OT: Bad Mojo

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dmm:

2) Allow juries the power to penalize someone who brings a ridiculous lawsuit. They can decide if the suer or his attorney should pay.
4) Do not allow people to sue an entire corporation because of the actions of one person or one store or one franchise. For example, a woman tried to drive away from McDonald's with hot coffee between her legs. The cup came open, she got badly burned down there, and she sued McDonald's, Inc. What would she have been awarded if she had sued the McDonald's employee who was working at the drive-in that day (on the basis that he neglected to remind her that the coffee was hot)? Nothing, of course! How about the manager (on the basis that he didn't train the employee properly)? Little or nothing. How about the franchise owner (on the basis that he ordered the coffee temperature set too high)? Maybe her medical bills, but no pain and suffering. But because McDonald's is a big company, and the jury felt sorry for her, they awarded her something like a million dollars.

I disagree.

2. Who would decide what makes a lawsuit rediculous? If anyone were going to make that determination, the jury would be the Last choice on my list. Besides, I don't think you could ever get this method to be seen as constitutional.

4. In the McDonalds case, it was company policy. So the company was responsible. In this country, when you are at work, you represent your company, so they are liable for you actions. Hopefully, reason can still prevail in most cases, but wouldn't most companies start blaming a single employee in this case, allowing them to break laws and then hold the employee responsible? I don't think anyone wants that.

[ July 21, 2004, 18:37: Message edited by: sachmo ]

[Gandalf Parker]

What irritates me about courts is when the government uses it against you. My in-laws lost their house that way. The town wanted to widen the creek for flood control (which my in-laws had never had a problem with). Of course a "reasonable price" was offered for the property but it was way below market value so my father-in-law sued. He was quickly told by his lawyer that the price offered was nearly EXACTLY the market value minus the cost of taking it to court so he can sue and win but it would end up as the same money. Apparently thats a common tactic.

By the way, he did it anyway just cause he was pissed about it.

[ July 21, 2004, 19:21: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Atrocities]

Really is not that bad of luck. It is the society we live in.

[primitive]

Land of the free, eh….

Isn’t the ability to live a normal life without fear of being prosecuted (sued) a basic human right?
You could always sue the government for letting this happen to you

[David E. Gervais]

When the sun comes up and it's hidden by fog.
I know the day is going to be a dog.

I'm being followed by Bad Mojo, Bad Mojo, Bad Mojo.

When my first cup of tea has a spoonfull of coffee.
I know things are heading into the doom valley.

I'm being followed by Bad Mojo, Bad Mojo.

When my first post today is a silly little limerick.
I know that I'll soon be able to beat it.

I'm being followed by Bad Mojo.

When grumpy old clouds are chasing me around.
I sing a happy tune and my happiness is found.

The Bad Mojo has faded away, away, away.



That's how I chase the blues away, and how no cloud stands in my way.
I make the day bend to my will, and always manage to crest that hill.

I know it's a silly post, but it's all about adjusting my frame of mind. I feel much better now. This is going to be a great day.

Cheers!

[dmm]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
What irritates me about courts is when the government uses it against you. My in-laws lost their house that way. The town wanted to widen the creek for flood control (which my in-laws had never had a problem with). Of course a "reasonable price" was offered for the property but it was way below market value so my father-in-law sued. He was quickly told by his lawyer that the price offered was nearly EXACTLY the market value minus the cost of taking it to court so he can sue and win but it would end up as the same money. Apparently thats a common tactic.

By the way, he did it anyway just cause he was pissed about it.

This type of rip-off was featured recently on 60 Minutes. (Non-US FYI: That's a well-respected news show in the US; normally too liberally slanted for my blood, but generally reliable.) One example was a town condemning a group of perfectly sound houses. Why? They had a picturesque view, and the town intended to sell the condemned property to a developer to build big expensive houses that would bring in more tax income for the city. The houses of the town mayor and council members did not meet the new code under which the condemnation was taking place, yet the mayor actually tried to defend the action as "progress." The good news is that the people sued and won.

[dmm]

Originally posted by sachmo:
2. Who would decide what makes a lawsuit rediculous? If anyone were going to make that determination, the jury would be the Last choice on my list.

Currently, the jury decides whether or not a lawsuit is NOT ridiculous. So why not let them also decide that a lawsuit IS ridiculous? It is the same exact system as what we have now, except that it gives the jury a third option. It is also much more fair, since in the current system only the accused has to face the jury -- the accuser has nothing to lose. There are leeches who make a fine living out of accusing one moneyed person/company after another. Sure, they strike out a lot, but they have an endless number of at bats, so eventually they hit a home run.

Originally posted by sachmo:
Besides, I don't think you could ever get this method to be seen as constitutional.

What is unconstitutional about it? It protects the fundamental right of property, a principle included in the Constitution, and which actually predates the Constitution in American thought by several centuries. It also protects the idea of equal justice and equal punishment for all. People should not get free chances to throw darts at you, hoping to find a chink in your armor, just because you are rich. That is unAmerican.

Originally posted by sachmo:
4. In the McDonalds case, it was company policy. So the company was responsible.

It was company policy to give customers what they demanded: piping hot coffee. Now, all because of this one case, all coffee sold in the US is barely hot enough to burn your finger in when you buy it, so it quickly becomes lukewarm. Plus, insurance companies raised their rates for all places that sell coffee, making it more expensive. This is just one, fairly trivial, example of how all of us are suffering from the current tort system. (Correction: almost all of us. Trial lawyers and occasional home-run clients are doing quite well.)

Originally posted by sachmo:
In this country, when you are at work, you represent your company, so they are liable for you actions.

That never used to be a valid argument, it ought not to be, and increasing acceptance of this argument by juries is crippling American business. Should a delivery company get sued because one of its drivers gets drunk and has a bad accident? What if the driver has a heart attack? stroke? seizure? suicide attempt? road rage? playing with the radio? daydreaming? How much should a company monitor all of its employees' actions, both on and off the job? If you give them the responsibility, then you must give them the right. Do you really want corporate America to be Big Brother to all of its employees, continually monitoring you, telling you how to live, what to eat and drink, with instant access to all of your medical, psychiatric, financial, and criminal records? NO? Then don't hold companies responsible for everything their employees do.

Originally posted by sachmo:
Hopefully, reason can still prevail in most cases, but wouldn't most companies start blaming a single employee in this case, allowing them to break laws and then hold the employee responsible? I don't think anyone wants that.

This has nothing to do with my proposal. Companies try to pass the buck now, even when they are clearly at fault. My complaint is that companies get sued even when it is not their fault, just because they have deeper pockets than the at-fault employee, and (this is the key point) there is no risk to the suer to try this tactic.

[ July 22, 2004, 20:47: Message edited by: dmm ]

[tesco samoa]

david. If the court determines that it is a wasteful court case... The defendents representation fees are paid for as a fine for waisting the courts time.

Also a lawyer can lose his bar if it is seen that he/she is not up to snuff.

[Narrew]

Atrocities,

GL with your case, are you going to take that person to small claims court to get your money back for defending yourself?

[Randallw]

Originally posted by dmm:
This type of rip-off was featured recently on 60 Minutes. (Non-US FYI: That's a well-respected news show in the US; normally too liberally slanted for my blood, but generally reliable.)

We have 60 minutes in Australia as well. I don't watch it but its fair enough.

Edit: removed a bit of a rant about Australian current affairs programs which on second thought have nothing to do with the topic.

[ July 23, 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Randallw ]