5 Mil Lawsuit
- Thread starter Chris A.
- Start date
Kingman
GT Owner
Amen!!
You would think that people would be smart enough not to run 3 abreast, in the roadway, with their backs to traffic, in a beach town that caters to drinking, when the sun is on the horizon potentially creating blind spots.....and there are sidewalks 'SPECIFICALLY' built for their walking/running/bicycling enjoyment nearby.
Growing up in the rust belt, we are taught at a very young age that cars are made of steel, and that people break far easier than metal. We look left, then right, then left again before proceeding into a crosswalk. Though on the west coast, people have this entitlement about themselves and walk without hesitation, nor looking at the 'prevailing conditions' into the street, be it a crosswalk or not. So when the 'Law of Physics' is explained to them in other terms, a lawsuit is generated.
I live near the accident scene and now I do not feel safe traveling down that stretch of road anymore...Not because of the conditions of the road...not because of the lack of a safer barrier...Because I know there are idiots like this guy driving on this road. For that, I feel it is completely legitimate for me to sue HIM for inconveniencing me and for causing me an irrational sense of paranoia every time I commute on this road...Sounds legit to me...???
JCSB
Ex GT Owner
I'm flying out to Cal. next month and I'm already on an emotional roller coaster from this. I'm in. :lol
John
Thinking about this a little more. I believe the only person I have trouble with shaking hands with is a proctologist.
Last edited:
GTdrummer
GT Owner
FlorIdaho Chris
Yeah, I've got one.
Perfect example of why we need tort reform IMHO. If we adopt a loser pay system like the rest of the free world it would stop stuff like this.
I don't blame the lawyers, I blame the system.
I don't blame the lawyers, I blame the system.
Listen, or rather read closely. I AM NOT SAYING THIS PARTICULAR ROAD WAY SHOULD HAVE A BARRIER OR ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT IS THERE. What I am saying is based on the the HYPOTHETICAL of a barrier not being placed even though the hypothetical approved design for the hypothetical road required a barrier or a barrier being present that didn't meet the approved design criteria or highway design standards for such a roadway (these latter claims still may be barred by various Tort Claim Immunities in various states based on "design immunity" which basically says if a design is officially approved by the State/Sovereign and the roadway is built as designed the State is immune). I think a lot of you missed what I was saying and interpreted my position as saying that a barrier should have been present in the Ferrari case. I don't know that and can't say that and even if highway design standards would have indicated a barrier shoould be there there may be design immunity. Sorry, this lawyer stuff can be confusing.
When you research the actual facts of the McD's coffee case and get beyond the newspaper hype and knee jerk distortion of the case which has become part of public lore the verdict made sense and so did the claim. This goes back to what I said before. You limit your true understanding of the case and the law and the legal arguments by reaching a verdict off a newspaper article.
McD's case: My understanding of the facts...an Abreviated/synopsized version.
Drive in sells woman superheated coffee capable of third degree burns from a drive in windo.
Women trys to open coffee lid.
Scalding superheated liquid, too hot to even consume spills and seriously scalds customer.
Industry standard points to coffee being served at a lower tempature and many other restaurants do serve coffee at lower temps.
McD's had knowledge of the fact that their superheated coffee could cause serious burns.
McD's had direct knowledge of at least 700 customers sustaining serious burns from their superheated coffee.
Customer in case at issue spends approximately 8 days in hospital undergoing skin grafts.
Jury awards roughly $400K in compensatory damages and as I recall about $2.5 million in punative based on 2 days coffee sales for McD's.
Based on those facts I'm not offended. Further, what you also never read about is the Judge reduced both awards.
Meritorious claim. Appropriate result. And for those of you that still think the claim is BS substitute yourself, your kid or a family member in the fact pattern and then still tell me you just chalk it up to experience and happily keep buying your happy meals at McD's and I'll tell you you would be walking away from a meritorious case.
Can't alway believe what you read in the Newspapers.
