The issue to me <a Republican> isnt to deny people who deserve damages but to the insane ones that people still have to pay to defend themselves against such as this McDonalds fiasco. For that matter i also believe there should be damage caps for personal and corporate liability. The jury system is an acceptable system for determining guilt or innocence but when it comes to damage estimates id take a WAG that a majority of them are lowered on appeal because juries dont seem capable of deciding damages rationally. Maybe it is the limelight the jurors get in when they make 6 billion dollar damage judgements and get interviewed on TV or a sort of hey maybe I can sue someone and make out on this sort of thing to benefit myself in the future attitude, i dont know. I do know its out of hand and the only people losing are the people paying insurance premiums and victims of ludicris lawsuits such as this one. The winners are…suprise suprise the lawyers and settlements that are blackmailed cause its cheaper to pay than go to trial win or lose,and the insurance companies that can get away with raising thier premiums.
Under the present legal system, more than a couple of corporations are happy to risk the health and lives of Americans in order to make money. Commonly held perceptions of frivilous lawsuits and disproportionate awards don’t act to prevent the bad actions of some corporations. Some examples, the manufacturers of Pondimin learned that they were damaging people’s hearts. Their response was to hide this information from the FDA, all the while creating a drug called Redux, which was destined to cause the same types of heart damage. Another example is the Sulzer knee and hip implants. The manufacturer changed its manufacturing process to save some money. This left oil on the portion of the implant that was designed to have the bone grow into to hold the implant in place. Instead, the oil inflamed bone tissue, preventing new bone growth, which allowed the implant to rattle around within the bone. Many of the people with the affected implants had to have a second implant surgery within a year of the first, rather than the decade or more that they should have had. A more recent example, not yet litigated, is a drug called Baycol. It was the sixth drug in a class of six drugs. The class just happens to be one of the most prescribed group of drugs in the world. It will likely turn out that the manufacturer of Baycol knew from the very beginning of animal testing that their drug would be more dangerous to humans than any other drug in its class, yet at each step of the process they decided to press forward with visions of making billions. All of these actions took place in a legal system that is widely believed to frequently award punishinly large verdicts.
The Republican response to this is tort reform. They aren’t going to strengthen the FDA. They aren’t going to hammer these companies for killing peolpe and seriously degrading the health of others. No, tort reform means capping damages and eliminating punitive damages. The author must have a hell of a sense of humour, because there actually is a section that refers to maximising vicitm recovery - that’s the section that seriously limits the fee a lawyer can charge. So, the crappy lawsuits like this new McDonald’s allows them to seriously curtail legitimate cases.
The problem with damage caps and other “one size fits all” remedies are that: a) they fail to account for real and meaningful differences in the kinds of injuries that victims may suffer; and b) they may encourage a form of recklessness on the part of putative tortfeasors because they know that, no matter what, their liability is capped.
Now, I don’t believe this McDonalds lawsuit is likely to succeed because McDonalds is fairly forthcoming about the nutritional content of its food, and others are fairly vocal about the nutritional demerits of the food. There is a question about whether those who rely on McDonalds and similar establishments for the bulk of their diet, who tend to be poorer, less educated, and have fewer realistic alternatives for getting food, are aware of those facts. But that’s a separate question. There’s certainly no shortage of information out there about obesity, and a person does not, as the McDonald’s person pointed out, go to sleep one night and wake up fat the next morning.
(Sidebar- I remember that when a Dominick’s supermarket opened near the infamous Cabrini-Green housing projects in Chicago, there was quite a bit of press about how the store was a new and strange environment for those who had lived their lives in the projects because grocery shopping for them typically meant running to the Kwik-E-Mart or for fast food, the only establishments available to them. It is all to easy for those of us on this board, most of whom probably have college degrees and white collar jobs, to forget that those who are desperately poor may not have ready access to the fresh fruit, whole grains, and other healthy food that we take for granted.)
But citing this lawsuit as proof of a tort system out of control and in need of reform misses the point. It’s easy to find strawman cases that have no apparent merit, but relying on those obscures the need to have a legal system that affords full and proper relief for victims of injuries. And tort reform measures that are often proposed (e.g. loser pays the winner’s attorneys’ fees, damage caps) may deter people from pursuing potentially meritorious claims that should be brought.
Burger King is better, because you can get your Christ without onions or ketchup.
Somewhere there is a witty retort here, however this is not it.
I still would not agree with disbarring a lawyer for what is considered a frivilous suit. Here are four reasons why:
- Oftentimes, defendants use a rule 11 motion (asking the judge to throw the case out as frivilous) as a strategic part of their defense. It’s like a motion for Summary Judgment (asking the judge to rule in your favor before the trial even starts), only more extreme. If they can get the judge to agree to the rule 11 motion, they win right then and there, no muss, no fuss. But sometimes, as I said, it’s more of a tactic than an actual belief that the case is frivilous. Lawyers will do this if they believe the worst that can happen is a fine. Lawyers would NEVER use this tactic if they thought the other side would lose their license to practice.
