Frivolous Lawsuits.

[Shu2jack]

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.

Wrongful death? How? The traps were designed to kill *******s.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Got a reference for that? That would be nice.

Here's an article from Snopes.com that lists several urban myths regarding tort litigation. It also lists several REAL settlements that were ridiculous...and later overturned.

http://snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Here's an interesting article regarding tort reform wherein it lists reformers who themselves haven't hesitated to sue: Notably Rick Santorum, whose wife sued a chiropracter for $500,000. Four years earlier Santorum had voted for caps on awards limiting them to a quarter million.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4286

Here's an article that lays the blame for excessive malpractice insurance rates on the insurance industry...which raise rates regardless of award caps:

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/003710.html



You never commented on the situation with the nine year old, Phoenix44. What's your take on that?



Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Okay...no references? I'll provide something.

A forum discussion elsewhere over this topic:

http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=03/02/26/02062518;cmt=82

Some excellent points observed here, namely that the crime of burglary doesn't merit death and the trap as set was lethal. The bar owner wasn't present, his life wasn't in danger, and lethal force wasn't warranted. The fact that signs were posted is irrelevant, and does not release the bar owner from having created a dangerous and unwarranted situation.

This isn't the same as a kid who climbs a powerline tower and doesn't heed the signs warning of dangerous electricity. One could argue the property in question, though dangerous, was designed to a higher purpose and served a greater social function.

Some of the articles I read have commented "since Illinois doesn't care if you use lethal force to defend your home or business, no charges were filed." No charges were filed because the bar owner wasn't there to personally do the killing. The warning signs would absolve him of an intent to commit a lethal crime. This was clearly a tort case.

There are some counter arguments as well. I'd love to know the precedents leading up to this, the intricacies of Illinois tort law, and see something a little more in-depth rather than just articles and commentary. I haven't found a web site that discusses the case in detail, analyzing both sides of the argument.



What about that nine year old who was killed by his doctor's negligence, Phoenix44?

Still waiting on that one.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Mark Weiser]

If the facts are correct in the story. The Mother does have a case due to the lack of responsiblity of the employee by placing the dangerous item(Hot Water) within reach of the child.

Employeers have certain legal responsiblities to the public well being one is for a safe and clean and healthy enviroment. Since this was a public restaraunt and the employee either did not pay attention to the potential danger or did not care which is possible knowing some of the kids running loose behind the counters at our local fast food establishments.

Tort laws are there for a reason and I think this case if true should be taken to court if for no other reason to teach the employee to treat other human beings with the required compassion and care. I think she or he can sue both McD's and the employee.

If I am correct with a civil judgement even if employee files for Bankruptcy he or she will still have to pay.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here is a helpful overview of tort law, replete with definitions and categories. I found it illuminating.

http://www.eriskcenter.org/knowledge/normac/liability.html


One must remember that tort law extends into other areas. The Ford Pinto, an incredibly unsafe vehicle, was the cause of a class action suit brought by femily members of victims who had been killed by the Pinto's fragile and ill-placed gas tank. The Pinto could have been made safely, but the company elected to save money.

Tort law, for all its abuses, can drive an industry towards making products and machinery safer for consumers/users. The McDonald's coffee case brought the temperatures down not only in every McD's, but in many other restaurants as well.


Regards.


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Thanks for the links and posts, Steve.

I think that sometimes key cases can morph into urban legends and people forget the key parts of the cases. A case could become a story about stupid people spilling coffee on themselves, rather than the fact than no-one should be selling customers liquids that can cause 3rd degree burns.

Our justice system isn't perfect, of course. (I won't get started on the death penalty and the innocent people who have been put to death.) But sometimes the only way to force a company to take responsibility (as with the case of the Ford Pinto) is to sue, and fine them big $$$$.

 

[Phoenix44]

You never commented on the situation with the nine year old, Phoenix44. What's your take on that?

Well, it's thin on details, but there are big differences between this case and some of the others mentioned. For one thing, it involves a kid, who is not expected to bear any responsibility for his own medical care, so somebody else is at fault. It could be the doctor, pharmacy, hospital, or his parents...but not the kid. If the doctor wrote the wrong prescription, and the parent administered the prescribed dose, and the kid died of an overdose, then the doctor's at fault. The legal term that applies, I think, is "res ipsa loquitor," meaning "the thing speaks for itself."

(This would be different, BTW, if the 9-year old rode his bike out in front of a truck and got killed, because there, the "fault" might be attributed to the kid, resulting in a defendant's decision. Because a "reasonable person" knows that kids sometimes DO ride their bikes in front of trucks, and it may be too late for the truck to stop.)

So this case may be a case of medical negligence. But what doctors are up in arms about is NOT that medical negligence exists, but that the NON-economic awards have become astronomical. Doctors want the NON-economic awards capped at $250,000. That would be IN ADDITION to compensating the plaintiff for the actual and projected costs of the injury.

