the spill? I'm sure all the Chugach natives and the people who have been wronged by a big corporation or negligent doctor are comforted by your views on tort DEFORM, Loki. You sound like Dubya.
I know you're planning on a career in medicine, but I think you've let the insurancy wonks scare you. You sound like you've got a reasonably good head on your shoulders, so I doubt you're gonna fuck up and take out someone's appendix when they needed a gall bladder removed or something equally stupid. These laws exist so that when someone is WRONGED by another person or organization, they have a legal recourse. Of course some people are going to abuse it, but that's what judges and juries are for. It would be far worse to have deformed tort laws than to just keep what we have(although I do agree that the first thing we do when the Revolution comes, is kill all the lawyers).
Oh, and please, PLEASE someone bring up the McDonald's coffee case. I haven't savagely owned anyone with cold hard facts today, so please, someone bring that up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
Felidae_Khrall
Member
Raoul Duke said:
Hey now!!!! How the fuck was she supposed to know that coffee was hot ??? I mean, it's not like there's precedent on this kind of thing, it was in a cup! It could have been any temperature. There should have been some kind of klaxon or warning lights to show that this COFFEE was HOT!
AstroLad said:
Exactly noone's telling Walmart to hire a 5000 dolllor an hour lawyer to defend against a case that any 2nd or 3rd year law student should be able to get tossed right out of the gate. It's like using a bazzoka to swat a fly then getting pissed at the fly after your house is destroyed. If being a big gigantic money hole of a company isn't enough to bring out the shady and shisty then paying them money on cases that are obviously fraudulant is like waving a red flag infront of a bull. I agree with what someone else said that perhaps a change in the law that says if your case is bounced before it gets to a full trial then you have to pay both court cost, would be a great deterent to those people who are looking to make a quick buck at the expeince of big busness.
RaymondCarver
Member
these people are ludacris.
There's a thing called FREEDOM, and people need to know how to live on both sides of the fence. Jesus.
...like my comments on this banal issue even matter. Keens and his wife, Melanie, should be flogged and labled gold-digging bad parents.
There's a thing called FREEDOM, and people need to know how to live on both sides of the fence. Jesus.
...like my comments on this banal issue even matter. Keens and his wife, Melanie, should be flogged and labled gold-digging bad parents.
AstroLad said:
I wasn't "summarizing" your post, I was responding to it. Your condescension is not lost on me, however.
As for your latter comment, I feel that if one honestly believes that the system is "crazy" (I think it's absolutely BROKEN, but whatever), but doesn't like the reforms being advocated by whatever faction, then they should endeavor to implement what they feel would be more sensible reform, for the sake of the good name of their profession. Thing is, ATLA has never proposed any sort of reform, and in fact derides all attempts at reform as "attempting to curtail people's constitutional right to have their claims addressed in court"-- which is just specious nonsense. Unfortunately, the American public (consumer advocacy groups etc.) laps it up, having been goaded into an adversarial mentality bereft of personal responsibility, while the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank (not all lawyers, mind you-- just unscrupulous trial lawyers). We are being exploited, abused, and manipulated by trial lawyers, who have created this climate, this nonsensical "I've been wronged" mentality (again, this is NOT referring to legitimate claims-- if you think that all non-legitimate claims get tossed in summary judgment, however, as someone mentioned above, you're deluding yourself).
Trial lawyers spearheaded the movement away from the absolutely sensible standards of corporate/governmental negligence we had 30 years ago (where foreknowledge of said harmful circumstance had to be proven before litigation proceeded) to what we have currently, which is just "if something went wrong, someone is obviously responsible, as there are-- or should be-- no legitimate accidents". There are legal terms for this, and if you're as good a law student as your rhetoric would indicate, then you should be able to find out about this shift in our liability laws circa 30 years ago-- at the behest of lawyers (gee, I wonder why).
As for our tort system's cost to our society, some random quotes:
Source: United States Chamber of Commerce
In addition, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued similar figures in its report to Congress on the impact of our out of control tort system. Tort costs consume 2.4% of our GDP (likely higher now, since that was a 2002 figure), as compared to the next highest country, where tort costs consume 1.2% of the GDP (with most western nations falling somewhere between .8-1.1% of GDP). This amounts to a "tort tax" of $810 per person per year, or over $3200 for a family of four-- but no, there's nothing wrong, or absurd, about that.
