Yet another frivolous lawsuit

[dennis99ss]

.

 

[dennis99ss]

chager.........You indicated that you know they over pack, and that no matter how much training is done, they will over pack. If the store knows this, then the store should provide stronger bags. It is a service the store offers. It is a service you are paying for. You are entitled to a safe product.

Re ford, I find it amazing that the ban applies to the ford product but not the mercury sister product....go figure.

Why do you think U Haul settled for millions of dollars. Just so as to stop costs, I don't think so. Trust me, the only way you will get someone to pay any amount of money on a claim is to convince them that there is a real chance that a jury will award damages, and that those damages will be upheld on appeal. Settlement happens because the Plaintiff hedges his bets by taking less than what he thinks he could achieve at trial, and the Defendant pays because he thinks it is cheaper than what is likely to happen at trial. There are key words used....Probably means it will happen. Most likely means it has a high chance of happening, likely is more than 50-50. For someone to pay millions of dollars, their lawyers probably told them that it was, at the very least, most likely that an amount greater than the settlement figure would be awarded at trial.
So, I would guess that UHaul felt they had some liability. If they want to stop renting to the most popular suv, let them. I would bet another company is gearing up right now to fill the void. Since UHaul apparently did not want to address there own concerns of liability with explorers, they opted not to rent to those vehicles. In the end, doesn't that mean it is safer on the road.


Tobysfriend: The fact is that you, or I, or anybody, does not have the standing to pass judgement on whether this is a claim which should have been brought or not. Just because it is common sense that accidents occur is a subjective thought, not based on the underlying theory of the judicial system. If we are allowed to say that this accident is so minor that it should not be brought, where should it stop. Who is to determine that the principles of negligence only apply to certain cases, while others are considered to trivial to deal with.

If, before the Ford tire problem, A person brought suit claiming that the tire tread failed, and they deserved a new tire (no injuries, etc.) would that too be frivolous. It was a claim that would have been worth $100 or less. Plus, the argument would have been tires wear out, go buy a new one. Maybe, just maybe, if such a suit had been brought, the engineering would have been present to notify the consumer of the danger before the deaths and injuries which occurred.

Would Ford have changed its design of the explorer. Would Firestone have changed its design and manufacturing process if the suits had not been filed.
No. The fact that these people were allowed, in fact, had the right to file a suit, resulted in the vehicles, tires and roads being safer. Who knows, you see an explorer every day. You may drive one. You (General you) should thank the system rather than attack it, as it may have saved you some pain. That vehicle next to you is probably safer because of the ford lawsuits.

Corporate liability rates skyrocket

Would they have to if the corpoarations took a proactive attitude towards safety. The insurance market is another great topic whjich has been discussed before, but suffice it to say that I seldom hear the cost of claims as a cause of the drastic increase in rates over the past several years. What I do hear, however, is that returns on investments is so low that premiums must be increased to keep a positive reserve balance, whereas before, investment income took care of that.

 

[CRB#33]

Originally posted by CajunDixie

So we're supposed to go behind the checkout counter and grab each item out of the hand of the employee that is paid to bag our items and place them into bags ourselves?

That is what we will be doing.

So now I have to babysit the cashier and cant write my check while they are bagging my items. I cant talk to my children, parents, friends or whoever while my items are being scanned, bagged and put into a cart?

That is what will happen.

Exactly how can you pick up a plastic bag that is overfilled and placed into a cart from the bottom? If there is no room to tie the bag shut then how do you expect the items to stay in the bag when you are trying to pick it up?

You take some out of the top Would have solved the whole thing. I don't think this woman was blind.

It gets real old having to babysit cashiers so they do their job correctly. These arent just "kids" these are supposed to be trained employees doing a job they are being paid to do. If they cant do the job correctly they shouldnt be employed there.

Unfortunately we do need to babysit. It's very hard to find people who care what their customers want anymore. So you babysit and you write a letter to the store or you complain to the manager. You don't just accept what they do wrong, when it's very obvious to see and then sue them. That's just looking for trouble.

Unless this person was blind and had no sense of touch, she knew the bag was overfilled. And she did nothing.

If I was there, I would have asked for two bags. Bottom line. Because I know that I have to watch and "babysit."

 

[CRB#33]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
chager.........You indicated that you know they over pack, and that no matter how much training is done, they will over pack. If the store knows this, then the store should provide stronger bags. It is a service the store offers. It is a service you are paying for. You are entitled to a safe product.

And if it's as plain as the nose on our faces that there is a problem, we are to ignore it?

The insurance market is another great topic whjich has been discussed before, but suffice it to say that I seldom hear the cost of claims as a cause of the drastic increase in rates over the past several years. What I do hear, however, is that returns on investments is so low that premiums must be increased to keep a positive reserve balance, whereas before, investment income took care of that.

