Immigration for the Elite

No, I'm referring to those who make a living bamboozling gullible juries with exaggerated heart-rending stories, phony data, and junk science. There are plenty of shakedown artists who employ such tactics and specialize in pressuring defendants to settle instead of risking a trial. The ease with which one can load a jury nowadays with wealth-envy sufferers enables this process in many big cities. Defendants obviously know this and always have to fear an unfavorable outcome, even if they have done nothing that a reasonable person would consider negligent.



I wasn't talking about major (as you put it, "gazillion dollar multi-national corporations") -- when I referred to entities I owned or controlled, I was speaking of entities that would by most metrics be considered "small businesses", or in some cases commercial real estate properties. (I ain't exactly Warren Buffett.)

If you want to be a blanket apologist for the plaintiffs' bar, go right ahead. I just don't think you're going to find a whole lot of sympathizers among those who've actually accomplished something in life. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Dang there, Cap'n, if I didn't have a bad knee, I hop right down there and kneel before your wonderfulness. In the mean time, you can just keep on being an apologist in your own right for I suppose McDonald's is still a prototypical mom'n'pop operaton there Warren, baby.

Dang there, Cap'n, if I didn't have a bad knee, I hop right down there and kneel before your wonderfulness. In the mean time, you can just keep on being an apologist in your own right for I suppose McDonald's is still a prototypical mom'n'pop operaton there Warren, baby. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

...and in the meantime, you can just keep on acting like a jackass!

Where did I suggest that McDonald's is a "prototypical mom & pop shop?"

Did all of this just go right over your head?

You're just too easy, Cap'n.

You're just too easy, Cap'n. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

No question about that.

Lots of women have found out for themselves over the years!

No question about that.

Lots of women have found out for themselves over the years! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Perfect example:

1) If you don't like the temperature of their coffee -- don't buy it. Nobody put a gun to your head and said you have to drink it. Its too hot for my taste, so I don't buy it.

2) Anyone who has ever bought McD's coffee knows it is hot -- if you don't like it that way, ask for ice. Its free.

3) What fool puts an open cup of hot liquid in their lap while driving? Probably the same ones that put on their makeup while driving and talking on their cell phones.

4) Cup holders -- every car produced in the last 20 years has them -- even high performance sports cars where they make no sense whatsoever. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I agree you make good points here but may i suggest another point of view as well for consideration? The Mc Donalds lawsuit was about a woman having massive burns to third degrees from spilling water that was way above boiling temperature on her body. Although i agree with you, because that was what me - as a european - would think too. I don`t think its so easy to judge that way and label the person who spilled the coffee all over her as stupid. In europe for example we have everything "normed" . We have standards , e.g. The ISO norm , for products so they don`t for example get to hot. Exactly for that reason because its dangerous to not have that. There is a temperature limit for coffee`s and for how hot the water is allowed to be. For protection of people. In the USA that is not the case. Therefor there are these lawsuits because its the company`s responsibility to not harm the people with their product. Coffee so hot that you get skin burns into the 3rd degree is simply irresponsible and the suer deserves every cent.
Even if it sounds ridiculous and common sense can be judgemental, but spilling coffee is not uncommon. :-)

So - even if i agree with the drawback of the"oh lets get rich with a lawsuit" tort (by the way did anyone watch that great movie about the tabac industry....;-).....the ones where they sued the company for not branding byproducts of cigarettes as cancerous - great movie) i do think these lawsuits are justified. Do i agree with the proceedings instead of being smart before? No. But i mean why not make norms like in europe to avoid exactly those cases? Its a difference between hot and F*CKING hot water :-) . and hot does it for brewing coffee too.... so its the companies fault, not the suers. In my opinion so to speak.

This will make sense to some but a new concept to the socialists on this board:

When someone sues and wins a huge judgement from xyz corp (or xyz governement entity), the cost of defending the case as well as the judgement amount are ultimately bourne by xyz corp's customers/consumers. In the case of a gov't entity, the taxpayers.

Most of us sane folk understand the need for a system that includes torts, but it shouldn't be like winning the lottery & recognize the real losers are consumers not the business...

This will make sense to some but a new concept to the socialists on this board Originally Posted by atlcomedy

They won't get it. They probably think corporations actually pay taxes -- as opposed to collecting them from customers.

Just to give TTH some new revenue ideas, the 2010 Stella Awards:

For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico , where she purchased coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head.

*SEVENTH PLACE*
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son

* SIXTH PLACE *
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

* FIFTH PLACE *
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT days and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish Keep scratching. There are more...

