Frivolous Lawsuits.

[hardheadjarhead]

There has been some expressed interest in the idea of frivolous lawsuits in our society.

What do people think? Are our high malpractice insurance rates the fault of the insurance companies, the courts, or the doctors who injure and kill people through negligence?

Are the claims that we're a litigious society overblown? Or not?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Baytor]

I think that we have become an litigious society. People seem less willing to compromise and work things out. In my opinion, people are (in general) no longer willing to take responisbility for their own actions. I think the Mcdonnalds lawsuit is a perfect example.

As far as fault goes, maybe we are all at fault for not making tort (civil lawsuits) reform a priority with our elected officials. Maybe the courts need to throw out more cases, and maybe attourneys need to stop taking foolish cases. Maybe as a society we need to start telling people "tough luck pal, chalk that up to experience."

:asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm glad you started another thread, I find this question perplexing.

I feel that some lawsuits are indeed frivolous, but if they are truly so, the presiding judge should decide that and fine, etc., the plantiff(s).

I feel that the reason we might perceive some as "frivolous" is because actually they are huge settlements.

I have 2 feelings about huge settlements. 1) These are huge numbers. Will $1 million or $10 million dollars be more effective in paying the plantiffs for their pain and suffering, loss of life or limb?

2) Some coporations (here I am particularly thinking of the cigarrette industry) are so wealthy that only huge settlements will essentially get their serious attention, and be a real punishment, rather than a slap on the wrist.

In the great tradition of dealing with grey areas, I think it depends on the case and the ruling. Some have been excessive. Some were what seems to be excessive to an individual private citizen, but may have been completely appropriate to getting the attention of the corporation.

 

[Kevin Walker]

There has been some expressed interest in the idea of frivolous lawsuits in our society.

What do people think? Are our high malpractice insurance rates the fault of the insurance companies, the courts, or the doctors who injure and kill people through negligence?

Are the claims that we're a litigious society overblown? Or not?


Regards,


Steve

I think our age of litigation is all the fault of the courts and lawyers. The court system demands that citizens never take issues into their own hands, so citizens have no recourse but to go to court.

Outside of busting a guy's head, what else can I do but constantly go to court? Yet the court system now labels a lawsuit as frivolous if it isn't spectacular enough for their merit. A lawsuit over a punch in the mouth can be deemed as frivolous.

It is over both litigation and taxes as the reasons for me not starting my own business or running a full-time dojo.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I think that we have become an litigious society. People seem less willing to compromise and work things out. In my opinion, people are (in general) no longer willing to take responisbility for their own actions. I think the Mcdonnalds lawsuit is a perfect example.

As far as fault goes, maybe we are all at fault for not making tort (civil lawsuits) reform a priority with our elected officials. Maybe the courts need to throw out more cases, and maybe attourneys need to stop taking foolish cases. Maybe as a society we need to start telling people "tough luck pal, chalk that up to experience."

:asian:

Which McDonald's lawsuit are you referring to? The one where the man was suing due to his obesity, or the one where the woman was burned by the coffee?


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Many years ago, a female friend of mine was going into Massachusetts General Hospital for some minor gynecological surgery. This is quite possibly the best hospital in the world.

She was brought to the operating room and anesthetized. When she woke up a day later, she had third degree burns up and down the back of her leg. She spent the next 8 weeks in the hospital. To this day, she has scars on her backside and the backs of her legs. A portion of the muscle tissue in her thigh has never grown back.

Fortuneately, she was able to conceive a child after the accident, although, that was in doubt until it actually happened.

Was this lawsuit "fivolous"?

Where is the distinction between "frivolous" and "not frivolous"? and who gets to decide?

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

A Frivolous Lawsuit is the following:

I was living(Renting) in a townhouse. The mainenance man was entering the houses, including ours, without our permission in particular after I left for work and the (ex)wife was getting ready for work. The local managemenr would do nothing about it. Their main office would do nothing about it. We moved out, with one month left on the lease. They brought a lawsuit against us, for the one month of rent, and damages. It took a year, and the judge finally insisted we go to trial, their lawyer was stalling, I had been ready with pictures and everything. The lawyer had to withdraw from our case as the management would not give him enough to go forward on. He had filed the mandatory removal forms to all parties, and the management did not have a new lawyer present. The judge asked if it was all cases or just this one? The lawyer replied just this one. The lawyer then made a motion to allow for a delay until the management could get representation. I objected. The judge smiled, and said, what were my objections. I stated that they had the mandatory two weeks as requried by law to get new representation. They also are maintaining this lawyer for all their other cases today. They obviously were afraid I would counter sue. The judge asked, Did You? No your Honor I did not wish to waste yours and the courts time for a couple hundred dollars of my deposit money. The judge looked at the total amount of money involved, and was visable upset. He said, we ahve been arguing and delaying for a year for less than $300 for either side, and one side has not counter filed? Case dismissed, and tell your management that I am dissatisfied with you and them today. None of their cases went well that day.

