Why are people so litigious?

[hrh_disney_queen]

It boggles the mind.

When I was a kid, I can remember hearing about "suing" maybe only once or twice, for serious car accidents & such. Nowadays, people file suit for the most ridiculous nonsense. No wonder people hate lawyers.

We had a woman in one of our stores yesterday who is claiming her the rubber sole of her sneaker rubbed the carpeting, causing her to stumble but not fall. She claims this caused her neck to "jolt", and thus gave her whiplash. She's already informed me she's contacted an attorney. Mind you, she has not seen a doctor yet, but has already reached out to an attorney.

Wouldn't it be nice if lawyers got disbarred for handling this stuff, or heavily fined for accepting frivolous claims?

Wow, I didn't know that I could sue over my own clumsiness! I trip over my own feet at times, it's good to know that I can be compensated for it.


We have a local chiropractor here that advertises when you have a car accident, "CALL US FIRST for proper documentation." Really, how about going to the hospital first? I am at home all day, and the TV is usually on. Between the court shows, the only commercials are for title loans, lawyers and chiropractors.

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Every claim is frivolous to the people on the other side.

Think back (waaaay back, dating myself here) to the "woman who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself". Her lawsuit became the symbol of the tort reform movement. People protested all over the country, holding up signs saying "She Spilled It On Herself!" Everyone thinks that lawsuit was frivolous.

Well, not everyone. You know the only people who don't think it was frivolous? Lawyers. And you know why? Because we all learn about it in torts class. We all hear the facts the media didn't bother to tell people. We all know that McDonalds was not only in the wrong, but massively so, and deserving of punitive damages.

Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we have judges to bring these things before to make determinations as to whether they are frivolous or not (and when they do, yes, the side bringing the frivolous claim usually is responsible for the costs of the other side). That's why those judges can be appealed, because decisions like this shouldn't be left to the determination of just one person.

REGARDLESS, you want to have a lawyer disbarred for representing someone to the fullest extent of their abilities? You want them to be not only fired, but prevented from ever practicing in their home jurisdiction again, because of doing their job as well as they possibly can? Disbarring someone is a huge punishment, and it just doesn't fit the non-crime you're describing.

Please explain this because being a layperson I could never understand why McDonald's was wrong in this case.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Okay, well, it's been a while since I read it so if I screw something up I'm sure someone will jump in and correct me.

Some of facts that laypeople never get was that the coffee was super hot...hotter than local health standards allowed. That particular McDonalds had been cited in the past for violations inclusive of having their coffee too hot. That's the main reason McDonald's got fined, they were knowingly doing something dangerous to patrons. The jury awarded huge punitive damages, which were then lowered by another judge, and then everything settled so we don't actually know what the eventual result was.

However, the funny thing is the woman tried to solve it peacefully. She had written letters to McDonald's asking if they would cover her emergency care costs (something like $800). They did give her something, but significantly less ($100?).

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Wow, I didn't know any of that. I guess that info wasn't interesting enough for the press to print. Thanks for the info!

 

[TiggerCat]

We all know that McDonalds was not only in the wrong, but massively so, and deserving of punitive damages.

Please enlighten me as to how it is that we all know that McDonalds was in the wrong. Was it proven that they intentionally designed a cup that would leak hot coffee all over this woman? Or was it that they didn't explain the obvious - that coffee is hot and putting a cup full in a postion where it is likely to spill on your lap is dangerous? I thought that the judgement was based on a lack of warning on the part of the corporation.

TC.

 

[Took]

Okay, well, it's been a while since I read it so if I screw something up I'm sure someone will jump in and correct me.

Some of facts that laypeople never get was that the coffee was super hot...hotter than local health standards allowed. That particular McDonalds had been cited in the past for violations inclusive of having their coffee too hot. That's the main reason McDonald's got fined, they were knowingly doing something dangerous to patrons. The jury awarded huge punitive damages, which were then lowered by another judge, and then everything settled so we don't actually know what the eventual result was.

However, the funny thing is the woman tried to solve it peacefully. She had written letters to McDonald's asking if they would cover her emergency care costs (something like $800). They did give her something, but significantly less ($100?).

Thanks for this explanation. I never did understand that case. Now, I do.