That sounds like something lawyers hear.

You must not live in Pennsylvania.

 

[dennis99ss]

First, you were not there, so how can you say the claim is baseless, frivolous, etc. Your argument is not logical. In fact, every argument against a so-called frivolous suit is not logical, because you must use the facts of the case, assumed as being correct, in addition to other unknown assumptions to support the conclusion. Most often, by assuming the facts of the claim as being true, or by arguing the injured persons own negligence, your arguments actually support the claim, rather than refute it.

case in point, not picking on anybody, but really just to point out this fact,


CRB## says

And if it's as plain as the nose on our faces that there is a problem, we are to ignore it?

Well, if it is plain to me, it is plain to the store that is providing the service. Just because the injured bears some responsibility does not mean that the store is free from responsibility. The store is responsible. It is a defense to shift responsibility to the injured. Simply shifting responsibility does not necessarily resolve the liability of the store. Second, if the store holds the checker/bagger out as being competent----which they do simply by employing them, and holds them out to conduct operations in a way that the store requires--which they do by employing them, then the checker/bagger is deemed to have higher knowledge than an average customer as to what weight is allowed, etc. Additionally, as the consumer, you should have the right to rely on the expertice of the store to provide you with the service in a safe manner.

I do hear it. But, I hear it from Lloyds every time I am across the pond.


Do not get me wrong, I am not discussing the actual merits of this matter, but actually the underlying sentiment that any claim which sounds "silly" does not mean that it is not a rightful claim to be brought. Again, you cannot carve out those claims which you feel are not deserving of a suit from those that you do. For whatever reason.

If I, or you, are able to look at the facts of a claim, and for whatever reason, determine that it is not meritorious before an ajudication takes place, what will stop society from going one step further the next time, and the next, and the next. If a claim is brought, if negligence can be shown, if damages can be shown, there should be no one, beside a jury, and/or judge which has the power to determine the value, if any, and responsibility, if any, to the parties. If you take that right away from the smallest claim, you damage the rights of those whom you may feel are entitled.

This goes to everyone treated equally. I could go to race, religion, economic status, etc. here (and while raising quite a few feathers I assume) and show that the principle is the same. If you treat one case in a certain way, you must treat them all in that way.

It is not always done, and regulatory interference does occur, but, for the most part, I believe the system works.

 

[Dan Murphy]

Where's that Johnny Cochrane guy when we need him??

 

[CRB#33]

I don't think I ever said that the store bears no responsibility to adequately train their employees.

I am saying that if it is easy to see, I'm the idiot for doing nothing about it. If they are doing something wrong, and I do nothing, that doesn't absolve them, but it sure looks like I was looking for a payoff.

Instead, being the person I am...I will make sure that the bag is not overfilled, and make a mention of it to a supervisor.

I will not take the bag, wait until it breaks, which was a good possibility and then do something about it.

It's being proactive.

But guess what? The only thing that is going to happen if this lawsuit is not dismissed, is we will be bagging our own products. Probably with bags we need to manufacture ourselves

If you take that right away from the smallest claim, you damage the rights of those whom you may feel are entitled.

And then also many dollars from the lawyers pockets.

Something is wrong. And there needs to be reform. If we reform some of these issues, then maybe the court systems won't be so clogged and cases with "true" merit won't be judged as "frivilous" or take years to get solved.

I'm sorry, but I live in a state where lawyers advertise on the TV that if you've been injured, they guarantee free services if they don't get money for you. Call them with any type of injury...and then they go through a list that covers almost all of their 30 second commercial.

I live in a state where many Obstetricians have had to shut their doors because Philadelphia's awards to patients is among the highest in the country. It's a well known fact that Pennsylvania lawyers try and get their venues changed to Philadelphia so they can get the highest awards.

The malpractice, personal injury lawyers in my area of the state live in million dollar homes. And my obstetrician closed her doors.

 

[dennis99ss]

Actually, there are less suits that go to trial today than 20-30 years ago. I will try to find these stats, and if wrong will recant, but, I believe it is true. You may not want to believe that, but it is true.


How do you judge a case to be one of true merit?

Is it dollar amount lost
Is it the type of accident?

How do you determine if one claim has true merit and the other does not.

 

[dennis99ss]

below

 

[CRB#33]

Are you a lawyer or in the legal profession somehow?

Because you certainly seem to use verbage that I would attribute to someone arguing their case!

If so, I holler UNCLE!

I do not posses the verbosity or the resources to convince a lawyer of anything, LOL!

I just know what I would have done.

 

[dennis99ss]

Actually, there are less suits that go to trial today than 20-30 years ago. I will try to find these stats, and if wrong will recant, but, I believe it is true. You may not want to believe that, but it is true. The same is the case for time to trial.


How do you judge a case to be one of true merit?

Is it dollar amount lost
Is it the type of accident?

