OK, great. We’re on the same page so far.
Now, then. Do you think it is in any way reasonable for coffee to be served hot enough to cause third-degree burns? Is that the sort of coffee you would expect?
Well, if I like hot cofee than yes. 
Now, now, Bill. You told me you knew what third degree burns were. If you had ever had one, or seen one, you would realize that coffee is not normally that hot.
Come on, Andros sock it me. I got to leave. Anyway state your side and I will answer ya tomorrow.
PS. be careful with that coffee tomorrow morning that minimum wage dude at McDonalds might like it a little hotter than you do. 
Well, medical plus any potential lost income if she had to take time away from work while recovering. She had initially requested nothing more than payment of her medical bills. It was only after the management of the McD’s refused to pay for her medical bills that she sued.
Sock it to you? Will do.
The employees at that McDonalds screwed up. As a result, someone was hurt, very badly. (As someone who has had major burn injuries, I know whereof I speak.)
The award you mention was not an award. It was a fine example of what are called “punitive damages.”
Your homework tonight is to learn what punitive damages are and report back tomorrow.
Besides, Bill, you said you got a SCAR. Not SKIN GRAFTS.
Personally, yes, she was a little stupid. But there’s NO WAY she should have needed fucking skin grafts like that.
And don’t tell me you want coffee so hot you’ll need a replacement tongue after you drink it.
:rolleyes:
We kicked the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit around extensively on pages 2 and 3 of the $145 billion award thread.
At the finish, after the facts had been gone into, even some of the people who were originally indignant about the outcome were in agreement that in this case, the McDonalds policy was genuinely stupid and negligent—and they had had plenty of previous incidents to warn them that this was a problem—and it seemed as though nothing short of serious punitive damages would teach them that lesson.
This is not to say that every class-action lawsuit is justified: far from it. But it seems that in the opinion of most people who actually looked at the details of this case, the McDonalds verdict (or at least, the eventual award) was not out of line.
(bolding mine)
It appears to me that your problem isn’t with lawyers, Wildest Bill, your problem is with the EOE laws. I’m sure your life would be a lot easier if the government would let you discriminate on the basis of age, gender, race, religious preference, sexual orientation, etc., wouldn’t it?
Your lawyer said it would be cheaper and less risky to settle than to go to court, but you’re the one who decided to settle, not your lawyer.
Hey, then why didn’t you represent yourself in those suits? You wouldn’t have had to pay your lawyer then, and your costs would have only been your time. Of course, the employees who claimed you discriminated against them would probably own your business now, because their lawyers would have mopped the courtroom floor with you.
I can just imagine how long you would have lasted in my law school first year torts class. Ever see the movie The Paper Chase? My torts instructor could have given Kingsfield lessons on the Socratic method. She reduced more than one student to tears.
As for the original question,
Wrong again, Wildest Bill. One doesn’t have to merely “sue,” one has to suffer injury, then prove that injury, prove liability, and show the value of the injury. I think most people who suffer injuries that result in large jury awards would prefer never having been injured to begin with. How much money is enough to compensate someone for the loss of a limb, paralysis, loss of a spouse or parent?
-
-
- It’s not that the loser never has to pay, it’s that most of the time, the loser is broke and the winner gets nothing. This is what killed the light aviation industry in the US: (if I recall correctly) Cessna had 211 liability lawsuits between 1982 and 1986. They didn’t lose a single one, but each one cost an average of over $200,000. - MC
-
Andros, yes I know what “punitive damages” are. Unless you are a lawyer I can almost guarantee I now more about he court system and law than you do and I have learned it the hard way by being sued!
And I am not a moron either just from what I read from other posts maybe the Mcdonalds verdice was not that out of line. Listen I am not saying that all cases are bogus. Some people have some legitament gripe with a company. If Mcdonalds was given the option to help the lady with her medical, then they should have done it. But for that one legitament one how many were bogus. How many people said they slipped on some ice in the parking lot or other lame suits.
You see what I am saying the system if flawed and needs to be corrected. I think making loser pay would be a step in the right direction of fixing it.
BTW if you want to know why I feel the way I feel about plaintiff lawyers please read my response on the bbq thread about me picking a stance.
Ok , so now you seem to be saying “ok SOME of the suits I THOUGHT were frivolous aren’t”. we’re making progress.
See, this is why in court there’s TWO sides, and a JUDGE (and some times a jury), so there’s more than ONE opinion.
For the folks who falsely claim to be injured and then sue? That’s what we have prisons for. And yes, I know of some who’ve done time for that.
That’s why it’s a ** system **, with more than one participant. Obviously the person who was suing you thought you’d behaved badly and in doing so, damaged him. Obviously, you disagreed.
You’ve seen first hand in here for a while, that people can disagree, and even sometimes both are partially right. It happens. 'Taint the lawyers fault.
Anyway I think we digress. All I was saying in the OP was that loser should pay. And the poor man’s argument is just not enough to rectify the corruption that is caused by the way the system is set up.
I will state again. Loser should pay. It is the fairest way and should be implemented immediately. There is a problem with lawsuit abuse and I think this would do worlds to correct the problem.
well then Bill, since you settled the lawsuit, then are you saying that you should have also paid the other person’s attorney fees?
Wring,
Settling has nothing to do with what I am saying. Settling is just that settling you work out how much and all that. I am talking about going to trial. Where you actually have juries and everything. VERY EXPENSIVE(that is another thing I think is wrong with the system they discourage people from trying cases. And yes btw I did pay the attorney fee when I settled that case. And I had to pay mine. Boy it is fun being sued.
So you’re willing to sacrifice the rights of one entire segment of society - the poor - to “fix society’s problems.”
Thanks, Adolf. I’ll be sure and vote for you for Chancellor in November. :rolleyes:
Esprix
Espirit,
No I am not. If you read my post from earlier, you would have understood that the plaintiff atttorney would have to eat the expense if they lost. Therefore plaintiff attorneys wouldn’t be so hot to take sorry cases to court because it could cost them. I truly believe this one law changes could do wonders for the bottleneck cases in the system. In otherwords it would let the people that have legitimate claims in court sooner. Do you understand what I saying at all?
It’s “Esprix,” you pedantic nattering moron.
And as Zev explained right back at you, what lawyer is going to take a case he or she might be personally responsible for, financially, if they think there’s a chance they’ll lose? Who’s going to take over some little guy’s case when he’s trying to battle the wrong of a big corporation, when if they lose, and they probably will if they have a team of lawyers on their side, he’s gonna have to eat the cost of it? What, suddenly there are good-hearted lawyers out there who’ll take cases for free? Good-hearted plaintiff lawyers? Doesn’t jive with your “all lawyers are scum” theory, does it? :rolleyes:
So, it stands - you’re still advocating screwing the poor.
Nobody’s saying the system works fault-free, but it’s still the best we got. You just need to hire better lawyers, IMHO, and quit griping on your past losses.
Maybe if you learned how to think, reason, read, spell, and the difference between “your” and “you’re” no doubt I might understand what you are saying. :rolleyes:
Esprix
WB, where to begin?
You set up this business. Rather than consult a lawyer and make sure you get all the fine points and keep within the law, you do it yourself, probably to save money.
Then you’re a defendent in a lawsuit by a disgruntled former employee. This could have probably been prevented if you’d consulted a lawyer in the first place.
Now you scream it’s corrupt and set up wrong and needs to be fixed, all because you didn’t follow the rules in the first place. Who’s fault is that? :rolleyes:
Have I left anything out?
Esprix:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Esprix, you know better than to do that. Flame in the Pit only; GD is for debate. Got it?
[Moderator Hat OFF]