Here are my humble thoughts and opinion on Loser Pays: Facially appealing, granted but..Loser pays is advocated by the insurance industry and tort reformers as I understand. Wonder why? They understand it will have a severe chilling affect on meritorious claims and therefore fattening their profits even more. I think its fair to say the insurance industry likes premiums and dislikes claims. The majority of claims are meritorious and a lot of people would be afraid to seek court redress for fear of losing. Is that really a system you want?. Does that system help them (insurance industry) out more or you out more? You may say loser pays sounds good now if you don't have any legal issues to deal with at this time, but the day may likely come when you want to go to court, believe your claim to be just but then decide to walk away because it could cost you defense costs if you lose. Word of caution. If the insurance industry wants it I believe and suggest you probably don't want it. If you believe you will see any benefit from a loser pays system returned to you in any meaningful reduced insurance premiums, I seriously doubt it. Again, my opinion and my advice.
The garbage cases are best dealt with by frivolous claim rules and statutes. Our system wtih frivolous claim rules and statute penalizes the offenders and doesn't penalize those with meritorious cases just because they lose and maintains equal access to the legal system for both poor and rich alike.
Word of advice. Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.
You may also want to consider the positive side of litigation. Many of the safety devices on equipment and products today trace their way back to litigation and helps to encourage putting safety over profit.
When you research the actual facts of the McD's coffee case and get beyond the newspaper hype and knee jerk distortion of the case which has become part of public lore the verdict made sense and so did the claim. This goes back to what I said before. You limit your true understanding of the case and the law and the legal arguments by reaching a verdict off a newspaper article.
McD's case: My understanding of the facts...an Abreviated/synopsized version.
Drive in sells woman superheated coffee capable of third degree burns from a drive in windo.
Women trys to open coffee lid.
Scalding superheated liquid, too hot to even consume spills and seriously scalds customer.
Industry standard points to coffee being served at a lower tempature and many other restaurants do serve coffee at lower temps.
McD's had knowledge of the fact that their superheated coffee could cause serious burns.
McD's had direct knowledge of at least 700 customers sustaining serious burns from their superheated coffee.
Customer in case at issue spends approximately 8 days in hospital undergoing skin grafts.
Jury awards roughly $400K in compensatory damages and as I recall about $2.5 million in punative based on 2 days coffee sales for McD's.
Based on those facts I'm not offended. Further, what you also never read about is the Judge reduced both awards.
Meritorious claim. Appropriate result. And for those of you that still think the claim is BS substitute yourself, your kid or a family member in the fact pattern and then still tell me you just chalk it up to experience and happily keep buying your happy meals at McD's and I'll tell you you would be walking away from a meritorious case.
Can't alway believe what you read in the Newspapers.
Here are my humble thoughts and opinion on Loser Pays: Facially appealing, granted but..Loser pays is advocated by the insurance industry and tort reformers as I understand. Wonder why? They understand it will have a severe chilling affect on meritorious claims and therefore fattening their profits even more. I think its fair to say the insurance industry likes premiums and dislikes claims. The majority of claims are meritorious and a lot of people would be afraid to seek court redress for fear of losing. Is that really a system you want?. Does that system help them (insurance industry) out more or you out more? You may say loser pays sounds good now if you don't have any legal issues to deal with at this time, but the day may likely come when you want to go to court, believe your claim to be just but then decide to walk away because it could cost you defense costs if you lose. Word of caution. If the insurance industry wants it I believe and suggest you probably don't want it. If you believe you will see any benefit from a loser pays system returned to you in any meaningful reduced insurance premiums, I seriously doubt it. Again, my opinion and my advice.
The garbage cases are best dealt with by frivolous claim rules and statutes. Our system wtih frivolous claim rules and statute penalizes the offenders and doesn't penalize those with meritorious cases just because they lose and maintains equal access to the legal system for both poor and rich alike.
Word of advice. Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.
You may also want to consider the positive side of litigation. Many of the safety devices on equipment and products today trace their way back to litigation and helps to encourage putting safety over profit.
Last edited:
BlackICE
GT Owner
SYCO previously set me strait on the McD case. The news reports what will sell the news, not the whole truth and often much less. As for lawyers, I didn't have an appreciation for lawyers until I had to hire a bunch to them; it was worth every penny and it was a whole lot of pennies!
