I just saw a commercial that went like this:
Woman: “I slipped and fell at the supermarket. Of course they said it wasn’t their fault. I called Slime E. Weasel and Associates* and got $200,000. Best decision I ever made.”
Are lawsuits like that really so easy to win? How did she possibly get the jury on her side? And how is it calculated that her bruised ass has earned $200,000?
*I don’t remember the law firm’s name
Are you talking about lawsuits in Canada or the US?
In the US, the general rule in premises liability (liability of a property owner to someone visiting the property) is:
http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/21744/
Here is a typical case where the plaintiff lost:
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
Are you talking about lawsuits in Canada or the US?
[QUOTE]
This was on the Boston Superstation.
Assuming facts not in evidence:
How do you know that she just had bruises? Yes, $200,000 would be high for bruises, which suggests that the injuries she suffered could have been more serious.
Here’s some questions to think about:
[ul][li] did she have any broken bones as a result of the fall? [/li][li] did she have any difficult to treat soft-tissue injuries? [/li][li] what was her age? (older bones don’t heal as well when broken)[/li][li] what was the cost of her medical treatment? was it paid for by her insurance coverage? did she have any health insurance?[/li][li] was she off work for any lengthy period as a result of the injuries? what was her lost wages?[/li][li] what was the nature of the defendant’s premises? had they ignored a build-up of snow and ice? had they been cited under municipal by-laws for failure to keep their premises clear? (either of these could contribute to punitive damages in some jurisdictions)[/ul]Note that I don’t know the answers to any of these questions either - but until you have this sort of information, you can’t assess whether the award was out of line.[/li]
You can’t simply assume that all that happened was a bruised bottom, and then leap to the conclusion that it was a silly lawsuit.
Quite a lot, an insurance company will settle rather than go through a long court battle. Notice that the ad didn’t say that she won her case, merely that she got $200,000.
I work for a real estate company that owns and manages shopping centers. We’re self-insured, and frequently choose to contest claims against us. Once these types of cases get to court, you’d be surprised how often the plaintiff loses, considering how often the opposite outcome is touted. Judges and juries aren’t as bad as you might think at recognizing a bogus claim when they see it.
Ah. Ok.
BTW, here is a summary of Canadian slip and fall law, which is now irrelevant. http://www.ibc.ca/bc_risk_trip-slip-fall.asp
So anyway, the law is basically what I cited before, with the usual disclaimers about variation between states and all.
For MA:
Are they easy cases to win? Nope. You often run into a sort of conundrum in these cases. Property owners are not liable for open and obvious dangers. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2001_sc/70153-9&invol=3. But by the same token, the plaintiff must show that the owner should have noticed the problem. So often the plaintiff has a hard time because she must argue against herself. She says, “you should have seen the oil slick in aisle four.” The store owner retorts, well if I should have seen it, why didn’t you?" And see, Minnesota Personal Injury Lawyers | TSR Injury Law (discussing difficulties in proving slip and fall cases).
There are plenty of cases in which liability is clearer than that (poor lighting made the slick impossible to see, but the slick was reported to management three hours before the accident; broken floor tile and previous accidents in the same spot). It really depends.
What Northern Piper said. This is brings us back to the much-revisited McDonald’s coffee case. People complain about the verdict in that case, and assume that the plaintiff got a little red spot on her thigh or something. Instead, her damages were quite severe:
No plaintiff’s lawyer in today’s economy can get $200,000 for a bruised ass. Here is a site giving exampes of some PI settlements in MA. http://www.ronconelaw.com/Articles_4.shtml; http://www.schwebel.com/Default.asp?Page=324 (MN firm giving some of its results and the injuries that their clients suffered).
Although apparently if you call it a soft tissue injury in the Virgin Islands, you can get awards well over $200K. http://www.coralbrief.com/CM/Custom/tocverdicts.asp
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ar&vol=appeals/1999a/19990317/ca98-820&invol=2 (plaintiff, while on crutches, slipped on hair gel in grocery store, awarded $10K for undisclosed damages, appellate court reversed because plaintiff had not proven that the gel was on the floor long enough for the store’s failure to discover it to constitute negligence.)
heh - I was gonna post about the McDonald’s coffee case myself!
