Stupid typographical errors… ::grumble grumble::
Your arguments are all succinct, clear and intelligent. Anyone who does not see the truth in them clearly have holes in their heads. I bow to you.
I suppose I have a hole in my head.
The large amounts of electricity are necessary for the operation of the radio, hence the acceptable risk. 180 degree temperatures are NOT necessary for pleasurable consumption of coffee- indeed, it detracts- hence, the unacceptable risk. Massive amounts of nicotine and toxic chemicals are NOT necessary for the smoking of cigarettes, hence, the unacceptable risk.
Show some evidence that the coffee was purposefully used to be spilled.
With regards to cigarettes, their intended use is to light them, place the unlit end in the mouth, and to inhale the smoke. This use, of which cigs are fully intended, kill people.
You know, you’re only confusing the issue by providing so many different (and hardly relating) analogies. Are you implying that cigarettes are capable of jumping into peoples’ mouths and lighting themselves, just as the mule is capable of wandering into the road? Or that everyone who smokes a cigarette does so in order to kill the cigarette? My point is, if you’re going to provide an analogy, please point out how the analogy relates…
Just like how companies aren’t responsible for creating a deadly product and then lying about it.
Spoofe Bo Diddley, that the those who oppose your reasoning pat each other on the back with “well dones” but resort to childish slurs to those who disagree “must have holes in their heads”, and, most importantly, keep insisting that the only entities that have liability or responsibility for their actions are the individual consumers?
The basic issue, as you so eloquently put it, is that the Cig manufacturers have known for many, many years that their product killed their customers. And their response was to increase it’s addictive potential, deny the link between smoking and death, bury the evidence not only of that link but of their duplicity, target younger than legal potential customers, and then, when all those ploys didn’t work, rest on their arguement “well, you knew all along that it’d kill you…”
the real folks who knew or should have known better, than to continue on their course of action, were the manufacturers.
Danielinthewolvesden
Not quite sure exactly what point you were making, but I believe you are in error. If people would be familiar with all million or so cases and only come up with those three, your percentages would be right. But people only know the few cases that are seized on by the mass media. In these well publicized cases, the percentage of egregious verdicts is actually quite high. Of course, in some cases, such as the coffee case, the media only seized upon them becouse the verdict struck many as outrageous. But in others, such as the OJ and tobacco cases, the cases were widely publicized before the verdict came in. Looking only at cases which were brought to public attention prior to the verdict you would still have a higher percentage of unjust verdicts. Extrapolating to the million other cases about which we know nothing, it is likely that there are many thousand of verdicts that are equally rediculous.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:
For someone already addicted to nicotine, the nicotine certainly is necessary – in fact, it’s the promary reason (s)he smokes.
The main toxic chemical in cigarette smoke, the “tar,” is an unavoidable by-product of tobacco combustion.
On the McDonald’s Coffee case:
Another issue regarding the size of the award was McDonald’s trial strategy. Part of the defense was not just that the woman was responsible for pouring coffee in her own lap, but because she was elderly, her skin was more susceptible to this kind of injury. They also focused on her “lack of intelligence” for wearing the kind of frumpy, layered, “old lady” clothing that soaked up the coffee and helped hold it against her skin, exacerbating the burns. In truth, the plaintiff turned out to be intelligent and articulate on the stand – and VERY sympathetic. The strategy to portray the plaintiff as a “stupid old woman” backfired, and the jury was offended (this came through in post trial interviews). Combine this with the evidence of complaints and unsafe temperatures, and McDonald’s really had little to defend.
On the tobacco suit:
There is a fundemental legal difficulty with the $145 billion dollar award.
This is an award of PUNITIVE damages. The actual damages (for injury, pain and suffering etc) in this case was for the three lead plaintiffs was $12.7 million dollars. Not chump change, mind you, but a drop in the bucket compared to the punitive amount.
4 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a 2 million dollar punitive damage verdict in a case were the actual damages were about $4000 violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (BMW v. Gore, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (1996). This case invovled the purchase of a purportedly brand new BMW, which had actually been repainted to cover some scratch damage. The plaintiff sued BMW for fraud, and recovered actual damages of $4,000, puni’s of 2 mill.
The court determined that punitive damages must have a rational relationship to proven actual damages, and that an award 500 times actual damages goes too far. In addition, the Court noted that under the state consumer protection laws in effect (Alabama’s Deceptive Trade Practice Act), the maximum penalty for this kind of behavior was $2,000. (Indeed, this type of analysis was used to reduce the McDonald’s coffee verdict on appeal).
The 145 billion award is even more unprecedented than the BMW situation. First, punitive damages need to have a rational relationship to established, proven actual damages. Currently, the Florida tobacco class has proven actual damages for three smokers. Also, despite the number of 700,000 being thrown around as the number of members in the class, the actual facts show the ESTIMATED number of class members is between 300,000 and 700,000 smokers. There is no way of knowing how many are in the class at this time.
How can this be fair? If 500 times actual damages is considered by the Court to be per se unconstitutional, is it fair to award puniives on the speculated actual damages of between 300,000 to 700,000 people? You know that not every person who smoked cigarettes suffered the same kind of injury.
I’m not arguing that the tobacco manufacturers shouldn’t be punished with a punitive damages award. I argue that the current $ 147 billion award is not based in reality, and is unfair and illegal based on basic principles of due process and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Either the award should bear a rational relationship to proven and established actual damages for actual injuries, and not be based on pure speculation.
I agree, actually. I apologize if I gave the impression that my attitude was “throw the SOBs to bankruptcy!”
My take is this… they screwed up. Big time. They should be punished. I think $145 billion is based too much on emotional decision and the desire to “get even” with the “evil, murderous Bit Tobacco”. Ultimately, a good punishment is one that says “You screwed up… don’t do it again”.
