Oh i’d love to get rid of our ridiculous system here in the US. The only problem is that somebody has to keep the corporations in line. Of course here we are so “hands off” that we can’t ever regulate anything without people getting pissed off, so we end up with the stupid patchwork coverage that is often abused. How is it exactly handled in other countries? I tend to feel like in most countries that aren’t based on case law, things are a lot different when it comes to ridiculous lawsuits. I could be wrong though.
I don’t know. I Imagine the fly had been purified the same as the water. No extra charge for the protein.
Honestly , we can’t operate in a world where everybody who is less than perfect should be sued. If you’d been drinking their water all along and never got sick then what exactly would you sue for? Being grossed out at the thought?
It’s a question of actual damages I think.
Probably neither. You see, the U.S. Legislature and Court System are made up predominantly of lawyers. And no U.S. lawyer is going to enact legislation to put another lawyer out of business. Professional courtesy, and all that.
U.S. lawyers are about on par with Muslim Holy Men when it comes to their own particular Code of Omerta: “The first rule of Law Club is that you do not talk about Law Club.”
Never happen. Never, you hear me?! [sob] NEVER!
– BrainGlutton, Esq.
Oh, we talk about it, all right. We love to talk, to each other, to the lay public, to anyone who will stay awake and listen. It’s our nature; we wouldn’t be lawyers otherwise. There is absolutely no hieratic or esoteric character to the legal profession, despite widespread public illusions to the contrary. For instance, it is a myth that lawyers deliberately make legislation incomprehensible to the layman. It just appears that way because the law has to be drafted in legal jargon to be useful and unambiguous.
It is not a myth that lawyers have a clear vested interest in blocking tort reform – but that only applies to personal injury (including med-mal, etc.) lawyers, and you’ll find many lawyers in other fields in favor of it. At any rate, that is not the only reason we are opposed to it; there are also good public-policy reasons, of which lawyers are perhaps more aware than the general public. We know just how hard it is, even under the current system, to hold corporations accountable for their negligence or worse.
Love it.
A lawyer actually explained that case to a friend and I as we were having just such a conversation. Shut us up proper e did. He explained that McDs purposely kept their coffee degrees hotter than the norm to save money. I remembered how many times I had wondered why McDs coffee was way to hot to drink even after I added two creamers.
But the grandma with the obese grandson who sued them got thrown out as I remember. Right?
We already have that. It’s called the medical malpractice insurance industry.
I really don’t think bottles of water should have flies in them. Yes, sure, this dude suffered very little actual damage, but if they bottling company gets away with no significant penalty, why should they clean their act up?
The $341,000 IMHO is not so much for the damage caused to him, but a clear warning to the company they they need better quality controls. Sure, I could see 1/3 of that being enough, but a “free case of water” ain’t gonna cut it. :rolleyes:
Most drinking water is not sterilized after bottling, which is when the fly must have got in. Thus that water was contaminated.
That dudes deserves his $341K for making sure the next bottle of water someone else drinks is not contaminated.
HA good one. devils advocate. I get it.
Yeah. I’ve become to hate the demonization of “trial lawyers”.
Could you give us some stats about actual annual payouts by insurance companies, or something else reasonably solid, that would define the size of the problem?
Because most of the time, what one sees, as a tort ‘reform’ argument, is a few instances of superficially outrageous awards, followed by some handwaving, and a conclusion that Lawsuits Must Be Reined In.
Even then, some of the outrageous awards are fiction.
That’s pretty much it.
The money is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant.
Since the defendant is in a much better position than the public to ensure that his product is fit for its intended purpose, he is the one liable for the product’s manufacturing defects.
It’s not so much that this guy got the money- the important thing is that the company had to pay the money.
Sheesh!! So if a company that bottles water has one slip up in thouands of bottles of product it should cost them over $300, 000 because they’re not supposed to ever have that kind of slip up. That is just ridiculous.
There are things like ratios and other stats. I imagine companies that manufactur food and drink have certain safety and sanitation standards. It’s completely unrealisitc to think any company will never make a mistake or have a bad product slip out. If they have a history of shoddy sanitiation practiices and multiple complaints that’s one thing. It’s completely unreasonable to think they should pay a huge fine for one mistake that really didn’t harm anyone.
Exactly. 
Now, don’t get me started on “bad science” lawsuits like the ones that put the silicone breast implant company out of business.
There’s where we need Tort Reform- if the scientists say “there is no link” it just can’t go to a jury.
All of us are about to pay a very heavy price as one judge let a ruling about the mercury/thimerosol “tainted” childrens vaccinations causing autism. Now every one with an autistic kid will be suing, the drug company will go bankrupt, and what’s worse- millions of fuzzy thinking parents won’t be getting their kids their vaccinations- which will put everyones kids in danger. This will likely end up killing and crippling tens of thousands of children.
Here are some scum lawyers making this easier:
Which would be just PERFECT if science were static and we knew everything there is to know already.
Isn’t the fear of lost customers enough to motivate companies to keep the flies to a reasonable minimum? Is there any evidence that paying ridiculous amounts of money to the “victim” of the insect-laden water causes companies to clean up their act more than losing ridiculous amounts of money to their competitors?
It seems to me (though I have no evidence yet) that $341,000 is nothing compared to the lost business due to bad publicity, and that this lawsuit causes nothing more than a drain on judicial resources and taxpayer money. Not to mention giving everybody else an incentive to “find” a fly or worm or roach or what-have-you in their food.
Frankly, I’m a bit dismayed by the people in this thread who think a situation like this justifies (if not demands) litigation. It’s a fly, geez, get a refund and get on with your life. If you want to stick it to The Man so badly, find a bigger injustice.
Two flies?
I found a worm in my Tequila…I’m suing those bastards. That’ll teach em.