 

[Bammx2]

old joke....

what do you call 10,000 at the bottom of the ocean?
a good start.......

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, it's thin on details...

So this case may be a case of medical negligence. But what doctors are up in arms about is NOT that medical negligence exists, but that the NON-economic awards have become astronomical. Doctors want the NON-economic awards capped at $250,000. That would be IN ADDITION to compensating the plaintiff for the actual and projected costs of the injury.

Sorry...I thought I posted the fact that the physician mistakenly gave him a lethal dose of codeine. As I said, I knew the boy.

According to sources below awards caps HAVE been instituted regarding malpractice suits in California...and malpractice insurance rates continue to go through the roof. Why? Doctors have to have the insurance...so the insurance companies are taking advantage of the situation and ripping the doctors off. Malpractice claims have flatlined since the eighties...but the rates still go up.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses.pdf

and

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php

To be fair, the GAO doesn't seem to agree with either of these:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf


ON ANOTHER NOTE:

Just saw Morgan Spurlock's "Supersize Me", which was a very good documentary that covered, in part, the obesity lawsuits leveled at McDonald's. It was mostly a damning expose of the food industry, our eating habits, big business marketing, and our lifestyle decline. For those that have read "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, this is a "must see" film. That too if you have weight problems or are a health food junkie. Or a junk food junkie.

As a part of this documentary Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's for a month...gained twenty five pounds...his liver enzymes went dangerously high, his cholesterol doubled, his blood pressure went to 155/something, he lost his libido, he got depressed, and showed signs of addiction to the food. He ate as much fast food in a month as most nutritionists recommend one eat in eight years.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I have another item to bring to point here. It concerns one of John Edwards lawsuits from the end of his courtroom years; and how a pretty respectable Republican media personality presented it.

Until yesterday, I was not aware of this story ... and certainly, Charlie Pierce tells it better than I could. I hope you will forgive the lengthy post.

This article, and a follow up may be found at: http://www.altercation.msnbc.com
Be sure to look for the dates July 15 - July 16, 2004

Mike

In 1994, an eight-year old girl named Valerie Lakey was playing in a wading pool. She got caught in a defective drain. Her intestines were ripped from her body by the suction. She is now 17. She will have to be fed through a tube, 12 hours a day, for the rest of her life. In 1997, John Edwards won her family a $25 million judgment, of which he took a portion. The judgment helped jump-start his political career.

On the first day of last year, as part of his opening comments on Crossfire, this is how the incident was described by Tucker Carlson, whom public and private broadcasting networks tumble all over themselves to hire: "Four years ago, he (Edwards) was a personal-injury lawyer specializing in Jacuzzi cases."

Jacuzzi cases.

An eight-year old who got disemboweled.

Jacuzzi cases.

A child who'll have to be fed through a tube for as long as she lives.

Jacuzzi cases.

Now, I know it's a terrible thing when Whoopi Goldberg makes salacious fun of C-Plus Augustus's last name. I know that society may simply collapse. But here is a professional communicator at the top of his profession who, because he couldn't come up with anything else to say at the moment, smugly dispatches the tragedy of a child whose guts were ripped out. (Later in the same show, he told co-host James Carville to "Lighten up," about his comments.) It was an interesting evening -- not only should Tucker Carlson have lost every job in the professional media that he has, and not only did he lose forever any right to criticize anyone for intemperate speech, he at that moment should have been shunned by decent people for the rest of his sorry life.

Jacuzzi cases.

Christ.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I remember that case! I think many people do. Horrific.

I didn't know Edwards was the lawyer.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Holy...! What a horrible thing to have happened. That poor girl. I'm amazed she survived. Oh....

 

[hkg]

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:

This is definetly the view conveyed over here in britain about america amean fair enough it shouldnt of happened but in the end it was just an accident. It seems alot of americans are not willin to take responscebility for themselves but instead immediately look to blame someone else, im not paintin all americans with the same brush but that is the general consences over here.

 

[Phoenix44]

One of the issues in medical liability is a proposed cap on monetary damages awarded for "pain and suffering." Bear in mind that this has nothing to do with actual financial damages: if you incur $1,000,000 in current and future medical expenses, or if your career is ruined so you lose $750,000 in future earnings because of someone's negligence, this is NOT what I'm talking about. The "pain and suffering" damages are awarded ON TOP of the $1,750,000 you'd be awarded for actual financial loss.

Doctors' organizations and liability insurers have proposed a $250,000 cap on "pain and suffering" awards. As is, juries award MILLIONS for "pain and suffering." There's no argument with awarding the actual financial loss, but the proponents of this idea say that a $250,000 cap on the additional award would go a long way to solving the medical liability crisis.

What do you think about this?