Did you know that the tobacco companies never lost a single lawsuit in court out of dozens filed, yet were so inundated by class action lawsuits (literally thousands of them) that they decided to settle rather than fight all the claims (which would've cost even more than they ended up paying out). How is that not extortion on some level? I'm certainly not saying that tobacco companies were not at fault, but they should at least have to be found guilty in a court of law before they pay damages. The fact that lawsuits themselves, rather than the outcome of those lawsuits (i.e., a finding of negligence/liability), are being used as weapons to bludgeon businesses and other entities into submission for monetary damages is the major problem with our tort system. This "we'll sue you into submission" mentality is just...wrong. If the facts stand against a company, then let those facts decide damages, not the threat and cost of defending against hundreds of (in many cases, but not necessarily tobacco's case) spurious lawsuits.
Do you know how much the lawyers who brought the class action suit against Philip Morris earned? Mind you, the actual people harmed (i.e., lung cancer, emphysema, death etc.) by the products received a mere pittance (something on the order of $5-10K per person). But each lawyer working that case earned an astonishing $93,000 per hour. Each lawyer, not the entire team or firm. Dickie Scruggs himself earned over $1 billion. Think about that and tell me again how nothing is at all wrong with our system.
It's just an entirely BROKEN system, and I fail to see how ANYONE can defend it as presently constituted. Again, nobody is saying that people who are legitimately wronged do not deserve their day in court, or compensation, but if you think that all that's happening is that "legitimate cases are being brought", then you're beyond hope (summary judgment is a joke in many jurisdictions due to cronyism-- judges were lawyers themselves, you know; if you think impropriety does not exist at every level in our court system, you haven't been paying close enough attention-- newspapers are filled with stories of judicial impropriety). The biggest change, however, has been in the law itself, which has expanded the criteria for liability/negligence to absurdly indefensible lengths.
I'm not condescending to you, I'm just fucking with you. Big difference. If I were condescending, it would be because I think you're an idiot. If I'm fucking with you, it's because I don't have the time to respond to all of your points, but I always have time to make a harmless joke.
BigJonsson
Member
Geez...
I bet this family is a Bush supporter and supports the troops at all costs...
Someone let them know how often the F word is used in a war...
I bet this family is a Bush supporter and supports the troops at all costs...
Someone let them know how often the F word is used in a war...
Raoul Duke said:
First off, who was speaking of medical malpractice cases? You are under the erroneous impression that my choice of future profession somehow informs my thoughts on this matter. If you must know-- since you're basically calling my integrity into question by making such a claim-- I've always felt that our tort system was fucked up. "Always" as in, "for at least 10 years now". Yet the very first inkling that I had to become a doctor was roughly 2.5 years ago. That's a 7+ year gap where I had no vested interest in the state of the system, yet where I realized that society has a vested interest in seeing that it's functioning properly and justly, which it currently is not. So please don't try to insinuate that I'm speaking from (future) self-interest. If you don't want to believe that I've always felt this way-- WAY before I realized I wanted to be a physician-- then that's your right. You'll basically be calling me a liar, however, which is not cool. Also realize that I would swear on a freaking Bible, to God, to this fact, which is something you know I wouldn't do unless it were true. So believe what you wish...
As an aside, you mention "other providers" who pay out "less than one percent of their annual budget to court proceedings/awards". Perhaps. I do know, however, that ob-gyns and neurosurgeons in many states are paying upwards of $180-200K per year for malpractice insurance; dozens of hospitals around the nation have had to remove their obstetric, pediatric and ER services due to the insolvency of those programs due to a combination of insurance costs and shrinking reimbursements, and this directly affects access to care for those in these communities. Same goes for physician flight from rural areas for these same reasons. Now, whether that is directly the result of our tort system, or of insurance companies receiving diminishing returns on their investments in a bear market and then passing along the difference between those actual earnings and their projected earnings to physicians in the form of higher premiums, is another matter entirely, and one which is not entirely answerable due to confounding variables. Let it be known that I here am speaking not of the medical field, however, but of our tort system in general and the absolutely diseased mentality it has engendered in our society.
