I would love to hear comments from our cadre of lawyers...
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/01/11/running_at_recess
QuoteRunning at Recess
George Will
Sunday, January 11, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Called to a Florida school that could not cope, police led the disorderly student away in handcuffs, all 40 pounds of her 5-year-old self. In a Solomonic compromise, schools in Broward County, Fla., banned running at recess. Long Beach, N.J., removed signs warning swimmers about riptides, although the oblivious tides continued. The warning label on a five-inch fishing lure with a three-pronged hook says, "Harmful if swallowed"; the label on a letter opener says, "Safety goggle recommended."
No official at the Florida school would put a restraining arm around the misbehaving child lest he or she be sued, as a young member of Teach for America was, for $20 million (the school settled for $90,000), because the teacher put a hand on the back of a turbulent seventh-grader to direct him to leave the classroom. Another teacher's career was ruined by accusations arising from her having positioned a child's fingers on a flute. A 2004 survey reported that 78 percent of middle and high school teachers have been subjected to legal threats from students bristling with rights. Students, sensing the anxiety that seizes schools when law intrudes into incidental relations, challenge teachers' authority.
Someone hurt while running at recess might sue the school district for inadequate supervision of the runner, as Broward Country knows: It settled 189 playground lawsuits in five years. In Indiana, a boy did what boys do: He went down a slide head first -- and broke his femur. The school district was sued for inadequate supervision. Because of fears of such liabilities, all over America playgrounds have been stripped of the equipment that made them fun. So now in front of televisions and computer terminals sit millions of obese children, casualties of what attorney and author Philip Howard calls "a bubble wrap approach to child rearing" produced by the "cult of safety." Long Beach removed the warning signs because it is safer to say nothing: Reckless swimmers injured by the tides might sue, claiming that the signs were not sufficiently large or shrill or numerous, or something. Only a public outcry got the signs restored.
Defensive, and ludicrous, warning labels multiply because aggressiveness proliferates. Lawsuits express the theory that anyone should be able to sue to assert that someone is culpable for even an idiotic action by the plaintiff, such as swallowing a fishing lure.
A predictable byproduct of this theory is brazen cynicism, encouraged by what Howard calls trial lawyers "congregating at the intersection of human tragedy and human greed." So:
A volunteer for a Catholic charity in Milwaukee ran a red light and seriously injured another person. Because the volunteer did not have deep pockets, the injured person sued the archdiocese -- successfully, for $17 million.
The thread connecting such lunacies is a fear permeating American life. It is, alas, a sensible fear arising from America's increasingly perverse legal culture that is the subject of what surely will be 2009's most needed book on public affairs -- Howard's "Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans from Too Much Law."
A nation in which the proportion of lawyers in the work force almost doubled between 1970 and 2000 has become ludicrously dense with laws. Now legal self-consciousness is stifling the exercise of judgment. Today's entitlement culture inculcates the idea that everyone is entitled to a life without danger, disappointment or aggravation. Any disagreement or annoyance can be aggressively "framed in the language of legal deprivation."
Law is essential to, but can stifle, freedom. Today, Howard writes, "Americans increasingly go through the day looking over their shoulders instead of where they want to go." The land of the free and the home of the brave has become "a legal minefield" through which we timidly tiptoe lest we trigger a legal claim. What should be routine daily choices and interactions are fraught with legal risk.
Time was, rights were defensive. They were to prevent government from doing things to you. Today, rights increasingly are offensive weapons wielded to inflict demands on other people, using state power for private aggrandizement. The multiplication of rights, each lacking limiting principles, multiplies nonnegotiable conflicts conducted with the inherent extremism of rights rhetoric, on the assumption, Howard says, "that society will somehow achieve equilibrium if it placates whomever is complaining."
But in such a society, dazed by what Howard calls "rule stupor" and victimized by litigious "victims," the incentives are for intensified complaining. Read Howard's book, and weep for the death of common sense.
It's not just the legal system, its everywhere. (Note my slogan at the bottom of my posts!) That's why we have the courthouse, Skyway, parking garage, the current financial mess, the war without an end plan in Iraq, and countless other examples EVRYDAY of lousy decisions throughout our society.
Risk avoidance manifests itself in other ways as well.
