Re: The McDonald's incident

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

Stuart Leinoff wrote:

> If she was jostled by someone, then, perhaps that person bears some
> responsibility, but they would not be subject to the same financial
> jeopardy as
> McD Corp simply because McD has the "deep pockets".

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.

> I think that the woman in question showed a lack of good judgement by choosing
> to stow her coffee cup between her legs.  Was this her first
> purchase of coffee
> from McD?  ...or that particular McD which, perhaps she should have known,
> serves very hot coffee.  I think they maintained their coffee very hot because
> there were complaints from take-out customers that the coffee was cool by the
> time they reached the office to drink it.

Who said she stored the cup between her legs? That is a very unusual
thing for a woman to do, because they wear skirts at least part of
the time, which makes such things rather difficult, so the seldom get
into hat habit, that men have. And why would she have had to have
done that in order to burn herself in the groin. I have spilled
coffee on that part of my anatomy (fortunately, not with her results)
when my cup was up by my chest. 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.

> Even if McD was deemed to be at fault, to what degree are they
> liable?  I would
> think that payment to cover medical expenses should be a maximum, but as I
> recall there was A HUGE amount more money awarded in this case due to
> (unjustified?) punitive  damages.

These are the issues appropriately dealt with by the judge and jury.
Only they have the full picture (or as full a picture as anyone will
get). 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). 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.

> I don't represent (or even like) McD Corp, but I resent having to pay
> significant amounts more for goods and services because the providers have to
> protect themselves against frivolous (unrealistic) law suits.

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.

> I'm sorry to run on off topic (Physics) but there has been light
> traffic on the
> list lately and I thought I'd proffer my 2 penny rail against the legal
> profession.

It seems to me that exercises like this are good to hone our critical
thinking skills, which, we need to demonstrate to our students, are
not only good in the physics classroom.

> Stu Leinoff
> Adirondack Com Col

Certainly frivolous lawsuits occur. Every time I have been sued, the
subject was frivolous (just kidding--I have never been sued, and hope
never to be). But on the other hand, 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.

I have benefited from that system (sort of--kind of like the way the
family in the old horror story "The Monkey's Paw" benefited). 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%. That was a substantial
amount of money, but on the other hand, he had taken 100% of the
risks, done all the leg work to put the case together, and I had put
up nothing. There is no way I could have done that if I had had to
pay all the costs up front.

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.

Hugh

--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************