 

[Eeyore'sthebest]

Okay, well, it's been a while since I read it so if I screw something up I'm sure someone will jump in and correct me.

Some of facts that laypeople never get was that the coffee was super hot...hotter than local health standards allowed. That particular McDonalds had been cited in the past for violations inclusive of having their coffee too hot. That's the main reason McDonald's got fined, they were knowingly doing something dangerous to patrons. The jury awarded huge punitive damages, which were then lowered by another judge, and then everything settled so we don't actually know what the eventual result was.

However, the funny thing is the woman tried to solve it peacefully. She had written letters to McDonald's asking if they would cover her emergency care costs (something like $800). They did give her something, but significantly less ($100?).

See, now these facts never came out. I did not know that this particular McD's had previously been written up for this. And I never knew that there were local health standards. I also didn't know that she only requested her medical bills be reimbursed. It's a shame that they didn't listen. And for that, I do hope they paid her a hefty amount solely due to their own greed and failure to comply with the regs.

 

[Darsa]

Please enlighten me as to how it is that we all know that McDonalds was in the wrong.

I think that what was meant that "we LAWYERS all know..." rather than literally everyone.

Of course I could be wrong, but that is to the best of my knowledge. Adding that in so I'm not sued for misrepresentation

 

[Kim&Chris]

Wow, I didn't know that I could sue over my own clumsiness! I trip over my own feet at times, it's good to know that I can be compensated for it.


We have a local chiropractor here that advertises when you have a car accident, "CALL US FIRST for proper documentation." Really, how about going to the hospital first? I am at home all day, and the TV is usually on. Between the court shows, the only commercials are for title loans, lawyers and chiropractors.

Haha! Believe me, the best part of my job is fighting this stuff. I promise she won't get a dime, it's just the aggravation of this crap.

 

[Acklander]

See, now these facts never came out. I did not know that this particular McD's had previously been written up for this. And I never knew that there were local health standards. I also didn't know that she only requested her medical bills be reimbursed. It's a shame that they didn't listen. And for that, I do hope they paid her a hefty amount solely due to their own greed and failure to comply with the regs.

I remember reading the specifics about that case. The coffee was sooooo hot that it actually melted parts of her skin together

 

[SAHDad]

If you look for the Stella awards, you can find out a lot about the case. Yes, the coffee was hot; yes, it is not intended for immediate consumption at that temperature; yes, 700 other people had complained about burns from the coffee over a 10 year period.

But - per the National Coffee Assoc, coffee should be brewed at about 200 degrees, and kept at 180. And 700 burns over 10 years is 70 burns per year, or about 1 burn per 24 million cups served. And she was still found to be 20% at fault by the jury which reduced the award. The final award, of course, is actually sealed - McD's may have fired their lawyers (who did a terrible job), gotten good ones, and come back with a much lower offer.

The case is a little more complicated than "It was frivolous" or "McDonalds was doing something horribly wrong, and they needed to pay."

 

[Becky2005]

Wow, I didn't know that I could sue over my own clumsiness! I trip over my own feet at times, it's good to know that I can be compensated for it.

This will be helpful information for my DD. She trips UP the stairs all the time and well...those invisible things are constantly tripping her up. We don't even bother to ask how she manages to do 1/2 the things she does anymore. We just look and go say "only you could manage to do xyz"! The funny thing is she was a gymnast & wasn't clumsy at all for that but every day walking seems to give her grief.

Do you think I could have sued the time I was walking on the March of Dimes walk, wasn't watching where I was going and ran smack dab into a speed limit sign with my head, which I'm sure that was cause for some emotional distress or something. Hmmm...maybe that explains why I'm a ditz at times (nah...that only happened after having kids. Can I sue them for my brain cells back?).

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

I'm surprised the claimant's attorney took your word. If a complaint was already filed I can't believe they didn't propound an RFP for the tape.

That's a good point. Countless times I've been on the phone with plaintiff's attorneys and I'll inform them "this was captured on tape, and your client is not telling you the truth". And then I miraculously never hear back from them.

 

[DancingBear]

More info about the McDonald's coffee case is at the link below. Key facts include that McDonald's kept its coffee much hotter than others, that it knew that this was a burn hazard, that their claimed reason (that people buying coffee in the drive-through were not drinking it in the car, but taking it somewhere else to drink) was bogus according to their own research.

