Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: More Coffee?



In the absence of punitively high awards, many
companies will pursue the most profitable path. Ford
actually calculated that the cost of claims by Pinto
burn victims would be less than the cost of installing
gas tank shields. So, no shields was more "efficient".
And I believe that the situation has gotten worse
since the 1970s (that is, more corporate
irresponsibility) given the increasing focus on
short-term profits and share-price performance.
Personally, I'd like to see jail time for such
white-collar criminals rather than punitive damages -
I think that would be a MUCH more effective deterrent.
But we have very few wealthy folks in prison. Another
idea already posted of giving the punitive damages to
a charity makes a LOT of sense to me. The bottom line
is, you can't get an elephant's attention with a
gentle poke! It takes a VERY big stick!
--- Stuart Leinoff <Leinoffs@ACC.SUNYACC.EDU> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 Hugh Haskell wrote (in part):

"My first wife died as a result of a missed
diagnosis, which should have
been made (an X-ray, which was normally routine for
these types of
complaints, was not taken, and it would have shown
the problem
easily). Had the correct diagnosis been made
intervention at the time
could have saved her life. As a result I sued the
physician and the
organization that employed him and received a
moderate sum in
settlement, of which the attorney took 25%.

I am certainly sorry for your loss, and I see
nothing wrong with the suit you
filed and won; apparently the court agreed with the
merits of that case. They
seem very different from the McDonald's hot coffee
case.

"I won't dispute the "deep pockets" issue here. That
sort of thing
does go on and I don't know enough about the details
of the McD.
incident to be able to say whether this was just a
deep pockets thing
or something more."

This is just my point. There may be mitigating
circumstances of which I am not
aware, but this case certainly has all the
appearance of exploiting an
unfortunate accident for unreasonable gain; which
the legal system thrives on.

"It's not where the coffee starts
from, it's where it ends up. If the slip or jostle
or hit that causes
the spill launches the coffee on the right
trajectory, it will end up
in your lap."

This is certainly true in determining what the
damages might be, but it is not
particularly relevant in determining culpability.
If, in fact, the coffee was
spilled because of careless handling, it doesn't
matter what path it took to
find its way into her lap. If she were sitting at a
table with the cup firmly
supported as it was opened I doubt we would be
discussing the issue now.

"My understanding is that the large damage award
from the jury
was later substantially reduced by either the trial
judge or on
appeal (this happens quite often in this sort of
case)."

This is GOOD news (in my opinion) and, I believe, it
validates my contention
that the original award was unreasonable, given the
merits of the case.

"But . . . if McD. had been told by competent
authority to lower the temp. of
its coffee, and they didn't, then I don't have much
sympathy for them.
They deserve whatever they got."

If indeed they did ignore competent authority they
should be held liable to some
degree; but I do think there should also be
limits... penalty commensurate with
the degree of the transgression. Again, there may
also be mitigating
circumstances on the side of McD; e.g. was the
thermostat inadvertently turned
up by an employee who was not advised of the new
coffee policy? Why would McD
Corp want to deliberately ignore sound council?

"Are you in a position to testify that this was a
frivolous lawsuit?
About the only two facts that we know about for
reasonably sure is
that the lady was seriously burned by too hot coffee
and the
management of this particular McD had been told of
it and chose to
ignore the warning. Unless there is information that
hasn't become
public, I don't see much evidence to support a
charge of frivolous
suing here."

No, I don't care to testify about anything regarding
this case. I can see how
McD might bear some burden of responsibility, as
stated in my original post, but
certainly not all of it, ...and not to the tune of
$1,000,000+.

"Certainly frivolous lawsuits occur."
We DO agree!


"...there are a lot of suits that
are fully justified but which would never be brought
if our system
didn't make it relatively easy to do it and allow
the lawyers to take
the case on a contingency fee basis....So please
don't throw out the baby with
the bath water. We may have
to tweak the system a bit to keep attorney's fees
from getting
outrageous--I have heard rumors of attorney's fees
of 50-60% of the
settlement, and I think that is wrong. But even if
the contingency
fee system gives rise to some frivolous suits, and
I'm sure it does,
it is too valuable to get rid of, because it is the
only way people
of modest means or less have access to the courts.
And they are the
ones who need it more than anyone else."

Agreed. I would only add that, Like Rick Tarara
(who I think is right on target
in this topic) my wife brings a unique perspective
to the subject. She is a
litigation claims adjuster for a large insurance
company. She has routinely had
to pay substantial amounts for obviously frivolous
claims when the cost of
litigation and potential jury exposure was
prohibitively high. The cost of
paying these claims, of course, is reflected in the
premiums I must pay.

The standard practice for all lawyer-represented
claims in these parts (NY) is
to evaluate the claim and then add 50%, because the
lawyer's take is 1/3 of the
final settlement. Fortunately, however, the claims
climate is changing and
(bolstered by a stronger jury pool and tighter
insurance economy) the
settlements are becoming more reasonable.

Still, I think we have quite a ways to go before the
legal system commands some
respect from my perspective.

Stu Leinoff,
ACC


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/