How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[Growltigger]

Atrocities and Narf, I cannot comment on the insurance company/medical issues you are talking about as I know very little about this aspect of the US legal system, and what I do know annoys me. I'll leave it to you chaps to discuss the situation.

Mephisto, me old sauerkraut and bratwurst munching, bitburger swilling teutonic chum, long time no currywurst, how are you doing?

I suggest we leave this topic to a US discussion about their jury trial system.

Mephisto and myself, on behalf of the non-US legal community, have made our position clear. We look on from the outside and think the US systems needs reform rather badly.

IMHO, the first step would be to stop with the blame=damages concept, and divorce the concept of damages=compensation. As long as your legal system allows these speculative cases, it is going to be abused by unscrupulous professionals and people out to make a fast buck. Simple as that.

My personal view? ditch the right of the jury to set what compensation is. Set up two clear criteria, "punishment" and "damages". Punishment is at the discretion of the court, and should not be financial. "Damages" need to be proved, and be realistic to what actually has occurred. You smash my car up with a baseball bat? your punishment is a custodial sentence or a fine, damages equal the cost to me of replacing or repairing my car, not several million dollars (which you probably cant pay anyhow) for my feelings!

Atrocities and Geo, please let me have your full names, social security numbers and residential addresses so that I can instruct my US lawyers (the eminent firm of Robbem, Screwem and Scarper)to issue libel proceedings against the pair of you

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Growltigger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rdouglass:
Just 2 cents....

The truth (as usual) is somewhere there in the middle. Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely.

I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors,

---

AY CARUMBA! Your lumping surveyors in the same pay class as lawyers? As a surveyor Now I'm offended. (No not really ) Surveyors are not a rich bunch. (of course I aslo know that the term 'surveyor' has a completely different meaning in the UK)

And if AT is gonna change the name of this thread don't be putting in 'American' We have the same kind of crap going on in Canada. The only thing wrong with the name is the term "THE Lawyers" instead of "Some lawyers" One of my best friends is a lawyer and he's a great guy as are I expect 90% of the rest. Unfortunately it's that other 10% (some would say higher, maybe lower) giving the rest a bad name.

I would, however, say the real problem is the judges who award the ridiculous claims. ie giving a guy $600,000 for an accident he was involved in while drunk.

[Growltigger]

DavidG, dunno what surveyors earn but before I met the current Mrs GT, I did go out with a rather nice young surveyor who had a very nice sports car, an expensive flat and cash to burn, as well as rather nice legs.

There is an office of surveyors next to me, and they all seem to drive rather expensive cars!

[rextorres]

It's unfortunate that some politicians and radio pundits have been able to shift the discussion to blame the trial lawyers instead of focusing on companies that act recklessly or criminally while at the same time not insisting that these companies at least be forced to act responsibly.

The whole point of punitive damages (which some here have mistaken as "pain and suffering") is to punish companies for reckless and criminal behavior. Not as some have claimed as a form of a lottery. An analogy would be the speeding ticket. If the fine for a speeding ticket is only $5 you probably would not stop speeding. If it's $100s of dollars is all of a sudden makes you stop and think. Also - you can't throw a company in jail, but you can cause it to pay large sums of money.

The poster child for frivolous lawsuits is McDonald's. What you hear on the radio is that this woman should have known coffee was hot.

What you don't hear about is that McD's to save a couple of pennies on each coffee sold was serving coffee that was needlessly too hot in cups that were notorious for loosing their lid. This woman was not the first to have complained and McD's purposely ignored and dismissed any complaints. In fact McD's didn't even offer an apology or any medical compensation they just hoped the woman would go away. The woman had to go through months of therapy because of these burns. If I had been in that woman's place I would have been mad and you probably would have been too.

The only way to force them to change this reckless practice was through a lawsuit. Tom Delay or Rush Limbaugh sure would not have done anything about it.

A good example of a company that did act responibly is Odwalla and they never paid punitive damages because they acted as a company should. You all can look it up if you are interested.

Anyway - I would suggest that most if not all high punitive damage awards are the result of companies not only producing faulty products but also covering them up to continue to make profits.

I don't know about you but if someone I loved died or suffered extreme harm because of a company's malfeasance I think that company should be held accountable.

Now anyone who thinks that a company should not be held accountable when they knowingly cause extreme harm or death please speak up.