*FOURTH PLACE*
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

* THIRD PLACE *
Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

*SECOND PLACE*
Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah, plus dental expenses.

* FIRST PLACE *
This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her -- are you sitting down? -- $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Gee, PJ, can't you go find some fresh lies?? These are so old and recycled that the publicity hacks hired by the U.S. insurance industry to make the so called Stella awards have a link on their website that brand these as "Fabricated." Just like most of the tort reform junk.

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

And speaking of Stella, your recitation of the McDonald's coffee case is full of lies, too:

• Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
• Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
• McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
• Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
• While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.

Again, the bad guys admit all of this.

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

No, I'm referring to those who make a living bamboozling gullible juries with exaggerated heart-rending stories, phony data, and junk science. There are plenty of shakedown artists who employ such tactics and specialize in pressuring defendants to settle instead of risking a trial. The ease with which one can load a jury nowadays with wealth-envy sufferers enables this process in many big cities. Defendants obviously know this and always have to fear an unfavorable outcome, even if they have done nothing that a reasonable person would consider negligent.



I wasn't talking about major (as you put it, "gazillion dollar multi-national corporations") -- when I referred to entities I owned or controlled, I was speaking of entities that would by most metrics be considered "small businesses", or in some cases commercial real estate properties. (I ain't exactly Warren Buffett.)

If you want to be a blanket apologist for the plaintiffs' bar, go right ahead. I just don't think you're going to find a whole lot of sympathizers among those who've actually accomplished something in life. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Where are all these Defendants who just roll over and pay good money for bad lawsuits? I sure wish I'd sue one of them one of these days.

I represent folks that are seriously injured or killed, and they still make me get my cases worked up, get them ready to the tune of $20k - $250k in expenses per case, and still I get to try about two or three a year. Why can't I get one of these "scared of their own shadow" defendant that are so famous? Maybe because they don't exist??

This will make sense to some but a new concept to the socialists on this board:

When someone sues and wins a huge judgement from xyz corp (or xyz governement entity), the cost of defending the case as well as the judgement amount are ultimately bourne by xyz corp's customers/consumers. In the case of a gov't entity, the taxpayers.

Most of us sane folk understand the need for a system that includes torts, but it shouldn't be like winning the lottery & recognize the real losers are consumers not the business... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

true. I did not know that. Happy to learn. thanks for the info...

• Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
• Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
• McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
• Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
• While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

that was my point actually, but i`s stop short of calling PJ a liar because of that. He made his points and at some i agree, i do agree some lawsuits are more than ridiculous, and i had the same impression about the Mc Donalds case as well until i met an attorney who went thru with me on all the details - and then my european biased mind understood. The most important underestimated detail in this case was indeed the TEMPERATURE of the water. Not that she spilled it or was a stupid. No one would win a lawsuit if the temperature is normed like in Europe. If i go to a MC donalds in austria and spill my coffee and then complain they roll in the floor laughing about me. The temperature was the clue. But put that in internet without sufficient information - then it sounds of course like someone who spilled coffee got awarded for being a retard (scuse my french)

I as a european had the same arrogance to say that in the USA (don`t spank me please, at least i am honest) you can make money with the most ridiculous claims in court. Well i smartened up quickly when i discussed these things in a really profound matter with an attorney who enlightened me on some of these matters.

do i say that courts are fair and its not all about money ? I think the law system per se is unfair. Everywhere. Its just about who twists what law the best and who can hire the most expensive attorneys. Its never about fairness. So i actually think its cool (from my punk mind) that within such a system its actually possible that ONE single person can get a whole Sh"itload of money when he makes his point. Do i think its fair at all times ? No.
Its entertaining.

In europe its the other way round. For example the "restitution case" where you are right law wise but you can sue and sue and sue and sue til you run out of money and can`t afford it anymore. That is plain wrong.
so it was quite fun to hear about that lady from the USA Maria Altmann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Altmann
actually had the brain and the money to make a statement.(It was about a painting from Klimt that is now in NYC and that museums after WWII had not real right in claiming to possess) SHe did something that is unique in the history of Austria. She was a single person suing the state of Austria - and she won.

Usually with these restitution cases its very tricky. People are allowed to take back their stuff but since its old and museum protected they are not allowed to have these paintings or whatnot TAKEN OUT OF AUSTRIA which is quite tricky, since most of the surviving Jews actually don`t live in Austria. SOme of them were so poor they could not follow up on lawsuits, because - go figure - Austria or the museums they sued - had more money and just dragged the court cases into eternity WAITING TIL THE LAST SURVIVORS actually died out of old age, and the young would be tired of claiming. Its outrageous.

