daft batty

I had heard that the McDs apple pie thing was that she burned herself very badly and theres no need for the pies to be at that temperature, its rather like eating boiled jam and you would never do that knowingly

The other posts about having to pay for medical care etc put the claim into perspective for me, and if in canada you have $1m insurance for very little outgoings then maybe in the states you would have more.

If you take it further, and you have insurance that you know will pay up, and you saw a friend was suffering because of an accident that happened at your house, maybe you would be pleased they would get some money to help??

So, I take back my illconsidered sarcasm of earlier

windward

Cynic in me speaking here....

So she used to work at Moxie's bar and Grill. Now she's going to be considering a trip to China and has been offered a job (only after her accident) by some famous politician working for the Saskatchewan party.

Ok, so how much value would you put on your ability to walk for 10 years?

Purley

Well then - if she has already been offered a job, she presumably will not be suing for loss of future earnings!!

My whole point is that if my husband had chosen to sue his friend for breaking his ankle on the ice, he wouldn't have got very much because he got paid by his work insurance and he didn't lose much money. However, a person who is quadraplegic or even a paraplegic, if they couldnt' work again, they would obviously be suing for an absolute fortune for the future care. Probably more money than anyone would have been protected for by insurance.

I have a million liability insurance for my pool. But if someone was claiming 10 million - I don't have that kind of money -- who does? If they took my house and all my RRSPs and left me on the street - they still wouldn't get 10 million out of me because I just don't have it.

But I just don't think its reasonable to leave the pool owner destitute - even if all the money they have in insurance and other money will not pay for your damages. The girl should have taken out her own disability insurance to pay for her future stupidity.

Almost Canadian

I love the way people assume judges are idiots.

If someone has been negligent according to the laws of the jurisdiction, they will have to pay damages, if they weren't, they won't.

Million dollar lawsuits for personal injury claims are very few and far between.

And I thought the Macdonald's lawsuit was about hot coffee (I'm sure that there has been more than one though). From memory, the coffee was so hot that it would have caused a third degree burn in 2-7 seconds. McDs had also received over 700 complaints from customers about the temperature of its coffee. The judge split liability on a 80/20 basis in the claimant's favour (her damages were reduced by 20%. It's amazing how knowing the actual facts totally changes peoples' perceptions, but why let irrelevant things facts get in the way eh ?

I also seriously doubt that any of you, in any part of the world, have been approached by a lawyer whilst in hospital to discuss a personal injury case, unless of course you called them. They have much better ways to spend their time

A few years back the House of Lords threw out a claim for somebody that dived headfirst into a watercourse that had signs prohibiting swimming. The claimant ended up quadriplegic.

Quite simply really

dbd33

What do they do with their time that is better than billing someone for launching a frivolous suit? One assumes the lawyer knows that claiming a duty to throw a football accurately is nonsense but if preparing the case brings in $350 an hour isn't that lawyer fulfilling the promise of his or her calling? It's not as if, were the lawyer not working on this case, he or she would stop lawyering and work at a food bank.

bazzz

They'd more likely be raping puppies or sticking pins in orphans. At least lawyering keeps them off the streets.

Purley

If you work in the legal profession in any city, you soon get to know who has a good reputation and who doesn't. In Regina Tony Merchant is into class action suits. It doesn't matter what the occasion. He has had class action suits for Indian school claimants. There is still a big kerfuffle about the millions he is getting, however, I do know from someone who works at the firm that they paid out a huge amount in disbursements alone, to the point that some lawyers quit because there was no money in the firm account to pay them!

However, if you google Tony Merchant you will find that he is very quick to jump on the bandwagon for every possible class action suit and he has a bit of a reputation as an "ambulance chacer". I have no idea who acts for the swimming pool woman. When I get to work this morning I will ask!

BTW Tony Merchant's wife has been a senator for a few years - he certainly doesn't need money!

Almost Canadian

I assumed that personal injury lawyers operated contingency fees over here so, if s/he doesn't win s/he doesn't get paid - seems fair to me.

If there is no contingency fee and the client wants to pay the lawyer to pursue such a case, is the lawyer wrong to take their money from them ? $350 an hour also seems very low - maybe s/he isn't very good

dbd33

When I quoted actual fees charged in Toronto, $275 for a clerk and so on, you said that, based on your experience, no lawyers in the boonies charged amounts like that so I scaled back to allow for this case being out there somewhere.

Is it wrong to take the money? Not legally wrong, no.

DannyCane

I totally agree - responsibility for their own actions...

Who told her that she had to catch the ball? Did her parents never tell her, when she was little, that you don't mess about, run or play games at the side of a pool, because you might fall and hurt yourself???

Shouldn't she be suing her parents, if they didn't warn her years ago???

:curse: Some people.....

DaveLovesDee

Facts About Stella Liebeck's Case
Stella Liebeck wanted only to be reimbursed for the cost of her medical treatment alone and to settle the case, but McDonald's opposed her request and took the case to trial.

Stella was severely injured. At 79 years old, she suffered third degree burns to her legs and genitals, was hospitalized for over a week, and had to have multiple skin grafts.

McDonald's lost—a jury of American citizens heard the evidence and decided against the company.

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by other people burned by its coffee over a 10 year period and still refused to sell its coffee at a safe temperature.

More facts about the McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

bazzz

Oh great. Now you've got me thinking about the wrinkly genitals of a near-octogenarians.

mandymoochops

Almost Canadian

The fees we were talking about then were for an uncontested divorce, not complicated litigation although, if I am wrong, I apologise.

I am inferring that you think it is morally wrong for a professional to take money from a willing client then. I love all the anti-lawyer sentiment around. Apparently, no-one likes them but most people want their son/daughter to do well enough at school so they can become a lawyer or doctor. "Lawyers are money sucking leeches" but loads of people that I have acted for, after being told that the economics of the action are suspect, respond, "It's the principle of the thing not the money". When told that is fine but principles cost lots of money reply "I don't care, sue the bastard" Only to then cry "Money sucking leeches" when the bill is presented.

One has to laugh I guess

bazzz

I think a lot of people want their kids to be rich so they can support them in their old age. I don't think many people have aspirations for their kids to do something useful or worthwhile. Which is fair enough considering the amount it costs to bring them up.