The death of common sense.

[ChriswUfGator]

Stephen,

While I certainly feel sorry for the old woman's injuries, I cannot see how one could agree with the decision in this case.  Perhaps "older" or "less coordinated" folks should not attempt to open coffee cups in cars.  Or drive with cell phones in their ears.  Or do a myrian of other multitasking things.  One should know ones limitations.  Coffee is hot.  So are stoves and running motors.  This is a common sense issue.  I completely agree with the article. 

Certainly there are cases where a tort is justified.  The system just needs to be adjusted to deter these "fishing" lawsuits.

Oh, and one more time, you don't go to jail for letting your car insurance lapse.  You are disseminating bad information again.

You missed the entire point of the McDonald's litigation.

People expect coffee to be hot, as did the Plaintiff in this case. But people don't expect coffee to be kept at 9,000,000,000,000,000 degrees, and to be SO HOT that it's capable of causing THIRD DEGREE BURNS even through several layers of clothing.

McDonald's determined that, by adding ingredients that prevented the coffee from boiling, and by then keeping it at absurdly hot temperatures, they never had to change the coffee until they had sold all of it and it was time to brew more, because at that temperature it didn't get stale. This saved them some money annually, following their adoption of that policy in 1982.

By the time this case occurred in 1992, there had been SEVEN HUNDRED different complaints and lawsuits involving second and third-degree burns caused by McDonald's coffee. The corporation was aware of it, but chose to continue doing business that way because they added up the pennies and found the money they were saving on coffee across their chain exceeded the value of settling these lawsuits.

The Plaintiff in the case you're referring to received 3rd degree burns covering 6% of her body, mostly all of it in the pubic area. She was permanently scarred, had to undergo several skin grafts, and was PERMANENTLY deprived of all sexual feeling or stimulation.

Even so, she offered to settle the case for $20k because she was so embarrassed, and McDonald's told her to screw off and pound sand. The jury in this case absolutely 110% came to the right conclusion, and awarded her damages commensurate with not only what she had been through, but also enough to send the McDonald's the message that it was no longer going to be cheaper to ruin people's lives to save $10 a day on coffee at each location.

Here we have another instance of someone failing to conduct one of the most important analyses you can conduct in a free society. "There but for the grace of God go I...". If you experienced 3rd-degree burns, had to spend weeks undergoing skin grafts, and permanently lost all sexual function, I'm sure you'd feel the verdict was TOO LOW.

[Joe]

The McDonald's case is a terrible example for this discussion. Based on the facts, McDonalds was negligent, and the woman did suffer legitimate medical expenses that she was entitled to recover. So it's a shame when people try to use it as an example of a frivilous lawsuit, because it actually was legitimate based on the extreme facts that make it different from the simple "hot coffee" description.

However, on the other side, this is a terrible case to defend. It involved a total abuse of the punitive damages system by the jury. Instead of compensation for her physical and emotional damage, the woman initially recieved MILLIONS more than she was owed. All because the jury wanted to teach McDonald's a lesson. (This is technically allowed in limited circumstances, but for reasons too detailed and boring to discuss, the jury went overboard on this case).

The verdict wasn't too low. In fact, a judge eventually reduced the punative damages because they were illegally high. The standard for such an act by a judge is that no reasonable person (i.e. the jury) could have determined such high damages. The standard is very difficult - the Judge is literally saying that the jury did not behave rationally.

So ChrisUFgator ... according to the relevant caselaw, your opinion that punitive damages were too low is irrational. Hey, it's not even my opinion. It's a legal fact!

[NotNow]

Wow, I just love it when  lawyers talk down to me.  Chris, I don't think that I missed the point of the McDonald's litigation.  I understand (even though I don't have a J.D., I can comprehend) that the poor woman suffered serious injury and that the jury found McDonalds to be 80% at fault.  I also understand that McDonald's kept their coffee at 180F, which the vastly superior legal minds in New Mexico found to be "too hot".  Here is the key ...... listen now......I disagree with them!   Yes, it's true, I do.  Now, as for the "most important analyses (sic) in a free society", I have had my mouth burned by hot food and drink at restaurants and I managed not to sue.  I would bet that all of us have.  I even learned to wait for food to cool down and even to blow on my coffee to cool it down.  And as I have aged, I have learned not to attempt some things that I did routinely when I was younger.  Why, I could get hurt!  Without a warning on footballs, I might try to play again and get hurt.  I can then sue Wilson.  Just because someone suffers some harm, it doesn't necessarily imply that everyone would have suffered the same harm.  While I agree that in cases of disease or other acts of God, "there but for the grace of God go I" would apply, it does not in cases of learned behaviours.  People protect themselves against injury, harm, and property damages every day.  I have made the effort in life NOT to walk in the shoes of some of the poor souls we see every day.  In this case, perhaps an older woman had limited dexterity.  If she had trouble getting in and out of autos, maybe she shouldn't be handling hot liquids in cars.  Ninety seconds sitting in a puddle of hot coffee?  I would want more information.  I saw no reference to McDonald's adding any ingrediants to their coffee to raise the boiling point, can you point me to that evidence?