Yes, because I obviously do not want corporations to pay for their reasonably forseeable mistakes (especially ones with such profound environmental consequences). Right-- that's what I'm espousing. :lol I mean, it's not like I've ever...oh, I dunno...railed against corporate gluttony and prevailing corporate policy on any number of issues. Oh, wait-- I have done that. But yeah, I guess I'm just a corporate whore in sheep's clothing, just like Dubya. Keep drinking that Pabst, Raoul. I generally don't like to insult people, but how do you expect me to respond when you call my integrity-- the thing I hold dearest-- into question on the basis of spurious "evidence" (my disagreement with our current tort system) while you ignore mountains of contrary "evidence" (my past posts on matters corporate). How would you take that? I know you wouldn't take kindly to it, that's for sure...
Emotional rhetoric. Again, yes, I'm exactly like George W. Bush, a shill for corporate interests. News flash: I despise corporations and the effect they've had on innumerable aspects of our society. I abhor them in a way that I don't think you realize-- I'm honestly repulsed by them. Yet here you try to paint me as sympathetic to them just because I also happen to take issue with our tort system? Yeah, that's real logical. Pro-tip: just because our tort system serves as a legitimate tool of the aggrieved against corporate/institutional malfeasance does not mean that it is always utilized in such a capacity, nor that all of its features are necessarily proper, benign, and conducive to the realization of those ends. This is what you're missing by painting in broad strokes.
And again, though I wasn't speaking herein of medical malpractice, obviously I want to limit the ability of those harmed by a legitimate act of malpractice to bring suit against a physician/hospital and recover commensurate damages. Obviously. </sarcasm, for the denser among us>
Learn to think before you speak, please.
Yes, because every suit brought contains actual negligence. If you want to go there, the fact of the matter is this: the medical malpractice system is broken for BOTH plaintiffs and defendants. Independent analyses (most recently one by Harvard's legal institute) conducted by panels consisting of physicians, judges, and attorneys have found that upwards of 80% of those who are victims of legitimate malpractice never receive compensation (i.e., the defendants are found not liable), while 80%+ of the verdicts rendered for the plaintiff (i.e., physician/hospital found liable by a jury) have been found to contain zero negligence. So legitimately wronged people are getting shafted and legitimately innocent doctors and hospitals are getting shafted as well. You know who's not getting shafted? The only people who win in every case: attorneys. But all this is entirely reasonable, I suppose, in whatever world it is you'd like to live in.
Fact is, I believe that high malpractice insurance rates are caused by BOTH our tort system and the faulty speculative investment practices of insurance companies. This is, of course, saying nothing of the costs of defensive medicine (not to mention the adversarial and distrustful mentality that excessive litigation has provoked between physicians and patients), which according to various estimates ranges anywhere from $40-100 billion per year (enough to provide insurance for the "44 million uninsured"-- yay!). Blame lies everywhere...
And, again, I'm obviously looking to limit access to the courts or compensation for legitimately wronged individuals. :lol Right.
Well, you'd be correct, if only judges would do their job in that regard. Juries also imo have no business deciding medical cases, but that's another matter entirely. They can still award damages, but the case-- which ideally should be decided based on medical fact, not specious emotional rhetoric-- should first be subject to a panel to determine merit; this panel would consist of judges, lawyers, and physicians (note: this is the system in nearly every other western nation) who could rule whether a legitimate act of negligence occurred (seeing as how there's no codified "standard of care" in law anywhere, and lawyers use this fact to their advantage). The trial, if deemed meritorious, could then proceed to a jury, where damages could be awarded-- I'd be more in favor of instituting this one single reform than of "capping" damages etc. as is often proposed. And that is because I do not want those legitimately wronged to not be adequately compensated, contrary to your assertions.
For more information regarding the abdication of responsibility in adjudicating such claims by modern judges, see this essay (in fact, the entire site is good).
Umm, our tort system now is "deformed" by any standard you'd care to measure it by. Championing sensible reform (not "DEform" as you state) would not lead to a "worse" state of affairs than we currently have. To think otherwise is to assume that, despite the clear faults of our system, no positive change is possible without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and impinging on the right of people to bring legitimate claims or be compensated. This is specious nonsense, and you'd do well to desist in promulgating it.
And please don't ever insinuate that my views on this, or any other matter, are motivated by (future) self-interest. It's very insulting, and I've never insulted you.