 

[michaeledward]

One of the issues in medical liability is a proposed cap on monetary damages awarded for "pain and suffering." Bear in mind that this has nothing to do with actual financial damages: if you incur $1,000,000 in current and future medical expenses, or if your career is ruined so you lose $750,000 in future earnings because of someone's negligence, this is NOT what I'm talking about. The "pain and suffering" damages are awarded ON TOP of the $1,750,000 you'd be awarded for actual financial loss.

Doctors' organizations and liability insurers have proposed a $250,000 cap on "pain and suffering" awards. As is, juries award MILLIONS for "pain and suffering." There's no argument with awarding the actual financial loss, but the proponents of this idea say that a $250,000 cap on the additional award would go a long way to solving the medical liability crisis.

What do you think about this?

It is the beginning of a conversation. The idea makes sense, I am not sure that the amount does, however. One of the challenges in such cases, is to determine the unknowable ... the actual financial loss.

Sure, we know our wages at the time of an incident. We know what our past medical expenses are, but what is in the future is unknowable. So, the actuaries break out some statistical tables. But that unknowable future is so important when considering a settlement or award.

Certainly an $170 Million dollar judgement is extreme ... but isn't $250,000 extreme on the other end?

Mike

 

[Phoenix44]

Certainly an $170 Million dollar judgement is extreme ... but isn't $250,000 extreme on the other end? Mike

Not for "pain and suffering."

As I mentioned, actual financial damages are determined by actuarial tables. "Pain and suffering" is calculated by the whim of the jury. Who's to say if you've suffered $250K worth? Maybe you only suffered $1 worth. And how much money will alleviate your pain and suffering anyway?

 

[Melissa426]

This is definetly the view conveyed over here in britain about america amean fair enough it shouldnt of happened but in the end it was just an accident. It seems alot of americans are not willin to take responscebility for themselves but instead immediately look to blame someone else, im not paintin all americans with the same brush but that is the general consences over here.

I don't think it's just Britain... I think it's the rest of the world, too.

How many lawsuits in Britain over people getting mad cow disease, or being injured at a soccer riot?
Anything like that happen in America, there'd lawyers lined up for miles around.

Ok, I am being a little sarcastic, but I hope you get my drift. I think it is important to not always be out to blame someone for accidental misfortune.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Not for "pain and suffering."

As I mentioned, actual financial damages are determined by actuarial tables. "Pain and suffering" is calculated by the whim of the jury. Who's to say if you've suffered $250K worth? Maybe you only suffered $1 worth. And how much money will alleviate your pain and suffering anyway?

Yesterday in the news they mentioned a report released that stated that 200,000 deaths per year in the US are attributable to medical mistakes. How do you tell a woman who has lost her child that there are limits to her pain? She'll take that child's loss with her to her grave...ask any mother on this board. She isn't seeking succor, she's seeking justice and change by initiating a lawsuit in the millions.

Should "pain and suffering" caps be applied, then would they go across the board to lawsuits against other industries? What incentive then for the industries to make the workplace safer?

How many of these suits draw attention to dangerous practices within an industry and effect positive change?

The notoriety of the McDonald's coffee suit caused an industry-wide lowering of coffee temperatures. The obesity lawsuits (as stupid as they were) combined with Morgan Spurlock's "Supersize Me" and Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" caused McD's to start offering more nutritious fare, end the Supersize option, and start posting nutrional content information for consumers to take home (and they put it on their web site). Huge awards provide huge incentives to change. The awards themselves aren't as damaging to the corporation as the bad press the award brings about. Lawsuits effect sales.

I find it difficult to believe that the momentum of this entire issue isn't driven by the insurance industry's avarice and finger pointing. They're a strong lobby in Washington, and have contributed heavily to our current President's past and present campaigns.



Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Not for "pain and suffering."

As I mentioned, actual financial damages are determined by actuarial tables. "Pain and suffering" is calculated by the whim of the jury. Who's to say if you've suffered $250K worth? Maybe you only suffered $1 worth. And how much money will alleviate your pain and suffering anyway?

My arguement was partially speaking to the idea that 'Pain & Suffering' is a way to address the uncertainties of the future. Sure, they can calculate future medical expenses .... but if a new treatment is introduced, but much more expensive, the injured party can't necessarily go back to the courts to seek the new medical expenses.... On the other side ... the injured party might get hit by a bus and die without every using the future medical expenses. Who knows.

Mike

 

[hkg]

I don't think it's just Britain... I think it's the rest of the world, too.

How many lawsuits in Britain over people getting mad cow disease, or being injured at a soccer riot?
Anything like that happen in America, there'd lawyers lined up for miles around.

Ok, I am being a little sarcastic, but I hope you get my drift. I think it is important to not always be out to blame someone for accidental misfortune.

Yeah ur right i cant even remember i lawsuit over either of those things. Its called football over here!!!