Kaffy Mintcake

Regarding the MacDonald's case ... I used to think like you that it was a frivolous and entirely ridiculous lawsuit. When I took business law in grad school we were shown another take on the case, I believe it was an article published in the Wall Street Journal.

The woman who spilled the coffee on herself was burned so badly that she required hospitalization for treatment. (Not just a quick visit either.) She hadn't intended to sue, but was looking for MacDonald's to help with her medical bills. MacDonald's had previously had instances where others had been harmed. (And again, we're not talking something slight.) They sent a very condescending letter to the woman, and only after that did she take action. I believe she was only looking for help with her medical bills, and the court did find that she was also negligent for spilling the coffee in the first place.

I wish I could find the article, because after reading it my classmates and I all felt that she had indeed been wronged, and while perhaps she didn't deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars, she did deserve something.

MsElui

I studied it in law class too - it is as you say - not the case it is usually portrayed as in the press.

fatbrit

One of the reasons for all the tort cases America is famous for is that there is very little else here to bring companies and the professions into line. Whereas most other countries rely primarily on government regulation to prevent the problems in the first place, here the major factor stopping the corporations from killing us all are the courts and large payouts.

So if we want tort reform, we need to replace it with a government-based regulatory body to regulate all those who are now regularly curtailed by tort verdicts instead.

Juswus

I couldn't agree more.
Things like the advert where the woman is using one of those ball and chain things that knocks down buildings to knock her washing machine off a cliff....the disclaimer says "do not attempt" at the bottom. oh really? ya think? ffs

RoadWarriorFromLP

I like how political opportunists coin these happy phrases such as "tort reform" to describe programs that are really meant to attack the little guy.

These arguments for "tort reform" exclusively target lawyers who work on contingency, the types of lawyers who represent the middle class when they have been hurt. Unlike the corporations that harmed them, the average person who has been damaged can't afford to pay lawyers by the hour, and so must pay them on a contingency basis. These "reform" efforts seek to eliminate the ability of the average person to make a claim by eliminating any incentives for lawyers to take the risk of helping them, while doing nothing to "reform" the other side.

If you want real "tort reform", we would start by limiting the fees that corporations can pay their lawyers. If McDonald's wasn't allowed to pay a battery of attorneys hundreds of dollars per hour to prosecute frivolous trials such as the McLibel case, then they wouldn't file them because nobody would be motivated to work for peanuts to help them.

But as often the case, attacks on the middle class are disguised with crafty marketing, with the true motives always concealed. Just politics as usual, with the goal of redistributing more wealth up the ladder and keeping the average person down.

Bob

Hot coffee....reminds me of the rockstar one, now that was frivalous....lawyers sued because potentially you could see naughty stuff in a GTA game, took a few years, got many millions, worked out you could get cost of game back, only if you had receipt and original copy of game in box to get the money back.

The daft thing, to see the naughty stuff, you had to have a chipped console, download dodgy software to hack your version of the game and play a dodgy version of the game not intended for retail, that wasn't retailed at those under age to play it in the first place.

another bloody yank

Let me see if I understand you ...
What you're saying is that the problem is not that the woman put a flimsy cup of hot coffee between her legs. The problem is that McDonald's coffee was so hot that it made such a manuever more likely to cause injury and thus it's actually McDonald's fault the woman was burned as badly as she was.

Isn't that little like driving your car into a tree on purpose and then suing the manufacturer of the car because it didn't have airbags and you were injured worse than if you had been driving a competitor's car that had airbags?

MsElui

if you bought a gun in a shop they wouldnt sell it to you and let you walk out the door with it loaded and cocked in a plastic bag. They would make it safe to travel with. Thats all this case is about. serving coffee thats in travelling packaging at a temperature that wouldnt give you a THIRD DEGREE burn in 2 seconds if you spill it anywhere on yourself.

elfman

My favourite example of this kind of thing was a beer bottle label I once saw which featured a sailing ship with ye olde seaman's charte as a background - elsewhere on the label it said in tiny letters "Warning: Label is not intended for use in marine navigation". My Mrs thought it was a joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

another bloody yank

Me neither.

fatbrit

You're in all-or-nothing mode. I'm sure McD argued contributory negligence.


Nope -- why not put defective tires on the car, instead? Then you've got a negligence or product liability case.

tonrob

Me neither. Everyone knows that real sailors navigate with the aid of rum!

Ray

Hot coffee case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

another bloody yank

Yep, I think that Naffy Fruitcake mentioned that.



It was early, and rereading it, I don't even understand my own analogy so I'm going to beg quarter on that point.

The_English_Bride

Did you also see the recent cell phone ad where a woman is walking out on a ledge of a high building to reach her phone (which for some reason is out on the ledge) and writing appears on the screen telling people not to stand out on a ledge!?