[Mephisto]

IMHO it is still the women’s fault. Anyone can feel from the outside of the cup of coffee that it is hot. It is not the fault of MD that she put it into her lap on way or the other no matter how hot it was. If you drive to fast on the highway it is you that is responsible and not the car company because it build a fast car.

If the company sells malfunctioning products to the public and people suffer from it, the solution is simple (at least over here): The company pays for the damage it caused (and to some extend for physical pain, but seldom more then 20k €). As a punitive, we get the heads of the people responsible that such a product entered the market, be it on purpose or negligence. They will go to jail for it and no legal construct will help them.
Result: The consumer gets his damage replaced and the responsible person will get his punishment. I see absolutely no need to punish the company and all the honest people working for it by enforcing punitive damage on the company when the few people that are responsible can be punished directly. Just my 0.02$

@Growltigger: It going fine over here, a lot of work at the moment as I have completed all my tests and exams in November Last year. I have sworn my oath in January and I’m now a lawyer in all respects of the German law. I got lucky and got a job immediately despite the high unemployment rate here in Germany. Only my free time has suffered in the process.

[Phoenix-D]

However it is probably the fault of the company if you hurt yourself because their car requires only the slightest touch on the accelerator to go to full speed.

Similarly, the coffee in that case can be best described as way too hot. Coffee should not cause third-degree burns..

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Similarly, the coffee in that case can be best described as way too hot. Coffee should not cause third-degree burns…

Well, coffee is served hot by definition, isn't it? When I order a meal it has to be hot and I just fail to see why the company has to sell you a meal that is exactly at the point where it is hot, but not already to cold for the majority of people to enjoy the meal but not hot enough to cause third-degree burns if you spill it over yourself either.
I order hot food, not something to put on my skin safely!
It's a little bit like asking for inflammable fuel in case you spill it over yourself at the gas station while smoking...

[DavidG]

Rex I thought we were talking about frivolous lawsuits not ones against companies that act recklessly and criminally? It costs you money to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit (even one you win) while at the same time the lawyer on the otherside is making money. And that ain't right. Now at this point someone is thinking 'well why not just counter sue'? Well when you are sued by some unemployed bum with $5 in his pocket who got legal aid, who are you going to sue? (that's the way things can and do work here in Canada)

Re the McD's case

A legal system that relies on morons who put steaming cups of hot coffee between their legs while driving to punish their reckless and criminal mega corporations is deeply deeply flawed. If McD's was knowingly using E-coli tainted beef in their burgers (cooking kills that right? so hey what's the harm) would you not expect lawmakers to do something about it?

Re: hot coffee causeing 3rd degree burns.

Coffee is made from boiling water. Water boils at 100 degrees C. I think it is quite resonable to assume that coffee may be this hot. IT certainly is if you pour a cup of black coffee at home. But I'll admit maybe McD's was negligent since they had been apparantly warned many times that this was dangerous (only to extremely dim people but still, I guess we got to protect them too), however the punishment should be as Mephisto said. Somewhere in the McD's corporation there is a guy that decided 'coffee must be served this hot, no exceptions' and ignore all the complaints. Find this guy and give him a little jail time.

[rextorres]

It wasn't just that the coffee was too hot. Although they did sell coffee that was hotter than normal so that they could keep it around longer.

They were also providing coffee cups with lids that had a huge tendency to come off. This might not sound like a big deal, but they were selling them at a drive through. Which is not good if the coffee you sell has a tendency too cause major burns.

I might add that the women's lawsuit was not in a vaccuum other people had complained about these issues and McD's had chosen to ignore them.

Anyway - might point wasn't to debate the merits of this particular lawsuit I was just trying to point out that sometimes the only way to change a corporation's bad behavior is through litigation and that if a company acts reponsibly they will avoid these big legal challenges.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

according to past Posts when the subject was Last brought up: normal coffee - 140'F Mcdonalds coffee in that incident - 180'F.

If the company sells malfunctioning products to the public and people suffer from it, the solution is simple (at least over here): The company pays for the damage it caused (and to some extend for physical pain, but seldom more then 20k €). As a punitive, we get the heads of the people responsible that such a product entered the market, be it on purpose or negligence. They will go to jail for it and no legal construct will help them.
Result: The consumer gets his damage replaced and the responsible person will get his punishment. I see absolutely no need to punish the company and all the honest people working for it by enforcing punitive damage on the company when the few people that are responsible can be punished directly. Just my 0.02$

good point, and the way i think it should work to.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]