Again, I understand that a jury found that McDonalds had some fault in this, the POINT is that people should be more responsible for their own actions.  Some machines, substances, and actions can cause injury and care must be taken.  I am not saying that one should not be able to reclaim damages for negligence, simply that the standard that defines negligence should move a bit more towards ...... common sense.  Or at least I thought it was common. 

Oh, and "loss of sexual feeling and stimulation"?  Seventy nine years old?  Grandma!  I'm impressed.

[RiversideGator]

that didnt work for the old lady.

Exactly.  Hence her injuries.

[ChriswUfGator]

The McDonald's case is a terrible example for this discussion. Based on the facts, McDonalds was negligent, and the woman did suffer legitimate medical expenses that she was entitled to recover. So it's a shame when people try to use it as an example of a frivilous lawsuit, because it actually was legitimate based on the extreme facts that make it different from the simple "hot coffee" description.

However, on the other side, this is a terrible case to defend. It involved a total abuse of the punitive damages system by the jury. Instead of compensation for her physical and emotional damage, the woman initially recieved MILLIONS more than she was owed. All because the jury wanted to teach McDonald's a lesson. (This is technically allowed in limited circumstances, but for reasons too detailed and boring to discuss, the jury went overboard on this case).

The verdict wasn't too low. In fact, a judge eventually reduced the punative damages because they were illegally high. The standard for such an act by a judge is that no reasonable person (i.e. the jury) could have determined such high damages. The standard is very difficult - the Judge is literally saying that the jury did not behave rationally.

So ChrisUFgator ... according to the relevant caselaw, your opinion that punitive damages were too low is irrational. Hey, it's not even my opinion. It's a legal fact!

But then, if you eliminate punitive damages, how exactly are you supposed to send a message to some multi-billion dollar corporation that has actively decided that it's cheaper to ruin people's lives and cause permanent injuries than to invest the nominal expense necessary to prevent injury?

$100k to McDonald's is nothing. That doesn't even mean anything to a single franchisee. In the civil justice system, you send a message with the amount of the damages. That's all you can do, constitutionally. Removing the ability to assess punitive damages removes the system's teeth, and makes it virtually impossible to control anyone or any company who has money in the bank.

Naturally, that's just what they want, and at least so far their lobby is getting it for them. It's a sad, sad, turn of events.

[ChriswUfGator]

Wow, I just love it when  lawyers talk down to me.  Chris, I don't think that I missed the point of the McDonald's litigation.  I understand (even though I don't have a J.D., I can comprehend) that the poor woman suffered serious injury and that the jury found McDonalds to be 80% at fault.  I also understand that McDonald's kept their coffee at 180F, which the vastly superior legal minds in New Mexico found to be "too hot".  Here is the key ...... listen now......I disagree with them!   Yes, it's true, I do.  Now, as for the "most important analyses (sic) in a free society", I have had my mouth burned by hot food and drink at restaurants and I managed not to sue.  I would bet that all of us have.  I even learned to wait for food to cool down and even to blow on my coffee to cool it down.  And as I have aged, I have learned not to attempt some things that I did routinely when I was younger.  Why, I could get hurt!  Without a warning on footballs, I might try to play again and get hurt.  I can then sue Wilson.  Just because someone suffers some harm, it doesn't necessarily imply that everyone would have suffered the same harm.  While I agree that in cases of disease or other acts of God, "there but for the grace of God go I" would apply, it does not in cases of learned behaviours.  People protect themselves against injury, harm, and property damages every day.  I have made the effort in life NOT to walk in the shoes of some of the poor souls we see every day.  In this case, perhaps an older woman had limited dexterity.  If she had trouble getting in and out of autos, maybe she shouldn't be handling hot liquids in cars.  Ninety seconds sitting in a puddle of hot coffee?  I would want more information.  I saw no reference to McDonald's adding any ingrediants to their coffee to raise the boiling point, can you point me to that evidence?

Again, I understand that a jury found that McDonalds had some fault in this, the POINT is that people should be more responsible for their own actions.  Some machines, substances, and actions can cause injury and care must be taken.  I am not saying that one should not be able to reclaim damages for negligence, simply that the standard that defines negligence should move a bit more towards ...... common sense.  Or at least I thought it was common. 