Here's the thing:
Explain to me how the Tort system can be reformed in such a way that does not limit regular citizens access to it. Explain to me how the tort sytem can be reformed in such a way that corporations will not have caps as to what they have to pay out(because this is a very necessary check on corporate malfeasance and carelessness). Just go ahead and tell me.
See, the problem with people who advocate tort reform and DON'T have the Big Corporate overlord's interests at heart is that if you stand for tort reform, eventually you're going to look next to you and see Pfizer, Monsanto, Dow, ExxonMobil and all of the slime of the earth fuckers that want to reform tort laws to their advantadge. Because they have the stage on this issue, and you speaking your piece of mind doesn't mean shit in the big picture.
If you could have our currently flawed(and even I admit that it's flawed) system of tort laws in place, or a package of reforms that would limit who could bring suits, how much damage could be paid out in said suits, and whether or not the media could be informed of these suits against these multi-national fuedal lords or corporatism, well guess what? I'm gonna stay with the current flawed system rather than break it in half and toss it to the side.
I will say that I'm sorry if I intimated in any way that your career choice had anything to do with your views on tort reform. I was unaware of certain time tables, but I stand by my statement: no matter your intentions and what sorts of tort reforms you'd like to see enacted, saying "I am for tort reform" at all effectively puts you on the side of the corporate swinefucks that run our earth these days. You may not intend it, but it in a practical sense it is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRA BONUS FUN STORY TIME!!!!!!! SUPER OK!!!!!!!!!! I'M LOVIN IT!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is for you guys who wanted to know about the McDonald's coffee case. Here's what you've been told happened: an elderly lady picked up her order from the drive through window and dumped her cup of coffee in her lap, singeing her slightly and sending her to the hospital and ultimately to a court case where she ended being awarded in excess of a cool 2 million for dumping coffee on herself. A posterchild for what is wrong with tort law, right?
WRONG.
First off, that particular McDonald's location had had over 40 complaints regarding the temperature of their coffee in the 12 months prior to the incident at hand. So there you have a history of ignoring consumer feedback germane to the issue at hand. The media, God bless 'em, never told you guys that. They decided to focus on the 2 million bucks and the dumping of the coffee in the lap angle, making it look like this old lady was out for money.
Well, she wasn't. She wrote McDonald's and asked them to cover the expenses she incurred for being hospitalized for several weeks after sustaining THIRD DEGREE BURNS to her thighs, buttocks and genitals. She had to go through some skin graft operations. McDonald's charitably refused to cover her medical bills(in the low tens of thousands), leaving her no recourse but to bring suit. She did and won. Media never told you any of THAT either, did they?
I bet you're still saying, well ok, but two million plus seems kind of steep for what happened, considering she was the one who dropped the cup on herself in the first place. Well guess what? The jury agreed with you, and cut her reward by 3/4 due to her own role in the incident. So she DIDN'T get 2 million, more like 700k(which I'm pretty sure is still, at this point, hung up in the appeals process. God bless you, Mickey D's!).
So what we have is a case of Tort Law WORKING as it should. And thanks to our ever helpful friends in the "liberal" media, it's the posterchild for Tort abuse. Thanks guys, big coporations could never ruin our country without you(oh wait, you're OWNED by those big corporations. I think I'm starting to see).
Explain to me how the Tort system can be reformed in such a way that does not limit regular citizens access to it. Explain to me how the tort sytem can be reformed in such a way that corporations will not have caps as to what they have to pay out(because this is a very necessary check on corporate malfeasance and carelessness). Just go ahead and tell me.
See, the problem with people who advocate tort reform and DON'T have the Big Corporate overlord's interests at heart is that if you stand for tort reform, eventually you're going to look next to you and see Pfizer, Monsanto, Dow, ExxonMobil and all of the slime of the earth fuckers that want to reform tort laws to their advantadge. Because they have the stage on this issue, and you speaking your piece of mind doesn't mean shit in the big picture.
If you could have our currently flawed(and even I admit that it's flawed) system of tort laws in place, or a package of reforms that would limit who could bring suits, how much damage could be paid out in said suits, and whether or not the media could be informed of these suits against these multi-national fuedal lords or corporatism, well guess what? I'm gonna stay with the current flawed system rather than break it in half and toss it to the side.
