# Civil lawsuit: plaintiff's word vs nothing **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 2, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278 "2019-12-02T17:19:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/21 "2019-12-02T21:45:25Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > In the land of frivolous lawsuits, it is also well known that juries have a tendency to sympathize with the victim (especially a little old lady with severe injuries) against the deep pockets of big business despite the facts of the case. (It is also well known that many cases big companies will often settle regardless of the merits due to the cost of litigation and the risk of sympathetic juries) I have talked to 1000s of jurors and prospective jurors over the past 30 years. They are very skeptical and concerned about “frivolous lawsuits” and many believe it is their sacred duty to protect endangered corporations from the threat of litigation. It is well known that many plaintiffs will settle their cases for half of their value because of the risk of conservative jurors tanking their case (or a judge dismissing the case on summary judgment) Jurors are not idiots. They are not unsophisticated. 8 to 12 average members of the community do a pretty good job separating valid claims from stupid claims. Most juries manage to achieve at least “rough justice” for the parties. By the way, I have never had a company settle a case that had no merit to avoid the risk or sympathetic juries. The most I have seen is a “nuisance” value settlement to avoid the cost of litigation. Even those are rare if they think the case has no merit. They will usually be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending those cases to discourage the next litigant. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/22 "2019-12-02T22:37:12Z")
In the UK, it may not be a court, but an insurance Co that settles a frivolous case. Our friend was a Scout leader and one evening he and his assistant supervised a meeting. Towards the end of the meeting, they started a game and he went into a separate room to do some paperwork; his door was open and he could see part of the main area from where he was sitting. The game got a little boisterous and before he could intervene, one of the boys fell over and broke his radius. The ambulance took the boy to hospital where he was plastered up and sent home with his parents. A few days later the leader heard that the boy’s father was suing the Scout Movement for damages on the grounds of negligence. (Note that there would be no medical costs) The two leaders vigorously defended their actions and were adamant that the accident would have happened even if both leaders were present; the District supported them, but the insurance company took the view that defending the case in court would run up considerably more costs than paying the damages. The problem with that decision was that the leaders felt that this meant that they were seen as being negligent; the result was that they both resigned and the Scout company folded. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/23 "2019-12-02T23:48:08Z")
The insurance company doesn’t have the power to settle without the consent of the defendants. The insurance company has the power to say that they recommend settlement, and will negotiate the best settlement they can get… But, if the defendants aren’t prepared to enter into settlement negotiations, the company can advise that they will not pay for counsel on the case if that recommendation is refused. It still would be open to the defendants to defend themselves, at their own cost. It’s also common for settlements to be without admission of liability. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/24 "2019-12-02T23:52:15Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > When defendants destroy and/or hide evidence and help the perpetrator avoid prosecution and/or outside investigation and do their best to delay any lawsuit or investigation of the cover up, it takes an incredible amount of chutzpah for them to turn around and complain that there is now not a lot of evidence. It’s not that uncommon for defendants to not have or refuse to turn over evidence, or for the current operators of a corporate entity to have difficulty tracking down something previous operators wished to cover up. You’re making some assumptions there, that the reason the documents from 40 years ago are not available are signs of a cover-up continuing to the present day. Companies, churches and non-profits are not under any obligation to preserve documents indefinitely. The usual rule is to maintain whatever documents are necessary for income tax returns, mortgage payments, and corporate returns. Once those time periods expire, destruction of documents according to document retention schedules is common. There can’t be a presumption that the absence of documents from 40 years ago is evidence of a cover-up. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/25 "2019-12-02T23:53:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The insurance company doesn’t have the power to settle without the consent of the defendants. > > The insurance company has the power to say that they recommend settlement, and will negotiate the best settlement they can get… But, if the defendants aren’t prepared to enter into settlement negotiations, the company can advise that they will not pay for counsel on the case if that recommendation is refused. That’s not generally true in the U.S. at least. Doctors usually have a “consent clause” in their malpractice policy, but most auto and general liability policies give the insurance company absolute authority to settle, with our without consent. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/26 "2019-12-02T23:54:31Z")
Difference in systems, I guess ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/27 "2019-12-03T14:54:38Z")
Returning to the OP, rather than a more general discussion of “frivolous lawsuits,” there is no inherent reason why a civil action could not be decided based on the testimony of a single witness (including a plaintiff). The question is simply whether the factfinder deems the testimony credible and the testimony addresses all the elements of the underlying tort. Certain elements and certain types of damages will typically require testimony from expert witnesses (a civil plaintiff cannot testify to medical causation, for example), but otherwise there’s no theoretical bar. There are, of course, statutory mechanisms which may protect the churches in these cases, such as the statute of limitations. There are also equitable mechanisms such as _[laches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity))_ which can be invoked when the passage of time has deprived a defendant of the evidence it would have relied on to defend a claim. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/28 "2019-12-03T19:05:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > You’re making some assumptions there, that the reason the documents from 40 years ago are not available are signs of a cover-up continuing to the present day. No, I’m not making an assumption that the lack of documents are signs of a cover up. It’s the well-known practice of protecting child molesting priests from prosecution that the Catholic church engages in on a massive scale that is the evidence for a cover up, the lack of documents is a consequence of that practice, not evidence to show it. When your organization works hard to protect child molesters from prosecution, lawsuits, and even investigation, complaining that your efforts to protect child molesters have resulted in documents not being available is contemptible. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/29 "2019-12-03T19:48:55Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > No, I’m not making an assumption that the lack of documents are signs of a cover up. It’s the well-known practice of protecting child molesting priests from prosecution that the Catholic church engages in on a massive scale that is the evidence for a cover up, the lack of documents is a consequence of that practice, not evidence to show it. When your organization works hard to protect child molesters from prosecution, lawsuits, and even investigation, complaining that your efforts to protect child molesters have resulted in documents not being available is contemptible. The lawsuit would be against the priest and the diocese, not the Roman Catholic church in general. Certainly evidence that that particular diocese conspired to cover it up would be relevant. But if someone is suing someone in California I don’t know that what happened in Boston or Ireland is going to be admissible. Although IANAL. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/30 "2019-12-03T20:02:16Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > No, I’m not making an assumption that the lack of documents are signs of a cover up. It’s the well-known practice of protecting child molesting priests from prosecution that the Catholic church engages in on a massive scale that is the evidence for a cover up, the lack of documents is a consequence of that practice, not evidence to show it. When your organization works hard to protect child molesters from prosecution, lawsuits, and even investigation, complaining that your efforts to protect child molesters have resulted in documents not being available is contemptible. No, you are assuming that the lack of documents is SOLELY a consequence of coverup, when in fact the lack of documents is usually a consequence of lack of space and/or lack of interest, and entirely benign documents that have nothing whatsoever to do with any protection of child molesters get shoved into the garbage/recycling over time. (A colleague is currently working with a local civic organization on their records. They have NOTHING documenting the first 90 or so years of their work in this community [roughly 1910 to 2000]: no meeting minutes, no business or payroll records, no program records, no financials, nothing. They’re not affiliated with the Catholics and have no history of child-abuse [or other] accusations against them; they just had staff who thought ‘this old stuff isn’t worth anything and is just taking up space.’ This is depressingly common to historians; do you imagine the various Catholic churches and dioceses are somehow immune?) ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/31 "2019-12-03T20:09:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So if someone is abused by a priest, she/he had best be a millionaire to afford possibly losing? Not exactly, if someone can’t PROVE that they were abused by a priest, better not CIVILLY sue. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/32 "2019-12-03T20:35:45Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > (A colleague is currently working with a local civic organization on their records. They have NOTHING documenting the first 90 or so years of their work in this community [roughly 1910 to 2000]: no meeting minutes, no business or payroll records, no program records, no financials, nothing. They’re not affiliated with the Catholics and have no history of child-abuse [or other] accusations against them; they just had staff who thought ‘this old stuff isn’t worth anything and is just taking up space.’ This is depressingly common to historians Just you wait until people try to look up important records whose only existence was in an obsolete file or storage format or that were kept in some now-defunct cloud. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/33 "2019-12-03T20:48:57Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I have seen no evidence that frivolous lawsuits are a problem in the U.S. Frivolous _defenses_, on the other hand, are common. Did you know that Devin Nunes is suing a fake cow? Threatening frivolous defamation lawsuits to impose legal costs on people to make them shut up is so common that many states have passed “anti-SLAPP” (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation to allow such cases to be dismissed more quickly and in many cases make the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal costs. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/34 "2019-12-03T20:53:37Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Did you know that Devin Nunes is suing a fake cow? > > Threatening frivolous defamation lawsuits to impose legal costs on people to make them shut up is so common that many states have passed “anti-SLAPP” (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation to allow such cases to be dismissed more quickly and in many cases make the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal costs. I should have made clear I was speaking of personal injury law suits. Not things like [Trump suing Bill Maher](https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/showbiz/trump-bill-maher-suit/index.html). ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/35 "2019-12-03T21:33:01Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > No, I’m not making an assumption that the lack of documents are signs of a cover up… you say that, then say this… > [@](#): > > It’s the well-known practice of protecting child molesting priests from prosecution that the Catholic church engages in on a massive scale … Which is exactly that - making an assumption. Unless you can show that the records you are looking for, from the specific organization (i.e. parish or diocese), or similar records from that organization, had been deliberately or selectively destroyed as a result of allegations, following allegations, or in any other way that relates to hiding facts - then _why_ they were destroyed is an assumption. Obviously, the timing and circumstances of any record destruction could be called into question - but if the process of destruction is routine and not within the time the claim was made, it’s hard to make the connection between those records and attempts to evade responsibility. Records are typically disposed of once certain deadlines pass. Some records have retention rules - IIRC, many accounting rules specify 7 years, the maximum the tax authorities can go back, for example. Employment records sometimes are kept 20 years. The absolute maximum, I presume, is the 47 years for work records that would cover from age 18 to 65 for pension/employment reasons, and only for active employees. (Although most pension plans specify calculations using the last 5 to 10 years’ income, so records beyond that other than hire date are redundant). Then there’s other issues. As I understand, the entire 1930 British census was destroyed in a warehouse fire. Modern procedures result in so much paperwork that it would not be unusual to run out of space and trash things. Old churches centuries ago kept a register of births, deaths, and marriages and one ledger might span several years. One store I worked with, all the daily reports and other paperwork produced a file box every 2 months or so. The business I work with now has a wall of such file boxes. This exploding paperwork is a good reason why paperwork is destined for the shredder within a few years. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/36 "2019-12-03T21:38:49Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Did you know that Devin Nunes is suing a fake cow? > > Threatening frivolous defamation lawsuits to impose legal costs on people to make them shut up is so common that many states have passed “anti-SLAPP” (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation to allow such cases to be dismissed more quickly and in many cases make the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal costs. The lawyer for one of the defendants filed a response pointing out that cows do not have flexible digits or an opposable thumb necessary to use a cellphone or keyboard, and are often illiterate, so the cow could not be responsible for the allegedly slanderous tweets, thus putting the posts in the realm of parody. Another question would be, if the cow in question turns out to be one owned by Devon, would he technically be suing himself? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/37 "2019-12-03T23:10:28Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The epitome of the frivolous lawsuit is the McDonalds hot coffee case. The lady put a foam cup of coffee made from boiling water between her legs to pry the lid off and sued when she spilled it on herself causing 3rd degree burns. He case that McD was negligent consisted of pointing out how many other equally stupid people had made the same careless mistake mishandling a scalding liquid in a soft container. (Hint, coffee is till server in the 190ºF range; yes, you will burn your lips and tongue on fresh Starbucks coffee, for example. You cannot make coffee at a safe temperature). You are completely wrong about the McDonald’s coffee case. It was a legitimate case and she legitimately won. McDonald’s had acted negligently and the plaintiff’s case wasn’t the first time they had done it. They had paid off several prior people who were badly burned, including children, but the amounts weren’t large enough to get them to change their behavior. They were making too much money on the coffee such that a few settlements were worth the cost of business. They needed to be handed a major penalty to threaten their bottom line to get them to change their behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Cayuga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Cayuga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cayuga)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/38 "2019-12-03T23:56:19Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > I’ve read fairly detailed discussions of the case, and even on this board it’s been discussed ad nauseum - but to reiterate… > > 700 claims from 300 million people over how long - presumably 10 years or so. This wasn’t Crown Vics or Pintos with a rare peculiar configuration of accident needed; this was spilling what was in your cup. With a lid on to protect you. > > Coffee and tea are made with boiling water and held at high temperatures. The 150º in your quote is far below what most places recommend (and would probably cool off to even worse before it was all drank.) Everyone knows the liquid is dangerously hot and they should be careful. It’s as elementary as not sticking a fork in a toaster or not smoking while filling your gas tank. > > In the land of frivolous lawsuits, it is also well known that juries have a tendency to sympathize with the victim (especially a little old lady with severe injuries) against the deep pockets of big business despite the facts of the case. (It is also well known that many cases big companies will often settle regardless of the merits due to the cost of litigation and the risk of sympathetic juries) > > …but of course, you have your viewpoint and I have mine and we will continue to disagree on this. So what you’re saying is: Everyone knows that McDonald’s is (was) selling a product that causes surgery-requiring injuries if that product comes into contact with the purchaser within, say, 10 minutes of the purchase. So anyone who attempts to use that product within 10 minutes of purchase is an idiot who deserves such injuries and the surgery required to remediate them. I have issues with that, but I’ll let it go. Instead, I’ll just point out that you seem to have missed the part where the McDonald’s coffee was 20 degrees — if not more — hotter than any coffee sold anywhere else in town. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/39 "2019-12-04T00:02:57Z")
So your example of the “epitome” of a frivolous lawsuit has been reduced to your own personal opinion, one which no respected or experienced legal scholar familiar with the case agrees with. And it’s judgment that has made America safer for all coffee drinkers. At best, this case is not an example that supports your advocacy of tort reform. It’s nothing but a case in which you hold an uneducated opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2019, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278/40 "2019-12-04T01:05:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Are these suits against the individual, or against the Church? If the latter, doesn’t the case depend on showing that the Church had knowledge of the abuse but did nothing to stop it? That’s something against which the Church should be able to defend, if it’s untrue (and of course, if it is true, then a lack of defense is the system working as it should). It will depend on whether the local law applies vicarious liability to torts such as child abuse, and whether the priest is considered an employee of the diocese. An employer can be liable two ways: if they knew their employee was committing a tort on the job and didn’t stop it, or actually assisted, then the employee is directly liable. The second way is if the employer gives the employee the means to commit the tort as part of the job. In that case, then employer may be vicariously liable for torts committed by the employee, even if the employer didn’t know or had told the employee not to commit the tort. The classic case of vicarious liability is the truck driver who speeds through a red light, driving the employer’s truck, and hurts someone. The employer can be vicariously liable, because the employer gave the driver the means to commit the offences that harmed the plaintiff. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-lawsuit-plaintiffs-word-vs-nothing/844278.md?page=3)