Uh, none of the companies that exist originally made tobacco into a smokable product. One of the big reasons people came to the new world was to harvest tobacco and sugar. Tobacco is a product that is as much a part of our culture as alcohol.
Of course we should also be able to sue the government. They provided soldiers with tobacco in their provisions during WWII. They subsidized tobacco farmers for many years. How many smokers got hooked during their military enlistment?
Marc
MGibson…
Uh, all of which is just confusing the issue. My question is this: Did cig companies lie about their product, to the point that people may have died directly because of this deliberate lack of information?
Apparently, the jury assigned to this case thought so.
Simple as that. None of this “The Gummint’s to blame!” stuff. None of this “It’s part of our culture!” stuff.
As with everything else there is a simple solution. Lock the price of a pack of cigarettes at 25 cents by federal law. The tobacco companies won’t have any money for advertising (or anything else). They will get out of that business in a hot minute. Then, anyone who wants to smoke may grow their own tobacco, or buy it, so long at the supplier can’t make a living at it.
I am pretty sure that 110 volts in your bathtub will kill or injury you. By your reasoning, if a radio can be operated by batteries, then making one that plugs in is negligent because it is not necesary to make it a 110 volt appliance. Hmmm. Soany product that is made in a manner that is not 100% necesary is faulty if a person can find a way to misuse it and injure himself?
Show me one person who believes that coffee is made with to be spilled in the users lap. I know that when I make it it is meant to go in the mouth. coffee is not intended to be spilled. people may do so, but it is not the intended use of the product. Why is this so hard to grasp?
I was giving you a synopsis of the first trial that exemplified the concept of last clear chance. It relates because in the '60’s the surgeon general told everyone that smoking was hazardous. Smokers from that time on knew that smoking would cause injury, just as Bob knew that if he kept drinving down the road he would smash into the mule. Smoker had an opportunity, like Bob, has the “Last Clear Chance” to avoid the accident. They chose not to (addiciton or no.)
if they failed to warn the consumer, are tehy automatically at fault? Is it necesary to warn a consumer of a hazard that is widely known and understood?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**[
why is it so difficult for you to understand that if the coffee was hot enough to burn away flesh (the characteristic of a 3rd degree burn), that it would have burned away flesh anywhere on her body? so, if she’d sipped instead of spilled, she’d have had burns on her lips/tongue/mouth instead of her crotch. same case. the coffee was too hot. you’ve already asked “where are all the lipless folks if it was so hot” and the answer was that HUNDREDS of people had gotten burns (in various places on their bodies).
yea, if she’d have sipped it, maybe she’d have pulled it away quickly, but the damage from burning liquid happens pretty quickly and SOME area of her body would have been damaged because (ahem) the COFFEE WAS TOO GODDAMNED HOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION at the time it was served to her.
which is what any prudent person would do, and she would then have had a valid claim (and less damages.)
but I finally see the light. I am going to start using my pistol as a hammer, cleaning my ears with paperclips, using my glass coffee table as an aerobic excercise bench… because whether or not I use the product as it was intended, if it is capable of causing harm, teh manufacturer owes me bigtime.
This is why claims adjusters burn out after 5 years. I really should be used to it by now. I get people filing baseless claims al l the time. The most common are elderly people who simply fall over. They will argue with me for hours that we owe their meds because they fell on our premesis. Or the Musllims tht don’t bother to ask what is in the food and then find out that it contains pork. Or someone who trips over the “Wet Floor” sign.
I have had a few coffee burn claims. A child runs into a server, causing him to spill hot cofee on the kid. Parents sue because coffee was hot. The best way to avoid this that I can see is stop allowing customers into the store.
I actually agree with you about the folks who sue over tripping on the wet floor sign, kid running= kid gets hurt, you ate something you didn’t want to 'cause you didn’t read the printed up stuff indicating what was in it.
where we part company, though is the seriousness of the burns. When I had 2nd degree burns, I cringed when people compared them to the “scalds” they got from tap water or even, yea, a cup of coffee spilling on their hand. you can’t GET 3rd degree burns from coffee that is ready to sip. simply not possible. try this at home Mr. Z - boil some water to 180 degrees (the temp of the coffee in question) then, sip it. when you’re back from the er, THEN tell me how it wasn’t McDonald’s fault.
The second degree burns I got years ago were from a hot coffee pot spill. My supervisor had this coffe pot sitting on top of a stack of magazines etc. on top of other stuff, and I bumped into the cupboard it was all on, causing it all to spill onto my back. I IMMEDIATELY pulled the clothing away from my skin, but JUST the liquid (at about 120 degrees) that had touched my skin and was no longer on it had heated my skin enough to cause 2nd degree burns covering over my torso. 3rd degree comes from much hotter liquid being applied.
And, in case you don’t understand where I’m coming from, no, I didn’t sue my employer. I figured I’d seen the coffee pot arrangement and had chosen to try and get something out from the cupboard it was sitting on, and hence was the “proximate cause” of the problem, yea it was an unsafe rig up, but I COULD have moved the damned thing. So, no, I don’t automatically assume where theres’ an injury there must be a lawsuit.
well, I proably wouldn’t test the temp at all. I would try to pour it into a cup that I was holding directly over my penis. I would probably miss the cup and then I would contemplate how the water was defective as I waited for the ambulance. 
Then I would take up smoking.
you could take your own case, since you’re an attorney and sue your parents for having the defective clumsy gene… see, even semi liberals like me can see a joke and play along…
Oooh, but I am not an attorney, I am an Insurance Geek. Don’t insult me like that 
Correct. No self respecting attorney would hang out with low lifes like insurance men.
Unless, of course, they work for us. If we didn;t control so much money, no one would hang out with us