OT: Bad Mojo

[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

[sachmo]

Originally posted by DeadZone:
I remember a case over there where a yank sued McDonalds for making him fat

Like Kevin said, its just another source of free money
The lazy People of the world are always looking for the quick buck
Granted, we all dream of becoming rich overnight, but personally I find earning my money more rewarding

It was thrown out of court. They told him that he had to prove that McDonalds and the other defendants actually mislead him and that the food was more harmful than he was lead to believe. If he can prove this, he has a case.

Litigation has turned into a weapon in this country. Hopefully something will be done, but in the meantime, it's sue city.

Don't worry, AT. It doesn't sound like this guy has a case.

[dmm]

We have to put up with warning labels everywhere that try to think of every possible contingency, as if we're all a bunch of imbeciles, and we all pay higher prices for everything, and insurance companies won't let anybody have any fun anymore, just so a few people and their attorneys can "win the lottery." It has to stop.
There are several fairly simple solutions to the overabundant lawsuit problem:
1) Do not allow attorneys to get paid a percentage of the damage award. (I think Canada does this.) Or, to make it more fair to non-rich people who otherwise might not be able to sue (even when they should), put a cap on the amount that attorneys can collect. Or, allow juries or judges to determine the attorney's payment from the award.
2) Allow juries the power to penalize someone who brings a ridiculous lawsuit. They can decide if the suer or his attorney should pay.
3) I like that demerit idea also.
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.
5) Give the defendant home-field advantage. If a multi-state corporation gets sued, they should get to pick the location where the suit takes place. Currently, the plaintiff picks the location, and of course attorneys always pick places with a history of big damage awards or where the defendant is disliked. If you are suing Microsoft for destroying your future because Windows allowed your little sister to delete your entire 50-page term paper and you think Windows should have warned you to make a backup, then I think Microsoft should at least be allowed to have the trial in Seattle, or even Redmond.

[Baron Munchausen]

Deh!

If he was legally intoxicated at the time he ran over this guy I don't see how he can escape responsibility. What in the world is a 'pipe kit'? Some sort of super-charger that makes it more powerful? Presumably this could 'surprise' someone and make it more difficult to control properly. Unless this outing where he was drunk was the very first time he'd ridden the thing I don't see how that matters, but even if so I doubt it's enough to get him off the hook.

That's the other incentive besides money for suing everyone for everything you can think of. You can at least claim in court that you are not responsible when you have claims against someone else. But when your claims fail to win the case, I think you are left with responsibility for your own actions.

Yes, there are sanctions for 'frivolous' lawsuits. The definition of 'frivolous' varies from state to state, but a lawyer who files to many stupid lawsuits can be accused of 'barratry' and subject to fines, suspension of license to practice law, or outright revocation of license to practice law. The problem is how difficult it is to get a state bar to decide that a lawsuit is 'over the top' these days.

[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 ]

[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!