That was Frivolous, at least in my mind.

:asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

*minor thread gank*

Rich, I'm glad you did something about that. I've been in that situation TWICE now. Especially as a single woman, I am REALLY disturbed (and pissed off) when management enters my apartment without telling me a) they will be there b) they were there.

Just a couple of weeks ago I found out that maintenance guys were here by the toilet seat up and the toilet full of pee in my bathroom. Classy, is all I have to say.

Not as bad as the previous place, where they would come in, tour people through my apartment without warning or telling me, and leave the door unlocked for me to get home, wonder who was there, wonder if it was safe to go in and call the police. This is the biggest (I think) rental agency in town.

*end cathartic rant gank*

 

[MisterMike]

Maybe what we think are frivolous cases are those that (as someone stated) should have been prevented or dismissed on common sense. Kinda like going after the gun manufacturers for the cost of gun crimes.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think we are a society that is out for the "quick buck" fron the stupid lawsuit.

Recently, I went into a theater and sat down, the seat broke out of the bracket that held it into the floor, and dumped me into the row behind me. Embarassing? Sure! (Especially because I was on a blind date) But I felt the chair break in time to grab the arms of the chair behind me as I went over backwards and hold myself above the seat, so I didnt crash into the broken scraps of chair under me. SO I was not injured. I reported it to theater management, and they removed the chair.

Almost everyone I told the story to encouraged me to sue the theater. I did not. But I could not believe the number of people who suggested I should, on the grounds of "Mental Anguish" :idunno:

 

[Phoenix44]

Just one word: lawyers.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I just love it when those who espouse pure capitalism complain when people try to make money by all means necessary.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm not sure our picture of litigation always reflects reality. Often we hear about the "big bucks" awards, but rarely do we note that they are quite rare. We also note those large awards that are ludicrous...like the woman who was awarded tens of thousands of dollars when an MRI (or CAT scan, I can't recall) allegedly robbed her of her "psychic powers."

What we sometimes fail to hear, however, is the rest of the story. In the case above, the award was overturned in a higher court.

Many cite the McDonald's coffee burning case as frivolous. Again, a deeper examination finds the eigthy plus year old woman in question received third degree burns to her groin and thighs. I suspect that such trauma could have killed a woman her age. When McDonalds offered her a pittance in compensation that wouldn't cover the skin grafts and hospitalization she required, she took them on.

Her case was preceded by no less than 700 other instances wherein McDonald's coffee had injured people...so the company was quite aware that their temperature settings on coffee were dangerous. Do a "Google" search for more on this and you'll find the details. Bottom line as far as many see it: Coffee is a beverage that shouldn't maim you upon spilling it.

Two years ago a nine year old boy I knew died following adenoid surgery. He had been given too much codeine by an attending physician, and it killed him. I believe the parents settled out of court, but surely one couldn't blame them for suing had they elected to.


Point: There ARE abuses...and we always note them. We sometimes forget those instances where litigation brings positive change, if not justice, to those injured.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Phoenix44]

Well, no offense, but coffee IS hot.

You're right, many of these lawsuits are overturned, or the awards reduced. But the process itself is VERY EXPENSIVE, even if the lawsuit is thrown out or the plaintiff loses. And you have to add in the cost of all the "cover your butt" activity to reduce the likelihood of being sued for no good reason.

I think, unfortunately, Americans are increasingly refusing to take responsibility for their own stupidity. I wouldn't put a hot cup of coffee between my legs. I'd use a cup-holder.

 

[Baytor]

Which McDonald's lawsuit are you referring to? The one where the man was suing due to his obesity, or the one where the woman was burned by the coffee?