I will say that I'm sorry if I intimated in any way that your career choice had anything to do with your views on tort reform. I was unaware of certain time tables, but I stand by my statement: no matter your intentions and what sorts of tort reforms you'd like to see enacted, saying "I am for tort reform" at all effectively puts you on the side of the corporate swinefucks that run our earth these days. You may not intend it, but it in a practical sense it is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRA BONUS FUN STORY TIME!!!!!!! SUPER OK!!!!!!!!!! I'M LOVIN IT!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is for you guys who wanted to know about the McDonald's coffee case. Here's what you've been told happened: an elderly lady picked up her order from the drive through window and dumped her cup of coffee in her lap, singeing her slightly and sending her to the hospital and ultimately to a court case where she ended being awarded in excess of a cool 2 million for dumping coffee on herself. A posterchild for what is wrong with tort law, right?
WRONG.
First off, that particular McDonald's location had had over 40 complaints regarding the temperature of their coffee in the 12 months prior to the incident at hand. So there you have a history of ignoring consumer feedback germane to the issue at hand. The media, God bless 'em, never told you guys that. They decided to focus on the 2 million bucks and the dumping of the coffee in the lap angle, making it look like this old lady was out for money.
Well, she wasn't. She wrote McDonald's and asked them to cover the expenses she incurred for being hospitalized for several weeks after sustaining THIRD DEGREE BURNS to her thighs, buttocks and genitals. She had to go through some skin graft operations. McDonald's charitably refused to cover her medical bills(in the low tens of thousands), leaving her no recourse but to bring suit. She did and won. Media never told you any of THAT either, did they?
I bet you're still saying, well ok, but two million plus seems kind of steep for what happened, considering she was the one who dropped the cup on herself in the first place. Well guess what? The jury agreed with you, and cut her reward by 3/4 due to her own role in the incident. So she DIDN'T get 2 million, more like 700k(which I'm pretty sure is still, at this point, hung up in the appeals process. God bless you, Mickey D's!).
So what we have is a case of Tort Law WORKING as it should. And thanks to our ever helpful friends in the "liberal" media, it's the posterchild for Tort abuse. Thanks guys, big coporations could never ruin our country without you(oh wait, you're OWNED by those big corporations. I think I'm starting to see).
I will, just not tonight (finals coming up). Maybe tomorrow, maybe not, but I will get back to this topic at some point. The answers (as to what would constitute sensible reform while maintaining access and accountability) are out there if you care to look for them, though. Do not be deceived by the ATLA sophistry which states that any reform at all is tantamount to a violation of our civil rights. Reforms should be examined on their own merits, not lumped together whole as "nonsense" based on mere emotional appeals.
False dichotomy. I will not deny that corporations wish to curtail their tort liability for their own, oftentimes selfish, ends, but that in no way speaks to the issue of the propriety of our system as constituted. If reforms are instituted sensibly, they will guarantee (at least to a greater extent than currently) that legitimate instances of malfeasance are punished accordingly while frivolous claims fall by the wayside. As an analogy (and to use a recently enacted reform), consider the draconian Rockefeller drug laws which were recently overhauled in NY after standing for nearly 30 years. To any sensible person, they were excessive in their penalties (mandating, in many cases, more years in prison for mere possession of weed or cocaine than for rape or murder); many people called for their reform. It would be silly to say to those who sought the reform that "they are going to look next to them and see the dredges of humanity, drug users and peddlers, standing shoulder to shoulder with them in their cause" in an attempt to paint that cause as wrong-- as you can see, the issue of who may be supporting a cause has no bearing on its correctness, in any sphere. In my opinion. I see where you're coming from, obviously-- as I said, I hate corporations-- I just disagree with your conclusions in this instance.
But I'll say more at a later time, if that's alright.
Cyan said:Got some of your facts slightly wrong there, Triumph (you are Triumph, right?). Close, but not quite right. Also, you left out some other important Stella facts. Should've checked out the link I posted.
For the record, I am pro-tort reform. And no, I don't have the perfect solution that will save society and cause the wheelchair-bound to walk again. There is no panacea.
But why do I need to have that? Can I not point out that there's something wrong with the current system without having my own unique solution for it? The fact that I'm pro-tort reform doesn't mean I'm also pro-huge corporations. I'm not going to agree with their "solutions" just because they claim to reform things.