How do you determine if one claim has true merit and the other does not.

How can you allow one claim for damages go forward, because you find it sexy and interesting and not against your thoughts of self responsibility, and not another simply because you think the injured should have acted differently.

Shiould a person injured by malpractice be charged with the injury if the doctor had committed malpractice in the past? Sorry, you should have klnown he was a bad doctor, you went to him, you are out of luck?

You take exception to the contingent fee arrangements, but, it ensures that all people, all races, all socio-economic levels find the court house doors open. What a windfall it would be for corporations to require injured parties to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars from their pockets in order to seek justice. That would mean the next time someone was in a horrific auto accident, they probably could not recover, as all of their money was going to medical bills, leaving nothing left to hire a lawyer.

The lawyers would not live in million dollar houses if the doctors did nothing wrong.

If a doctor was not called to answer for his mistakes, what method would there be to encourage the doctor to clean up his act. With no threat of financial penalty, would the doctor take that extra step. Would the doctor plan that one extra surgery. malpractice claims benefit the public by making the doctor think about his liability, and therefore taking steps to avoid liability, which is taking steps to make sure he does not leave a sponge in you.

 

[dennis99ss]

Lawyer, civil defense practice, but, the thought that a system which has worked for 200 years now needs changing is against my beliefs.

If the government is cutting back on regulation (which this administration is) and at the same time attempting to limit responsibility through "lawsuit reform", what protection is left for the citizen. All of the protection is now being geared toward to company. That used to be the case in 1900.

Now, to retire to be a cast member, that would be ok.

 

[CRB#33]

You should research what is going on in Philadelphia. From the perspective of a resident. Not a lawyer.

My OB/gyn is a good one. She is paying the price for outrageous jury awards in general by unreal malpractice insurance rates. And there are many more like her in this state.

Again, I say that tort reform is needed so as not to penalize the good for the mistakes of the bad. And there are many more good ones than bad ones. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying it's all the lawyers, I think the nsurance companies are taking advantage of this too and something needs to be done all around.

The insurance companies say it's the lawyers.

The lawyers say it's the Insurance companies.

It's really money.

UNCLE

 

[CRB#33]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
Lawyer, civil defense practice, but, the thought that a system which has worked for 200 years now needs changing is against my beliefs.

Unfortunately times have changed sooo much, that something that has worked in the past just may not anymore.

Now, to retire to be a cast member, that would be ok.

I'll come visit you at the parks as much as possible!

 

[LadyAurora]

What will the lawsuit accomplish? The obvious answer is to pay for the "victim's" injuries...plus a little extra.
Will stores change the way employees are trained? There isn't much training that goes on for bagging...it's pretty much common sense. Perhaps the "victim" could also sue that bagger's parents and the school system for not instilling common sense to let the bagger know the items would be too much for the bag to handle.
But you would have to prove it was the bagger's fault, and that 99 out of 100 times the bag wouldn't hold those exact items without breaking. You would have to prove the "victim" wasn't one of those customers that tells the cashier/bagger they "have enough plastic bags at home" and to use as few as possible. I have had customers ask for bags to hold their gallons of paint.
Personally, I would consider this one of those things that happen sometimes...bags break occasionally. If it happened to me, it wouldn't occur to me to even ask the store to pay my medical bills, much less sue for $30,000.

 

[DemonLlama]

Just an aside, but the system that has survived 200 years (the COnstitution) does not (and was never intended to) address the particulars of such things as tort reform. But our legal system, even with its venerable and distinguished history, survives because of continuous reforms. To argue for reform is not to suggest that the system should be thrown out.

On the lighter side, this is from http://www.mlaw.org/wwl/

M-LAW ANNOUNCES WINNERS OF SEVENTH ANNUAL WACKY WARNING LABEL CONTEST

Fishing lure which warns, "Harmful if swallowed," catches one of the top awards


A five-inch fishing lure which sports three steel hooks and cautions users that it is, "Harmful if swallowed," has been identified as one of the nation's wackiest warning labels in an annual contest sponsored by a consumer watchdog group.

The Wacky Warning Label Contest, now in it's seventh year, is conducted by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, M-LAW, to reveal how lawsuits, and fear of lawsuits, have prompted many manufacturers to issue warnings against even obvious misuses of consumer products.

The winning labels were selected from a list of M-LAW's finalists by listeners of the Dick Purtan show on Detroit radio station, WOMC-FM 104.3. The fishing lure warning actually placed fourth.

GRAND PRIZE The $500 grand prize for the wackiest label was awarded to Robert Brocone of Euclid, Ohio for a warning he found on a bottle of drain cleaner which says: "If you do not understand, or cannot read, all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product." Brocone also wins a copy of the book, "The Death of Common Sense," by Philip K. Howard, chairman of the legal reform group, Common Good.