Oh, and "loss of sexual feeling and stimulation"?  Seventy nine years old?  Grandma!  I'm impressed.

The thing that jumps out the most in your post is that, who are me and you, exactly, to determine who participates in sexual activity, and how much the permanent denial of that experience would be worth to another person?

That's not our place to judge...or even a jury's, for that matter. It's not our business to sit around and say "ewwwwwww" and "granny shouldn't be knocking boots anyway". The bottom line is, if sex was something she enjoyed, and is something that McDonalds' negligence deprived her of, then don't you think that she should be compensated for that loss?

Not to mention that she should be compensated for her suffering, and for having to undergo weeks worth of skin grafts, etc., plus the verdict should also send the corporation a message not to give people 3rd degree burns just in order to save a few bucks on coffee. The system didn't screw up here, actually it did its job perfectly. And as I mentioned, in the decade prior to this lawsuit, McDonald's was the subject of SEVEN HUNDRED prior complaints about severe burns caused by their coffee. This was not something that should have continued occurring...

And you know, you really can't let yourself have such a hard time walking in others people's shoes. Some day you or someone you love will be in the same position you judged or criticized someone else for being in. That's just how life works. $h!t happens. If you deprive that other person of available options for no better reason that it suits your current position in life, then you are ultimately denying yourself options if your position should ever change.

[NotNow]

OK Chris, I actually stated that I was impressed that Granny was still sexually active, but that was really just humor....H-U-M-O-R...it's in the dictionary.  Look back, the point is that I feel that Granny or her relative had more responsiblity to know her limitations, and in a broader sense, we should all be more responsible for ourselves.  To make it simple,  we shouldn't need a warning label on hot foods that we might get burned.  Now, if what you say about additives which raised the boiling temperature of water, then I would certainly agree that there is liability there.  But I have seen no proof anywhere that that accusation is accurate or that McDonald's used the temperature of their coffee to prolong the sales life of the product.  Just saying it don't make it so. 

I'll use the same argument here that my Democrat friends have grown fond of with me, just look at opinion polls, people are blaming the lawyers for an out of control tort system and an impotent criminal system.  You are in a wildly out of touch minority.

[civil42806]

I've been watching this thread with some amusement over the past days.  Have been named in a couple of suits for aircraft mishaps, because my DER stamp was in the maintenance log.  But then everyone in the maintenance log was named as well. basically a fishing expedition by those noble lawyers.  Those men that know how to do nothing but know how you should have done your job.  But this line gave the whole story away.

'$100k to McDonald's is nothing. That doesn't even mean anything to a single franchisee. In the civil justice system, you send a message with the amount of the damages. That's all you can do, constitutionally."

Who cares whos responsible, Mconalds and that franchisee have the money its only fair, its called social justice has very little to do with actual Justice.  I love the last line sort of implies the desire to do more doesn't it.  That darn constitution.

I believe the line out of Gullivers travels read "justice I don't know about that, but I do love the law"

[ChriswUfGator]

I've been watching this thread with some amusement over the past days.  Have been named in a couple of suits for aircraft mishaps, because my DER stamp was in the maintenance log.  But then everyone in the maintenance log was named as well. basically a fishing expedition by those noble lawyers.  Those men that know how to do nothing but know how you should have done your job.  But this line gave the whole story away.

'$100k to McDonald's is nothing. That doesn't even mean anything to a single franchisee. In the civil justice system, you send a message with the amount of the damages. That's all you can do, constitutionally."

Who cares whos responsible, Mconalds and that franchisee have the money its only fair, its called social justice has very little to do with actual Justice.  I love the last line sort of implies the desire to do more doesn't it.  That darn constitution.

I believe the line out of Gullivers travels read "justice I don't know about that, but I do love the law"

What is your point exactly? So no system at all would be better for you than an imperfect system? That makes a lotta sense. You are speaking in threadbare cliches. How about you say what you think would work better, then?

As to any fishing expedition you had to endure, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that there was some incident behind it, right? Nobody pays to conduct discovery when there are no damages. So in the event of a civil aviation accident, how is anybody to know what caused, let's say a gear collapse, without getting the facts straight? Filing a suit, taking your depo, sending the parts off for testing, having the logs reviewed, it's all necessary, because somebody screwed up (even if it ultimately turns out to be the pilot). You get to the bottom of it, the party responsible pays for the damages, and life goes on.

The world is unarguably a much safer place because of the civil justice system. If there were no financial consequences for screwups, then XX% of people would do the cheapest most profitable thing possible, which coincidentally enough is also normally the most dangerous. That's human nature. Like it or not, the system serves a purpose.