Most of the multi-million dollar award was punitive damages, which were reduced from the $2.7 million given by the jury to $480,000 by the judge. The $200,000 in compensatory damages were reduced by 20% to reflect the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

[Handbag Lady]

I have an example of what I consider a totally frivolous case. I'd love to hear the lawyers' take on this.

At work, the company that owned the building installed speed bumps in the back parking lot as people tended to speed. They closed the lot, assigned everyone who parked back there new temporary parking, did the job, and re-opened the parking lot. The first week it was open, a group of people from my office went to lunch and came back. Exiting the back seat of the car, a gal stumbled on the speed bump and hurt her ankle.

She sued the company on grounds that she didn't know the speed bump was there, despite being one of the people who was given a temporary parking space and despite that there were new signs up all over saying "Caution, speed bumps." She tried suing the driver of the car and their insurance company as well (that part failed). It is extremely possible that she was drinking at lunch, but there is no proof other than the people in the car said they were all drinking at lunch.

So, frivolous or not? Can you guess how much she won?

 

[Kim&Chris]

I'm surprised the claimant's attorney took your word. If a complaint was already filed I can't believe they didn't propound an RFP for the tape.

Oh, I'm not saying they all disappear, but sometimes I'm sure the pltf atty says to himself "this is not worth my time", especially if the plaintiff has a history of filings. I work for a large retailer, and complaints are filed but, if the claim is questionable, we often don't hear back from atty's OR the plaintiffs simply disappear and claims are dropped.

 

[a1tinkfans]

How about the guy that SUED the homeowner after he fell thru the SKYLIGHT while trying to rob the home????? Really!

People are Litigious because they get PAID (and most people feel that SOMEONE has to be wrong and injured should get paid) ....carriers generally settle the vast majority of cases brought to litigation (before a verdict) .....they would rather "cut their losses" than spend a small fortune in legal costs or get stuck with a runaway verdict and have to fight that as well.
....Some carriers are the opposite way though, they like to defend everything and seek declaratory judgments even when they know it is just prolonging the inevitable......

We are in a VERY litigious society and I do not see it changing any time soon!! Too many people making $$$

 

[olena]

Every claim is frivolous to the people on the other side.

Think back (waaaay back, dating myself here) to the "woman who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself". Her lawsuit became the symbol of the tort reform movement. People protested all over the country, holding up signs saying "She Spilled It On Herself!" Everyone thinks that lawsuit was frivolous.

Well, not everyone. You know the only people who don't think it was frivolous? Lawyers. And you know why? Because we all learn about it in torts class. We all hear the facts the media didn't bother to tell people. We all know that McDonalds was not only in the wrong, but massively so, and deserving of punitive damages.

Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we have judges to bring these things before to make determinations as to whether they are frivolous or not (and when they do, yes, the side bringing the frivolous claim usually is responsible for the costs of the other side). That's why those judges can be appealed, because decisions like this shouldn't be left to the determination of just one person.

REGARDLESS, you want to have a lawyer disbarred for representing someone to the fullest extent of their abilities? You want them to be not only fired, but prevented from ever practicing in their home jurisdiction again, because of doing their job as well as they possibly can? Disbarring someone is a huge punishment, and it just doesn't fit the non-crime you're describing.

Wasn't there a company memo at McDonald's that said serve the coffee very hot, because that's what customers want? I think that memo sealed their fate in the Stella case.

 

[allison443]

Eh, I think the system of course has its flaws, and there are certainly bogus cases as well as weirdly laughable ones. We had a case where a guy sued Home Depot because he was looking at I think hedge trimmers and picked one up by the sharp end. He got a laceration (a cut) on his pinky finger.

But we have to recognize that it is more important to insure people's access to the system.

There are provisions for judges to dismiss frivolous cases before the case even gets to the jury. However, once it gets to the jury, the jurors are the ones who make these awards.

Now all you people who complain about frivolous lawsuits not getting thrown out and people getting crazy jury awards, I hope I never see you on those threads where people complain about serving on jury duty!!

 

[ProgressCity]

Do these people realize that even if they win there is no guarantee of getting any money? It's not like the court rules in your favor and then the judge hands you a check. Just because you have a judgement does not mean the person is actually going to pay it or pay it in a timely manner.