BlackIce: Exactly. :thumbsup
Your comments seem to validate what I usually say to someone making an unfair general "I hate lawyers" remark to which I like to respond "Yup, seems like everyone hates lawyers 'till they need one." ;-)
As for lawyers being expensive...can't argue that one... but just compare prices on everything...you can start with a loaf of bread from 1965 to present. Everything needs to be viewed in context.
:thumbsup
Your comments seem to validate what I usually say to someone making an unfair general "I hate lawyers" remark to which I like to respond "Yup, seems like everyone hates lawyers 'till they need one." ;-)
As for lawyers being expensive...can't argue that one... but just compare prices on everything...you can start with a loaf of bread from 1965 to present. Everything needs to be viewed in context.
:thumbsup
Last edited:
Thugboat
GT Owner
My vote for "THREAD OF THE WEEK" !.
I have changed my opinion several times in this thread and HOLY COW, I can even see both sides. Now, if we just had a judge on the forum to rule on these arguments we could send it to "LAW & ORDER". Oh, forgot, this was their last season, Dang it, One of my favorites.
Empty Pockets, I meant a real judge!!!:rofl:rofl:rofl
Larry Boatner
Now, I think I will go get me a Hot cup of coffee from Mickey D's. I need another GT!
I have changed my opinion several times in this thread and HOLY COW, I can even see both sides. Now, if we just had a judge on the forum to rule on these arguments we could send it to "LAW & ORDER". Oh, forgot, this was their last season, Dang it, One of my favorites.
Empty Pockets, I meant a real judge!!!:rofl:rofl:rofl
Larry Boatner
Now, I think I will go get me a Hot cup of coffee from Mickey D's. I need another GT!
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
GTdrummer
GT Owner
Further to McDonald's case (and God knows, as a defense lawyer I am NOT one to defend awards) The punitive award of $2.5 million is mostly what got all the attention. As I recall, (and almost never reported in the media), that award was reduced to $480,000--still a big number. McDonald's had a chance to settle the case for $20,000--not saying they were right or wrong to hold their ground.
On "loser pays", as a defense lawyer, it would truly be tempting. But in reality I have a couple of problems with it. First, most of the nitwits who sue are already judgemnt proof, so they might not care ,and my clients would get nothing they could collect. Second, there are legitimate , awful things that happen to good, honest people, and I would hate to see those folks have to "roll the dice".
I am all for limits on how much lawyers can take as a %. Also, bear in mind there are Judges who do not hesitate to sanction and fine parties and lawyers for foolishness.
On "loser pays", as a defense lawyer, it would truly be tempting. But in reality I have a couple of problems with it. First, most of the nitwits who sue are already judgemnt proof, so they might not care ,and my clients would get nothing they could collect. Second, there are legitimate , awful things that happen to good, honest people, and I would hate to see those folks have to "roll the dice".
I am all for limits on how much lawyers can take as a %. Also, bear in mind there are Judges who do not hesitate to sanction and fine parties and lawyers for foolishness.
Last edited:
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
Bony must be smiling Big Time.:biggrin
Just thinking of the possibility used car dealer as Judge on the Ford GT Forum. Scary, very scary.
Chip & Shelby watch your backs. The Competition has annouced his challenge to your exaulted positions.:rofl
fjpikul
GT Owner
BlackICE
GT Owner
Not until the national legal services bill is passed. Fat chance of that since the President, his wife and most of congress are lawyers! As for medical billing rates, most informed people know that Medicare and Medcaid patients are being subsidized by the privately insured and walk in patients. I only see the docs and the currently insured patients getting the short end of the stick in the years to come as the new "healthcare bill" gets phased in.
GTdrummer
GT Owner
I am all for docs getting paid handsomely.
My brother is a surgeon and it is a crime they way docs are pushed around and it will only get worse. I want the best and brightest to be entering med schools--and frankly, I don't see why any kid would be attracted to the profession now. I think we are in for a huge doc shortage soon.
My brother is a surgeon and it is a crime they way docs are pushed around and it will only get worse. I want the best and brightest to be entering med schools--and frankly, I don't see why any kid would be attracted to the profession now. I think we are in for a huge doc shortage soon.