This is one reason we need Tort Reform

[_19disnA]

^^ I agree............and those dubious 'costs' eventually mean every one else has to pay for them.

 

[kamik86]

I am currently studying the McDonald's case in a business law course I'm taking. I also was "duped" by the media campaign on this and thought the coffee case was crazy; until I actually read what happened.

Yes, McDonald's serves coffee about 40 degrees hotter than industry standards. Hot enough that if it gets on your skin you will suffer third degree burns. That's a full burn through every layer of your skin down to the muscle. The customer suffered these burns all over her thighs and groin area. Had she gone to Dunkin Donuts and had the same thing happened, she would have merely scalded the top layer of skin. She also asked McDonald's to pay her $20,000 medical bills. They scoffed at her. She then went to get her $20,000 through a lawyer and the courts then assigned punitive damages in the millions for McDonald's behavior and setting their coffee temps way outside the norm for coffee. The customer was assigned 20% of the blame (adding creamer to coffee while sitting in her car) and had her award reduced by that much. After it was all done, they went on a media campaign smear to discredit the customer.

I agree studied this case and a few others in a courts class in college. They talked about punitive damages (she only asked for medical coverage, the awarding of punitive damages was because the jury realized that 20K wasn't enough to cause McDonalds to actually fix the temperature of the coffee so this didn't happen to someone else). We discussed that some thing punitive damages shouldn't go to the client that brought it through court but one reason that it is done is because its time consuming and expensive to not just take a settlement and get to the point where these things can be assigned and this provides a reward for both the person suing and the lawyer that stuck with it.

There is a similar case against a car manufacturer which is an easier one for everyone to agree to. The car had a defect that was known that in the case of a roll over crash the car was very likely to catch on fire and result in death. This happened to someone and the family sued. During the case it was found that not only did the company know of this problem but a memo was found where someone did a study and determined the average payout taken when someone dies and how often this happens. It was determined that it is cheaper to pay out when this happens that amount then it is to recall all the cars. The paper even said "Although a price can't be put on a human life..." then went on to explain the average cost that is accepted in such a lawsuit. So the Jury didn't just pay them actual damages such as funeral costs and lost wages to the person that took this all through court, instead they assigned a VERY VERY high amount of money. Enough so that it would definitely be cheaper to recall all the cars now then risk this happening again.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

 

[rickybobby]

Simple fix. If a case is deemed frivolous, the plaintiff is responsible for court costs for both sides.

 

[Kellykins1218]

Actually, that's not a reason at all.

 

[Klayfish]

Simple fix. If a case is deemed frivolous, the plaintiff is responsible for court costs for both sides.

That theory is floated quite often. Biggest challenge to that is who would be the one to determine if it's "frivolous"? Believe me, I fully understand why the idea comes up...I've seen more frivolous cases than I can tell you.

 

[tex1989]

Apparently in Canada (I was told when I lived there) the solution to frivolous cases was to require the plantiff to post a bond for some if not all of the damages they were asking for. Tended to make people think twice about filing lawsuits that had little chance of winning. In the US if you think you have a case and a willing attorney to take it on a contingency basis then you go for it. Under the Canadian system lawyer and plantiff need to be pretty certain they can win to move forward.

 

[NYCgrrl]

Apparently in Canada (I was told when I lived there) the solution to frivolous cases was to require the plantiff to post a bond for some if not all of the damages they were asking for. Tended to make people think twice about filing lawsuits that had little chance of winning. In the US if you think you have a case and a willing attorney to take it on a contingency basis then you go for it. Under the Canadian system lawyer and plantiff need to be pretty certain they can win to move forward.

Certain civil lawsuits (NYS at least) are based on contingency as well so an attorney will only take a case if they've a good certainty of getting paid and their client paid.
Bond payments can be requested in housing civil courts but at least in NYC the practice and request is frequently ignored.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

Simple fix. If a case is deemed frivolous, the plaintiff is responsible for court costs for both sides.

Hmmm. Why is everything so simple for you?

 

[sam_gordon]

Certain civil lawsuits (NYS at least) are based on contingency as well so an attorney will only take a case if they've a good certainty of getting paid and their client paid.

That's what the poster you quoted said.

 

[NYCgrrl]

That's what the poster you quoted said.

Right. Just agreeing with the poster particularly on the bond aspect which I understood him to be discussing the Canadian system while I commented on the NYS version.

 

[cobright]

"Outrageous Lawsuits" often become less outrageous once you delve into the briefs.

• In the McD coffee case, there had been hundreds of reported injuries from their coffee leading up to this case and McD refused to do anything. I have personally spilled coffee in my lap probably dozens of times in the last 30 years, with never more than a mild scalding. This woman recieved skin grafts.
• "Woman Sues Universal Studios Haunted House For Being To Scary" - That's the headline. Chainsaw guy chases a woman and her grand daughter down a dark hallway that was wet from the fog machine mist. Then continues to taunt them with a running chainsaw after the fall flat on their backs.

Plenty of outrageous verdicts happen I'm sure, but I would rather have a business a little too worried about getting sued if they screw up than not be worried enough.