So many people today want to "fit in", are impatient, do not want to make waves, want to feel good now with a minimum of sacrifice, effort, or discomfort, not interested in team building (too much effort and time and might require compromise), want to be politically correct, etc. and are deathly afraid to speak their minds or contribute to best solutions less they be chastised, questioned, overridden or rejected, be exposed to conflict, asked to make a commitment, sacrifice their popularity, etc.
Because of our timidness to take actions with risks, we lack the experience achieved in the "school of hard knocks" from which we develop our COMMON SENSE. As a sidebar, our behaviors result in a deafening silence that yields actions taken without proper consideration of the appropriate inputs, checks and balances, or possible consequences necessary to insure best practices and outcomes. This gives us more knee-jerk and "emotionally" based processes, often devoid of risk - not well reasoned and seasoned intellectual ones taken in association with thoughtful plans that manage associated risks.
No doubt, we face a questionable future because of current societal mode.
The short answer:
American tort law (the law that lets one person sue another person for injury) is absurdly stacked in favor of the plaintiff (the person who sues). It's one of the most plaintiff friendly systems in the world. As a result, anyone who owns a business or sells a product is justifiably scared to death of being sued.
I can give more details if anyone wants. But that's the reason you see absurd warning labels and bizarre rules. It's not some weird cultural insanity. It is specifically because defendants are at a huge disadvantage in the U.S. and people who run businesses HAVE to be that paranoid, otherwise they WILL get sued.
But it was not always this way. Has tort law changed that dramatically?? Seems to me something is wrong with the generations since the WWII gang. Personally I think we are incredibly, incurably, undeniably, spoiled freeking rotten...
I couldn't agree more, and find it shameful as to how society has become. It's true, common sense and taking ownership of your own responsibilities has been kicked to the curb.
It ticks me off when school systems (and I know ours does) settles for big dollar amounts, over what it shouldn't be held liable for. Just as our court systems are overloaded with these ridiculous cases.
The best phrase in that article is "entitlement culture", it is the goad of what today has become, which is the majority of society feels they are entitled to be handed everything in life without working for it, or at least putting in a good effort. Who can I sue to make me a millionaire rather than earning it myself? What, you mean it could take me twenty-five years to earn the lifestyle I want . . . who can I sue to get that much money now? It seems to be the American way now. The old fashion American way that used to be "earn it" has turned to "sue for it". With the global economy in the state of affairs it is in, I don't see the earn way coming back into existence for some time. The morals of the average human being has dipped to a depressing low.
When is the last time you heard law described as beautiful or as inspiring? I cringe at the thought of it as art.
We are all aware of the mcDs case... This is not really the point of Wills "narrow little article". He is decrying the the culture of blaming someone else for your problems...
A poor analogy... but most outside of your circle would disagree with you assesment of Wills conclusions...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 16, 2009, 12:45:15 PM
But it was not always this way. Has tort law changed that dramatically??
Yes, tort law has changed subtly, but with great impact.
In the past, if the plaintiff contributed to the cause of his injury, he was precluded from winning. Makes sense, right? Today, the plaintiff must contribute to 50%-51% (depending on the state) to the cause of his injury before being barred from winning. In other words, even if the plaintiff was a negligent idiot, as long as a jury determines he was only 30% or 40% negligent, he can still sue the pants of someone else.
Another big issue is the concept of "duty." It gets very technical, but essentially courts have been slowly expanding the amount of duty against negligence that we owe to other people. This means more lawsuits.
The biggest issue is probably court costs. Unlike most of the rest of the world, in America the loser does NOT typically pay the winner's court costs. This means that some jackass and his jackass ambulance chasing lawyer can harass people with lawsuits all day. As long as they never cross the line into being legally frivilous they can sue on cases
they know they'd probably lose and not have to worry about paying their victim... er opponent's legal fees. Why does this matter?
Because most cases don't go to trial. They settle. Therefore scumbags go around and "fish" for settlements hoping that some poor business owner would rather settle than risk a trial. And if someone actually stands up to them and lets it go to court, they never have to worry about paying the other sides legal fees. It costs little more than the scumbag lawyer's time.
QuoteOf course, its hard to argue with an idea like "Motherhood is precious" or "Liberty is Good" Or other such truisms.