Whoever thinks they make good "points" here truly has no comprehension of tort law. This is the most biased, disingenuous site I have seem in a long time, which is saying a lot.
Uh, yeah, this is how settlements work. And it's the defendants that want them kept secret, the plaintiffs could give a fuck. So this cuts against McDonald's, but it's fun to say "it's secret!" and I suppose that kind of stupidity passes for a relevant point to these people.
Okay, first of all, those "70 burns per year" are documented instances only. God knows how many people get badly burned, and don't go to the hospital, or do go the hospital but neglect to say it was coffee from McDonald's specifically, or say that it was coffee from McDonald's specifically but no one records that fact. But even the 700/79billion point, which is weak for them anyway, is irrelevant. To be "unreasonably dangerous" something doesn't have to injure some threshold percentage of its users (I can just imagine, "okay, the Pinto's killed 1% of its users, can we declare it dangerous yet"..."no, only .1% of those deaths are documented to be attributable directly to the Pinto, and we need a good 2% anyway"), that has absolutely nothing to do with it. For example, the girl who got her intestines sucked down by the defective pool pump. Do you know they sold thousands of those and that almost never happened? Must not be unreasonably dangerous, throw that frivolous case out and make sure the girl's intestinal leakage doesn't leave too much of a mess on the way out of the courtroom.
To wit, from a Wall Street Journal (that bastion of anti tort-reform propaganda) article:
"Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually. To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. 'There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that,' says juror Betty Farnham."
Um... yes... it's called comparative fault and she actually had her damages reduced by that exact percentage. See there's a system called contributory negligence where if you're at fault in any way you can't sue. Defective Pinto blew up and killed you? Sorry, shouldn't have been driving 58 in a 55. Under most comparative fault regimes, plaintiffs can recover as long as the defendant's negligence is still the primary cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and they are only on the hook for the portion of the harm caused by their actions. Under comparative fault, as long as the defendant's negligence is still the primary cause of your injury, you can recover, but only to the extent of their fault and you don't get compensated a penny for the 2% of the fault your manic driving contributed to the Pinto's spontaneous explosion.
And to reiterate just some basic facts:
-A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.
-Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.
-She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).
-Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
-McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
You can be all gung-ho tort reform as much as you want for whatever reason you want, but you need at least have a basic understanding of the underlying principles of tort law beyond what sensationalistic web sites lead you to believe.
Phoenix
Member
Funky Papa said:
I don't believe Walmart has any legal obligation to make sure that their music selection is 'clean' so I'm not sure on which grounds this case would have merits. If Walmart chooses to label CDs with labels or not carry CD's that't their choice. It is not their responsibility to make sure the content of a product they carry is suitable to a consumer - that's the consumers job. Walmart doesn't have any signs in the store saying that they only carry 'clean' music, nor do they make any attempt to market the stores music selection in that way. While they have gone out of their way to not carry certain music selections, that in no way obligates them to censor content on the behalf of consumers.
That would be my defense if I had to defend this in court anyways.
Fusebox said:
She wasn't "too stupid" to realize "coffee is hot." The coffee popped open and gave her fucking third degree burns over six percent of her body. Do you know what third degree burns look like and the kind of surgery they require?
http://www.ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/images/spec_burn_1.jpg
And she had those burns on her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.
Phoenix
Member
Fusebox said:
Fixed.
If I buy something from McDonalds it is there responsibility to make sure that it is ready for consumption. It would be similar to them undercooking meat and giving it to you and you finding out about it because it made you sick. When you purchase those goods there is a reasonable expectation that they are in a condition such that they will not injure you.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
I would like to point out that frivolous lawsuits are filed by big companies as well. I know a Realtor who put on his website in his "about me" section that he had worked for such and such a real estate firm for 10 years. He was contacted by their lawyer saying he had to take their name off his website or they would sue. "You mean I can't tell people about the job I had for 10 years?" Nope. He didn't fight it, not because he would lose, but because he didn't want to spend the time or money.
Or how about the time the American Greeting Card company asked Penny Arcade to take down the Strawberry Shortcake Dominatrix comic? Frivolous lawsuits (or threats of ones) can hurt individuals as well.
Or how about the time the American Greeting Card company asked Penny Arcade to take down the Strawberry Shortcake Dominatrix comic? Frivolous lawsuits (or threats of ones) can hurt individuals as well.
- Status