[civil42806]

I've been watching this thread with some amusement over the past days.  Have been named in a couple of suits for aircraft mishaps, because my DER stamp was in the maintenance log.  But then everyone in the maintenance log was named as well. basically a fishing expedition by those noble lawyers.  Those men that know how to do nothing but know how you should have done your job.  But this line gave the whole story away.

'$100k to McDonald's is nothing. That doesn't even mean anything to a single franchisee. In the civil justice system, you send a message with the amount of the damages. That's all you can do, constitutionally."

Who cares whos responsible, Mconalds and that franchisee have the money its only fair, its called social justice has very little to do with actual Justice.  I love the last line sort of implies the desire to do more doesn't it.  That darn constitution.

I believe the line out of Gullivers travels read "justice I don't know about that, but I do love the law"

What is your point exactly? So no system at all would be better for you than an imperfect system? That makes a lotta sense. You are speaking in threadbare cliches. How about you say what you think would work better, then?

As to any fishing expedition you had to endure, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that there was some incident behind it, right? Nobody pays to conduct discovery when there are no damages. So in the event of a civil aviation accident, how is anybody to know what caused, let's say a gear collapse, without getting the facts straight? Filing a suit, taking your depo, sending the parts off for testing, having the logs reviewed, it's all necessary, because somebody screwed up (even if it ultimately turns out to be the pilot). You get to the bottom of it, the party responsible pays for the damages, and life goes on.

The world is unarguably a much safer place because of the civil justice system. If there were no financial consequences for screwups, then XX% of people would do the cheapest most profitable thing possible, which coincidentally enough is also normally the most dangerous. That's human nature. Like it or not, the system serves a purpose.

"Nobody pays to conduct discovery when there are no damages."   Of course not, because there husband flew a small aircraft that had been setting in a field for seven years with no maintenace.  Because its a fishing expedition.  Regardless of the outcome the lawyers get paid.    If the litigant hits the jackpot then the lawyers get paid off.  If the litigant fails then all the poor bastards that had to pay for there lawyers pay there fee and move on with there life.  How about loser pays!!!!! you bring a case and lose you pay my fees.  Then find a noble lawyer to take that case.  If congress hadn't finally limited the litigations for small aircraft many years ago, cessna and beechcraft would have been bankrupt

[Midway ®]

Umm....that's Beechcraft, the airplane.  If he was flying a beachcraft, maybe that was the problem, flying boats is not so good.

[civil42806]

May the great spaghetti monster forgive me for the mispelling 

[ChriswUfGator]

"Nobody pays to conduct discovery when there are no damages."   Of course not, because there husband flew a small aircraft that had been setting in a field for seven years with no maintenace.  Because its a fishing expedition.  Regardless of the outcome the lawyers get paid.    If the litigant hits the jackpot then the lawyers get paid off.  If the litigant fails then all the poor bastards that had to pay for there lawyers pay there fee and move on with there life.  How about loser pays!!!!! you bring a case and lose you pay my fees.  Then find a noble lawyer to take that case.  If congress hadn't finally limited the litigations for small aircraft many years ago, cessna and beechcraft would have been bankrupt

Your thoughts of the legal system bear almost no resemblance to reality. Just to begin with, virtually ALL P.I. and wrongful death claims are taken on contingency. Meaning, the lawyer not only doesn't get paid a fee by the client, and doesn't get paid at all if there is no recovery, but additionally he's out several hundred thousand dollars of his OWN money for costs and expenses on any decently complex case.

Expert witnesses, doctors, accident reconstruction experts, the whole shebang, is extraordinarily expensive, and the client couldn't possibly pay for that even if they wanted to. This is a natural impediment to baseless lawsuits, nobody's going to put that much of their own money on the line unless they know there's a decent chance of getting it back.

As to the particular plane you're referring to, if it really sat for 7 years with absolutely no maintenance, then ummm....who signed off on the inspections, etc.?

[jaxnative]

OMG - "other peoples money"

"For attorneys these days, the law is not a search for truth, it's a search for clients.........."

"Unlike most economic activities, the legal profession has never been seriously affected by the law of supply and demand.  The more lawyers there are, the more ways they seem to find for expanding business horizons..........if it pays , or just gets publicity, it exists as part of the practice.  Stock market crashes and political power shifts - revenue threatening disasters for some people - are opportunities for attorneys to create new profit centers."

Lawyers and Thieves, Roy Grutman

We are graduating ten lawyers for every engineering graduate.  Law firms spend thousands fishing for clients on TV and radio.

It doesn't take much common sense to see the the legal system in this country has lost a great deal of respect.

[Midway ®]

Hence my proposal for the Attorney 2000^tm program, whereby everyone becomes an attorney and litigation becomes the primary industry of this country. It is a "green" industry, so it will have ecological benefits. Leave it to the Chinese to pursue those antique "smokestack industries".