Not sure what you mean Stephen? I know you enjoy a hot cup of coffee and understand the brewing and serving process...
QuoteThe smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150â€"160 °F [66â€"71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[22]
Absolutely... and as the consumer of said kabob you should be careful of flying flaming skewers... :)
I suggest next time you order hot coffee, do not place said hot coffee between your legs.
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.
Quote from: Joe on January 16, 2009, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 16, 2009, 12:45:15 PM
But it was not always this way. Has tort law changed that dramatically??
Yes, tort law has changed subtly, but with great impact.
In the past, if the plaintiff contributed to the cause of his injury, he was precluded from winning. Makes sense, right? Today, the plaintiff must contribute to 50%-51% (depending on the state) to the cause of his injury before being barred from winning. In other words, even if the plaintiff was a negligent idiot, as long as a jury determines he was only 30% or 40% negligent, he can still sue the pants of someone else.
Another big issue is the concept of "duty." It gets very technical, but essentially courts have been slowly expanding the amount of duty against negligence that we owe to other people. This means more lawsuits.
The biggest issue is probably court costs. Unlike most of the rest of the world, in America the loser does NOT typically pay the winner's court costs. This means that some jackass and his jackass ambulance chasing lawyer can harass people with lawsuits all day. As long as they never cross the line into being legally frivilous they can sue on cases they know they'd probably lose and not have to worry about paying their victim... er opponent's legal fees. Why does this matter? Because most cases don't go to trial. They settle. Therefore scumbags go around and "fish" for settlements hoping that some poor business owner would rather settle than risk a trial. And if someone actually stands up to them and lets it go to court, they never have to worry about paying the other sides legal fees. It costs little more than the scumbag lawyer's time.
Your wistful longing for the days of pure contributory negligence, is silly. That doctrine never made any sense at all, and that's why the law was changed.
Under traditional contributory negligence, if you were 10% at fault, and the other person is 90% at fault, you're still denied all recovery. Tough luck.
Under the modern scheme of comparative fault, you would pay the first 10% of your damages, and the other person pays the other 90%, according to the percentage to which each party was at fault. This is just, fair, and makes a lot of sense. Some states even have hybrid models, as you mentioned, where if the Plaintiff is some percentage at fault (normally 51%), then he is denied recovery. This is less fair than pure comparative fault, but still makes more sense than the traditional doctrine of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to to recovery.
I think the problem lately, in my personal experiences, are businesses and business owners, city governments, a medical industry, and ESPECIALLY an insurance industry, who all think they should be able to do whatever the hell they want, without fear of any recourse. They have assembled a lobbying effort of gargantuan proportions, and are actively seeking to change laws to that effect.
But the problem goes deeper than that. The truth is, it's getting to the point where nobody does what they're supposed to anymore, or what they've promised to do, unless you make them. I could give countless, countless, countless examples of the stupid hassles I've had with city government, eBay members, car dealers, and even USAirways. I'm not one of those litigation shy folks, and if someone screws me then they're going to pay for it. But I have never undertaken a frivolous lawsuit, and in fact we already have a statute, 57.105, that clips anyone who files such a suit with sanctions and the other party's attorneys' fees. So, the law ALREADY fully addresses your concerns.
Bottom line, 90%+ of the time, the people who get sued deserve it. Pointing out articles and complaining about the 10% of the time things don't make sense gives everyone an incorrect impression of the condition of the American legal system.
Our society is rapidly losing any and all sense of personal responsibility, and nobody seems to have the common sense (since this thread is about common sense after all) to do the old "There but for the grace of God go I..." analysis. Meaning, if you gerrymander "tort reform" or "frivolous lawsuit control" so that you can screw someone and get away with it, then guess what...it's only a matter of time before someone else does it to you. And when you personally need to avail yourself of the justice system, then I suspect all of a sudden it wouldn't be so "frivolous" or "unfair" anymore, would it?
Quote from: NotNow on January 17, 2009, 11:45:27 AM
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.
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! :)
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.
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2009, 11:03:29 AM
that didnt work for the old lady.
Exactly. Hence her injuries.
Quote from: Joe on January 17, 2009, 01:21:35 PM
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.
Quote from: NotNow on January 17, 2009, 02:02:28 PM
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.
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.