And, for the first time, the winner of the top prize receives a special edition wacky warning label coffee mug produced by the Common Good coalition. A recent Newsweek magazine cover story reported on Common Good's campaign to focus national attention on the impact legal fear is having in our society.



OTHER WINNERS.
The $250 second place award went to Alexander Tabarrok of Fairfax, Virginia for a label on a snow sled which says: "Beware: sled may develop high speed under certain snow conditions."
Third place and $100 goes to Bob Skowronek of Northville, Michigan who purchased a 12-inch-high storage rack for compact disks which warns: "Do not use as a ladder."
Fourth place, as mentioned above, went to the fishing lure, sent in by Melissa Cerrito, Atlantic Mine, Michigan, and
Fifth place goes to a smoke detector which warns: "Do not use the Silence Feature in emergency situations. It will not extinguish a fire," sent in by Bill Masterson, Ft. Myers, Florida

"Wacky warning labels are a sign of our lawsuit-plagued times," said Robert B. Dorigo Jones, M-LAW president. "It used to be that if someone spilled coffee in their lap, they simply called themselves clumsy. Today, too many people are calling themselves an attorney. This "sue first, ask questions later" mentality has not only produced wacky warning labels, it has increased the cost of products and services families use daily. That's the real problem."

M-LAW is a non-profit organization working to increase public awareness of how the explosion in litigation is hurting America. M-LAW is dedicated to restoring common sense and personal responsibility to the courts.


And from http://www.atra.org/show/7671
BUSINESSES AVOID LAWSUIT ABUSE WITH WACKY WARNING LABELS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Gretchen Schaefer
gschaefer@atra.org
202-682-1163

Washington, DC, January 8, 2004 -- The seventh annual Wacky Warning Labels contest results are in, and it just goes to show the great lengths business are willing to go in order to avoid being sued.

“Businesses have real reasons to fear lawsuit abuse,” said ATRA President Sherman Joyce. “Not only does the fear of being sued drive businesses to the extreme of slapping these wacky warning labels on their products, but we all pay the price for frivolous litigation.”

Joyce notes that tort costs in the United States increased from $205 billion in 2001 to $233 billion in 2002, or $27.4 billion more than in 2001—the largest dollar increase in U.S. history, according to a study by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. The numbers represent a 30% increase in the last two years, the largest two-year increase since 1986/1987. Each U.S. citizen pays $809 annually, compared to $797 in 2001.

“While we find humor in wacky warning labels, the downside is that some people don’t take essential warnings seriously and can become injured if a product is not used properly,” Joyce said.

Go here to see the results of Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch’s Wacky Warning Label contest.

####

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) is the only national organization dedicated exclusively to tort and liability reform through public education and the enactment of legislation. ATRA's membership includes non profits, small and large companies, as well as state and national trade, business, and professional associations.

© 2002, The American Tort Reform Association

 

[Melora]

"Fishing lure which warns, "Harmful if swallowed," catches one of the top awards"

My husband says that is the warning for the fish to read!

 

[chager]

I never knew of an official contest but I know the local newspaper had people send in wacky labels before. Reading these made me laugh.
"If you do not understand, or cannot read, all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product."
Hmmm...If they can't read how do they know not to use it?

Well I need to go read the reheat instructions for dinner. Or there will be a label on computers that says: "Not responsible for families that starve becuase mom is online"

 

[Trish5768]

I had been having problems for several years and my gyn/ob kept telling me nothing was wrong so I switched doctors and thank God I did. So answer me this, I was diagonosed with advanced cervical cancer stage 2b almost 2 years ago. The type of cancer was a "slow mover" according to my new gyn. and she said that it had to have been there for years. She said she would have figured at least 8 years and that I had never been to see a gyn. Now, I had a pap smear done every single year since I was 18. I have had 3 children the last a little over 6 years ago. I do not have a autoimmune disease or aids- someone was not reading my slides correctly. When we asked to have the slides reread Quest diagnostics refused to turn them over. Physician (this is important because this is a PA gyn) says I have a case. Lawyers say I do not because I'm not ill enough to garner sympathy from a jury. I went thru chemo and internal and external radiation but thats not enough pain and suffering if you are going to live or might live not to mention the mental anguish of what will happen to your loved ones if you are gone, mostly the very young children you leave behind. There are no guarantees for me-so far so good. The lawyers I spoke with patted me on the head and said if I become terminal or if I do die then my husband has a great wrongful death suit and to call them back then. Tell me lawyers aren't after the almighty buck. Lost faith in the legal system you better believe it-you can sue for being burned by coffee that you know is going to be hot and get millions but if you are really wronged forget it.

 

[Grog]

I'm glad I stopped by and read this thread, as I'm leaving for Wal Mart in a few minutes. Everybody pick the resort of your choice, because if my bag breaks, we're all going to WDW!