Regards,


Steve

I was talking about the obesity lawsuits. I remember seeing an interview with the guy, and his main point was that he thought that since it was 100% ground beef, it was healthy.

"I think, unfortunately, Americans are increasingly refusing to take responsibility for their own stupidity" -Phoenix44

I agree.
:asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, no offense, but coffee IS hot.

<snip>

I think, unfortunately, Americans are increasingly refusing to take responsibility for their own stupidity. I wouldn't put a hot cup of coffee between my legs. I'd use a cup-holder.

True, coffee is supposed to be hot. But not THAT hot.

Ever had a lid pop off when the cup is handed to you? Ever just spill a little bit and the reflexive jerk from the burn causes you to spill more? I've had defective cups crush in my hands, had my thumb punch through the side...and I wasn't squeezing tightly. In Borders I had a handle spontaneously fall off a cup, spilling much of it on me (and wasn't burned because of its lower temperature). I've been jostled while carrying "to go cups" spilling the contents on me and others. While driving I've hit potholes, While walking I've slipped on black ice, spilling it. I even had one of those automatic shoulder harnesses dump a cup in my lap when it swung up into place (this was funny, and I wasn't hurt...it was cool enough as it was home brewed...I only received first degree burns).

Even when one is careful, stuff happens.

One shouldn't have a cup full of potential agony handed to them when they go into a fast food store. The product you receive shouldn't be dangerous. That woman, at worst, should have received a first degree burn to her lap.

This woman received third degree burns. Her skin was destoyed by this liquid. I will write that again for emphasis. Her skin was destroyed by this liquid.

Nobody can drink coffee that hot. Your lips, tongue and esophagus aren't invulnerable to such heat. One has to let it cool. Serve it cooler and the customer gets to drink it sooner and without risk of injury.

There is absolutely no excuse for McDonald's having their coffee at such a temperature. Would anyone allow their child to have a cup of hot chocolate that could potentially scar them for life?

I will agree that many in our country refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions. The incident of the man suing McDonald's for his obesity is a perfect case in point, and I've listed one other case...but the issue of one company's scalding coffee injuring over 700 people before they take corrective action doesn't fall into that category.

Not by a long shot.


Regards,


Steve

 

[qizmoduis]

Yes, the whole point of the McD's coffee suit wasn't the fact that the coffee spilled and was hot. It was that the lady involved recieved THIRD DEGREE BURNS from it. No drink needs to be that hot. Third degree burns are very serious. This is not a good example of a frivolous lawsuit, in my opinion.

 

[Cryozombie]

. It was that the lady involved recieved THIRD DEGREE BURNS from it. No drink needs to be that hot.

Yes, actually I read that McDonalds was warned several times by the Health department to lower the temp on their coffee and they refused.

I think if you are AWARE of a danger, and ignore it... and someone gets hurt and sues... that would not be a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Melissa426]

Honest real life story. Happened about two weeks ago to friends of mine.

Two women, Lisa and Lori, went to a fast food restaurant. Between them, they have 5 kids. Lisa's 8 month old baby was sitting in a high chair. Lori was making a bottle for her 5 month old, when a teenage employee walked by and offered to bring Lori some hot water for the baby's bottle. Lisa was getting the other kids' meals together when the fast food employee walked back with a cup of hot water and set it on the tray of the high chair.

The 8 month old, like any baby that age, reached out and grabbed the cup. Hot water spilled down his abdomen and left thigh. He was hospitalized for a week with third degree burns, eventually requiring skin grafts to his thigh. Baby is now doing well, although he will require physical therapy and who knows what else in the future.

Assuming the fast food restaurant agrees to pay all his medical bills, should Lisa and her husband sue?
Would it make a difference if I told you Lisa's husband is a doctor and they are fairly well to do?

I haven't asked Lisa anything about this case because I figure it's none of my business and if she wants to tell me, she will. I don't have an answer to either question either. I think that is something that would have to happen to me before I could say what I would do.

 

[Phoenix44]

OK, you don't like the McD coffee case. How about this one:

After being burglarized once too many times, an Illinois bar owner booby-traps his window, and posts a sign telling any future burglars that the window is booby-trapped. Needless to say, some genius decides to burglarize the bar anyway, and is promptly blown to smithereens. Apparently, in Illinois, it's not illegal to booby-trap your window. BUT the genius' family filed a civil suit for wrongful death...and won.