So given that set of mind where i grew up i think its actually fun these little victories of the "small people" are possible.
Do i think its fair or even remotely justified at all accounts. Not always. But hey, i mean law is per se unfair and fights in court are mostly not about justice but about who has more money and the best attourneys. IMHO.

And speaking of Stella, your recitation of the McDonald's coffee case is full of lies, too:

• Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
• Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
• McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
• Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
• While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.

Again, the bad guys admit all of this. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Thanks for the "facts" -- not that I give a shit. I still stand by my original post:

Perfect example:

1) If you don't like the temperature of their coffee -- don't buy it. Nobody put a gun to your head and said you have to drink it. Its too hot for my taste, so I don't buy it.

2) Anyone who has ever bought McD's coffee knows it is hot -- if you don't like it that way, ask for ice. Its free.

3) What fool puts an open cup of hot liquid in their lap while driving? Probably the same ones that put on their makeup while driving and talking on their cell phones.

4) Cup holders -- every car produced in the last 20 years has them -- even high performance sports cars where they make no sense whatsoever. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Not everything bad that happens to you is someone else's fault. Usually, your own stupidity/carelessness is a factor.

AS I PUT IT THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED, “Yes, the dumb buggers stepped on the gas instead of the brake.”

Government investigators have rejected claims that electronic defects caused Toyota cars and trucks to accelerate out of control, a finding released Tuesday that offers a measure of long-awaited vindication for the world’s largest automaker and shifts blame to the drivers who reported the incidents.

The report, based on work by NASA engineers, deflates accusations by drivers suing Toyota that mysterious electronic glitches instigated the episodes of runaway cars. It also supports the industry trend of entrusting critical engine operations to ever more sophisticated electronics and microprocessors.

So can we expect an apology from all the politicians and journalists who jumped at the chance to dump all over Toyota? Perhaps we could have Congressional hearings in which the hacks publicly explain why they dumped on Toyota when it was pretty obvious that this was a rerun of the Audi 5000 hysteria.

that was my point actually, but i`s stop short of calling PJ a liar because of that. He made his points and at some i agree, i do agree some lawsuits are more than ridiculous, and i had the same impression about the Mc Donalds case as well until i met an attorney who went thru with me on all the details - and then my european biased mind understood. The most important underestimated detail in this case was indeed the TEMPERATURE of the water. Not that she spilled it or was a stupid. No one would win a lawsuit if the temperature is normed like in Europe. If i go to a MC donalds in austria and spill my coffee and then complain they roll in the floor laughing about me. The temperature was the clue. But put that in internet without sufficient information - then it sounds of course like someone who spilled coffee got awarded for being a retard (scuse my french) Originally Posted by ninasastri

You've said basically the same thing as this in a couple of posts, and I understand your point. Standards are important, which is why they are controlled. From Wikipedia:

With the exception of a few seemingly fundamental quantum constants, units of measurement are essentially arbitrary; in other words, people make them up and then agree to use them. Nothing inherent in nature dictates that an inch has to be a certain length, or that a mile is a better measure of distance than a kilometre. Over the course of human history, however, first for convenience and then for necessity, standards of measurement evolved so that communities would have certain common benchmarks. Laws regulating measurement were originally developed to prevent fraud in commerce. Today, units of measurement are generally defined on a scientific basis, overseen by governmental or supra-governmental agencies, and established in international treaties. The metre, for example, was redefined in 1983 as the distance traveled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. In the United States, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a division of the United States Department of Commerce, regulates commercial measurements. In the United Kingdom, the role is performed by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL).

However, I would posit the attempt to control the temperature of coffee (or any drink or any meal) would get a violent reaction from the likes of the more libertarian or conservative members of this board. As a liberal, I'm not sure I'd go along with it either. Most conservatives/libertarians abhor government regulations, and believe the marketplace should regulate conduct (hence, PJ's assertion that she didn't have to buy the coffee). OTOH, I believe that the tort system is a form of marketplace regulation.

One of the problems with regulating the temperature of a drink is that you also have to establish a Department of Drink Temperature Enforcement, and while that may reduce the unemployment rate, it does seem like killing a fly with a sledge hammer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while that may be common in the European Union, it is not common here. And all we have to work with is what we have here. So, McDonalds suffers the consequences. So did the lady, terribly burned and scarred for life. And PJ reduces his life expectancy by a couple of days due to his angst.

OTOH, I believe that the tort system is a form of marketplace regulation. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I actually agree with this. In fact, tort actions and the threat thereof do a far better job of enforcing safe/fair business practices than an army of government dweebs.