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"
Quote from: civil42806 on January 18, 2009, 08:17:02 PM
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.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 18, 2009, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: civil42806 on January 18, 2009, 08:17:02 PM
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
Umm....that's Beechcraft, the airplane. If he was flying a beachcraft, maybe that was the problem, flying boats is not so good.
May the great spaghetti monster forgive me for the mispelling ;D
Quote from: civil42806 on January 18, 2009, 09:34:58 PM
"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.?
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.
Hence my proposal for the Attorney 2000tm 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".
Quote from: jaxnative on January 18, 2009, 10:57:54 PM
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.
Well, I would never even try to argue the advertising thing. It is clearly sleazy, detrimental, and is actively ruining the profession.
As to Roy Grutman's book, I read it many years ago, and I believe you're taking him out of context. That self-congratulatory book, in all it's New-York sleazeball glory, was focused on the collapse of Finley Kumble, and many of Grutman's comments were intended to describe that firm's culture, more than the entire profession.
Quote from: Midway on January 18, 2009, 11:05:39 PM
Hence my proposal for the Attorney 2000tm 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".
Ya, the Chinese are doing such a fantastic job too! I mean, what with all the melamine in baby formula, poison in dog food, toxic formaldehyde in home wallboard, lead in children's toys, and on and on and on. Gee, who wouldn't be happy with that?
And FWIW, this is mainly my point. There's a cheap-ass way to do things, and then there's the right way to do things. The US legal system insures things are, for the most part, done the right way here. China is, by comparison, the wild west. You see the results of the difference between the two, about every month on the news when the next defective/dangerous/tainted Chinese product scandal breaks.
I have read this thread and agree with points on both sides: we need legal accountability but often it, like many things in life, is a good idea taken to extremes where it borders on the ridiculous. Needless to say, where the border is is a subjective determination and well meaning people can disagree over it.
But the extremes do need to be addressed. I can't tell you how many frivolous "slip and fall" claims I have seen. When an elderly or other "physically disadvantaged" individual, who has a naturally high risk quotient for stumbling, stumbles on good pavement or from stepping off a curb when literally thousands of others have navigated such areas with no problems, it is not reasonable to sue the property owner for damages. It is a mere hazard of life that even the most able of us will, sooner or later, misstep or stumble along the way due to our inattention, momentary lapse of coordination or proper muscle action, or some other contributing factor of our own making. Why should a property owner have to automatically settle through their insurers for thousands of dollars everytime someone missteps?
And, why, are property owners so often held accountable for a crime on their property for which the owner had no involvement in and for which no reasonable person could have prevented or would have invested in the extreme measures necessary to prevent such crime (i.e. must EVERY business or landlord provide security guards, have bullet proof glass, maintain doors with locks worthy of Fort Knox, light up the grounds to the brightness of the sun, maintain Orwellian cameras, etc.)? Often, even when such security is provided, it is compromised by the very employees or tenants who will still sue for damages. Do you know how few tenants will change the batteries on landlord provided smoke detectors? Will use unauthorized and unsafe space heaters to avoid JEA even while having efficient heat pumps provided by the landlord? Will discharge a fire extinguisher and never notify the landlord? Will use the very locks provided? Will increase their own risks or create hazards yet hold the landlord or property owner accountable nonetheless?
By the way, I don't think any trial lawyer would deny that there is also a strong correlation between plaintiffs and their lack of income or financial assets. This further creates the impression among us lay people that much of our litigation is a scheme to both enrich lawyers and those that have failed to achieve financial success through other means.
There is a whole industry of lawyers who live off of making claims averaging from $5,000 to $50,000 with no press, no law suits, no juries. They just settle for "nuisance" value because they know insurers and business will not find it worth the time and expense to fight back even when they feel they have done nothing wrong. Due to their volume and widespread impact on nearly every business, these settlements are far more insidious than the multimillion dollar ones that get all the publicity.
Adding to the perception, is that lawyers are also judges and the most prevalent profession in our legislative bodies that pass the laws under which such litigation is allowed to flourish. As such, the legal profession is almost unchecked resulting in it having nearly free reign in stacking the deck by both making more laws friendly to their profession as well as to deciding how those laws will be imposed upon our society. Lay people have been left helpless to allay or participate in the magnification of the legal system through the years.