That case in particular was not so much about the injuries the plantiff suffered (which indeed were quite severe), but that McDonald’s had ignored hundreds of similar complaints from customers over the years and continued to serve its coffee at around 200F. 200F is - on average - around 40F hotter than the coffee served at most other fast food places, yet McDonald’s kept the temperature on their coffee that high because it “keeps longer” that way. McDonald’s obviously knew that their coffee could cause third-degree burns, but did nothing to inform\protect its customers of this fact.
Also, I worked as a gopher in Atlanta’s premiere ambulance-chasing law firm for a few months. This firm advertises heavily on TV; their ads are similar to the one the OP mentioned. However, the number of six-figure cases the firm won per year could easily be counted on one hand. I had to stuff thousands of settlement checks into envelopes, and I can tell you that the average settlement was much closer to the $6,000 - $10,000 range than anything in the $100,000+ bracket. It was all about volume - ten $10,000 settlements are as good as one $100,000 one, no? And $10,000 checks are somewhat easy to get from an insurance company, at least compared to $100,000 ones.
Lastly, having stuffed those thousands of settlement checks into envelopes, can I just say that each and every one required that a “certified letter” sticker and a postcard be attached to them… I never wanna fill out one of those damn green postcards again, ever. Although it was ten years ago, my dreams are still haunted by those little postcards! 
Note that many of the stories you might hear are simply false, or else were dismissed.
Thanks to you all for restoring some of my faith in the legal system! I’m also glad to hear that the forward of silly lawsuits that Gfactor mentioned is not true.
On a side note, most of the commercials I’ve seen locally run along these lines:
“I was injured in an auto accident, and the “Texas Pitbull” got me $250,000!!”
While the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen reads:
(Actor portraying plaintiff: actual plaintiff lost eye, lung, testicle, both feet, bellybutton, most of ass, fingerprints, one nipple, needed head reattachment surgery, and had dryness of mouth. Results atypical, your settlement may be less. Okay, will be less.)
Sounds like you’ve got a “Mental Anguish” lawsuit right there 
Actually I think the lawfirm the OP refers to is: Law offices of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk
Something like that.
It reminds me of the Simpsons. Lawyer Lionel Hutz’ business card originally said:
“Works on contingency. No money down.”
But when the Simpsons asked him about it, he said he’d been meaning to fix the punctuation to:
“Works on contingency? No, money down!”
The thing that’s infuriating about the McDonalds coffee lawsuit - and that makes it a stupid, frivolous lawsuit - is that it doesn’t matter whether they had a posted disclaimer that it was hot - the spill was accidental, period, and coffee is hot. If a person accidentally shoots themself with a gun, it shouldn’t matter whether the gun is inscribed with a warning that it can kill people.
Sheesh, how many times do we have to do this?
Guns, inherently, can cause great bodily harm. Coffee, normally, cannot.
Only unusual coffee can cause massive 3rd degree burns. Coffee like this McDonalds’ coffee. Even though it looks just like normal coffee.
A better analogy would be a gun that, if you drop it from a height of a foot or two, sets off all the ammunition in the clip. Guns aren’t expected to do that, and should not do that.
Just like coffee isn’t expcted to cause massive 3rd degree burn, and shouldn’t do that.
Showing a complete lack of both knowledge of the relevant law and general understanding of the purpose of tort causes of action in the first place, not to mention a failure to comprehend the facts.
Sometimes I’m reminded why law school and a bar exam are necessary to practice law… :rolleyes:
Sure, coffee’s hot. The problem was how hot the coffee was. Cite:
So the example of shooting yourself in the foot doesn’t quite do it. Think more along the lines of your orange juice burning a hole through your cheek because the pH is much lower than expected.
On preview: what they said.
Exactly, people spill coffee all the time. The courts (there was more than one) and the jury found that McDonald’s should have foreseen that people would spill the coffee on themselves and that they would be serverely burned if they did.
Would it matter if the coffee was 500F instead of 200F? Hey, it’s her fault that she spilled it on herself. If she drank it, in either case, she would get severe oral burns, so that doesn’t matter either.
Remember the Pinto case? All those people were injured or killed in accidents. Cars are dangerous. Sometimes they even catch on fire when they crash. Does that make the Pinto case frivolous, too?
OTOH, how easy would it have been for McDonald’s to serve the coffee slightly cooler so that hundreds of people were not injured by coffee that was not only too hot to spill in your lap, but too hot to drink?
What **Random **said. I could go on, but this is GQ for crying out loud.