- Even if the rule 11 motion wasn’t for tactical purposes, it still can be used in cases like these to punish frivilous lawsuits. But what lawyer is going to bring up a rule 11 motion knowing that the other person may very well lose their license just for taking on a case? I sure wouldn’t.
- You do realize that’s what we’re punishing here? Just the fact that a lawyer took on a case. Not that they did anything against the law. Not that they represented their client badly. Not that they made a mistake. They took on a case that some people decided they shouldn’t have. For that they should lose their job.
- You try creating a law where all the lawyers across the land refuse to take on cases that would be frivilous for fear of disbarment but, at the same time, will risk disbarment and take on cases where the complaint might be legitimate but might not be. Go on. I dare you.
Yes, but you have to have it His way.
How’s that?
** Gobear** I’m confused. Do you think the kid is responsible for his own health, or his parents should be?
The labelling of foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy” really pisses me off. There’s nothing inherently unhealthy about fast food - it’s making it a major part of your diet which causes the problem.
Well what would you classify as unhealthy? Things that cause problems when ingested in small amounts? Basically only stuff like cyanide?
I think you need to ponder this issue more.
Sorry, bad argument. First of all, you obviously don’t know the facts about the spilled coffee lawsuit. Do a search here and you will find out all about it.
The cigarette argument is meaningless since cigarettes are addictive. You can be well aware that cigarettes are bad for you, but it’s very difficult to stop using them. In your mind, is there really no problem is selling a dangerous, addictive substance, advertising the hell out of it to both adults and children, and then (after a while) putting a warning label on (under duress) saying it’s bad for you? Do you really think this?
The McDonalds argument is weaker than the cigarette one, but as I’ve pointed out, McDonalds stated that their food is part of a healthy diet, which it is not. So they are lying, just as the cigarette companies lied when they said it wasn’t addictive. And people are being hurt by consuming these products.
McDonalds advertises their food towards children, who simply don’t have the judgement or maturity to resist it. The children then invariably beg their parents to go, and children and parent being what they are, the children end up going to McDonalds. How many parents do you know who have said “I’m not going to let my kids eat junk food”, and then end up going to McDonalds several times a week? Yes its possible to resist, but it doesn’t often happen.
Whether the case against McDonalds is strong or not I can’t say. I’m not a lawyer. But I think they are doing something wrong by advertising to children, then selling them products that are bad for them.
McDonald’s food isn’t unhealthy in itself, it’s only unhealthy in excess.
Just like any food–Cap’n Crunch may be “part of this balanced breakfast”, but try eating nothing but cereal and see how healthy you become.
Mr2001, please see my previous comment (the one above the one you responded to).
“Of course too much is bad for you! That’s what ‘too much’ means!”
Help me out here, but why would I give a flying fuck if opposing counsel lost their license?
I sure would. I would represent my client vigorously, and using all legal tools at my disposal, including filing a motion for sanctions. It is for the judge to decide what the proper sanctions should be, and if the judge decided that the proper sanction was to recommend disbarment, I would not bat an eye over it.
Possibly, if they have a patern of filing such lawsuits. I would say the important parties are not, “some people” but rather the court and the state bar.
So does tihs mean if I decide one day to eat nothing but Mars bars and M&Ms for every meal I can sue Mars and get millions once I get sick and/or fat?
I mean, the label says each candy bar has a bazillion calories, but it never states “this is NOT part of of a healthy diet.” Proof those bastards are trying to mislead me!
I’m gonna be a millionaire! (Oh, euphoria!)
[sub]I’ve heard there’s such a think as deep fried Mars bar and I was going to look up the recipe on the Internet… [/sub]
The thought of it repulses my stomach, but here it is:
http://yumfood.net/recipes/deepfriedmars.html
Very popular amongst many, and available in loads of countries around and about.
It says you can serve it with french fries if you’re so inclined… [sub]Pardon me. Must go vomit now…[/sub]
I think this is great! If McD has to pay up on this one, I’m going after the beer companies next. It has certainly added to my girth, as well as destroyed quite a few brain cells. I think we could have a reasonable arguement as to addictive nature of it. If I remember correctly, it seems there were warning labels on cigarettes before alcohol did. Hot Damn, ain’t America great, we’re all gonna get rich!..sarcasm
gobear - is tabbouleh really high fat? The reason I ask is because I’ve always thought it was fairly low-fat - predominantly parsley, onion, tomato and lemon juice with some olive oil.
The reason I hijack this thread to ask is because I’ve often included it in a healthy-eating/lose-weight eating plan in the past, figuring I could eat shed-loads of it as it’s mainly leaves, so if it’s high-fat please let me know, because I’ll need to cut the portions down!
The homemade version you describe sounds low-fat, depending on the proportion of oil to other ingredients. However, every commercially made tabbouleh preparation I’ve seen gets 40 to 50 pecent of its calories from fat. At least olive oil is a “healthy oil” that promotes the high-density fat that helps clear out the low-density fat that has been blamed for causing heart problems.