Greyslayer
10/04/02 09:52 PM
216.14.192.226
|
Why is it jury's feel compelled to hand out massive payouts to individuals so undeserving?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_28192.asp
28 billion US dollars? As if that won't be overturned, but the question beggars the effective nature of a court system so inable to get the decision correct the first time.
Oh well what do you people think?
Greyslayer
|
Spartan
10/05/02 10:44 AM
172.136.106.79
|
As an American (and a proud one at that) I think that these smoking lawsuits are the second stupidest things I've ever seen. <whiny voice>"I didn't know smoking was bad for me." <engage bitter scathing sarcasm> REALLY!?!? And where have you been living the past fifty years? Under a rock? And did you think the brown chunks you were coughing up were just a pleasant bonus?
And then for the top slot: the dumb@$$ who claims he didn't know eating fastfood 4-5 times a week would be bad for him. (God only knows what he was also eating at home) Where has he been the last, what, 25 years? Did he never have to take health or life science or some similar course in high school or junior high? And did not the fact that he is 275 pounds clue him in? Or what about the diabetes, high blood pressure and TWO!!!! heart attacks??!?!!?!?!?! My first reaction when I heard about his lawsuit was, "Are you that <beeping> stupid?!?!!?!?!?"
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
10/05/02 10:53 AM
12.92.114.191
|
She knew the risks, apparently. Odd the jury didn't focus on that - she messed herself up. Her loss.
Then again, my grandmother died of lung cancer from smoking. Maybe I should hope the payout occurs - I've got some credit cards and a student loan to payoff. I wouldn't mind having it paid for by nicotine addicts.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Nightward
10/06/02 06:51 PM
132.234.251.211
|
Whilst I would like to say "Only in America...", this BS is happening more and more down here.
A while ago, some fool went to a party, got blind drunk, and jumped into a canal, shattering his spine. He then sued the house's owners for the injuries and attached pain and suffering. Apparently, he believed that if there was a sign up, he would have known not to jump in the canal, so the household's owners were negligent. This ignored four major facts: 1. He decided to go to the house. 2. He decided to get drunk. 3. He decided to jump in, and 4. If there had been a sign, he would have been too drunk to read it or care. Still, the jury bought his BS and awarded some ridiculous amount of money. The people who owned the house (and, I believe, who had just retired after a lifetime in the workforce to their dream house in the canal estates) were then driven into bankrupcy.
Also recently, a teenager broke into a hotel where the owner and his family lived. He was either drunk or stoned (I neither remember nor care for this excuse) and started ransacking the family's belongings. The father, fearing for his wife and children, got a baseball bat and whacked the intruder, seriously injuring him. Then he called the cops. Said intruder then sued for damages and pain and suffering, bankrupting the poor householder.
The legal system is not set up for justice any more. Sometimes, I wonder if calling in the Planescape Mercykillers and letting them loose isn't a good idea...a *REAL* good idea.
Oh, BTW: I used to do martial arts, and one of the other studentsa was a police officer. The instructor said he'd heard that as long as you used resonable force to stop a criminal, you were OK. He asked her, and she said yes, so he asked for a definition of "Resonable Force". Her reply (verbatim) was : "Resonable force is anything that does not stop the criminal from carrying out the crime. If you stop them doing whatever, that is excessive force."
Great.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Greyslayer
10/07/02 08:46 AM
216.14.192.226
|
'The people who owned the house (and, I believe, who had just retired after a lifetime in the workforce to their dream house in the canal estates) were then driven into bankrupcy.'
They were not even at the house at the time of the accident. A subsequent judge overturned the original decision though.
'"Resonable force is anything that does not stop the criminal from carrying out the crime. If you stop them doing whatever, that is excessive force."'
That is like if you catch a criminal and hold them you are making a citizens arrest and therefore you have to take them to the police station. Great system huh?
Greyslayer
|
Nightward
10/07/02 10:01 PM
211.26.2.147
|
I heard that you could no longer make a "Citizen's Arrest" on a criminal because it counts as "Deprivation of Liberty" and "Unlawful Detainment".
All in all, you're probably better off to kill the criminal on the spot- the worst sentance you can get for murder these days seems to be three lashes with a wet spaghetti...OK, I exaggerate... three years or so with parole after about a year...
The wonders of the legal system.
We need the Mercykillers. Imagine:
"The charge...is *JAYWALKING*.
The verdict is *GUILTY*
The sentance is... *DEATH*"
Go the Mercykillers...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Grizzly
10/08/02 11:03 AM
12.108.119.227
|
I agree, this crap has gone on far too long! I thought it was just Americans who were inbreeding like cockerspaniels, but it turns out the entire world is getting dumber and dumber. No one takes responsibility for their actions anymore. We hear it all the time, my mommy didn't love me enough or the school kids made fun of me, so that's why I became an axe murderer. Baloney!
Several years ago a woman, here in the states, had just gotten a cup of coffee from McDonalds. She placed the cup between her legs and drove away in her car. Suprise, she spilled the coffee and burned her self in a most sensitive area. Her excuse, McDonalds made the coffee too hot. So she sued and won, thankfully it was appealed and the sum reduced, I don't really remember the complete facts. Uh, hello anybody home, I thought coffee was supposed to be hot!
Thankfully some people are getting the message. I know of several jurisdictions that have passed what I like to call, stupid people fines. If emergency services are called out to assist you(police, fire, ems, etc) and it is determined to be your fault, the local community can impose a fine for misuse of the service. Here's an example. You go rock climbing without training and equipment. The fire company has to rescue you from the side of a cliff. You not only pay the fire company for the service, but you are fined by the police for the abuse of the service (AKA stupid law).
This may sound radical, but we need to have licenses to own guns, dogs, and drive cars; but anybody can have kids, why? Why do we continue to let irresponsible people who shouldn't even have pets, raise our future leaders? Why must we settle for mediocrity? Why can't people stand up and say, yeah it was my fault not theirs.
I smoked at one time, and I knew it was bad for me and might give me something, but I made the decision and I wouldn't go back and sue the company. There are no easy answers, only tough questions. Thank you for letting me vent!!
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
Greyslayer
10/09/02 11:57 AM
216.14.192.226
|
'I thought it was just Americans who were inbreeding like cockerspaniels,'
Hmmm what is wrong with cockerspaniels? That would be pretty much the breed of dog I would get if I actually got a dog (gf wants a cat but I would kill it in a matter of days such is my dislike of those mentally unstable animals, strangely enough cats have remarkably similar mental instabilites to humans go figure).
Apart from that your gripe is pretty much true. Responsibility is the keyword here. In most things we do in life few people take responsibility for everything they do wrong, they are always quick to blame or shift blame to someone else. Take tennis for example if you play a shot badly how many tennis players immediately look to their raquet? Or in a more personal example of myself I got out in cricket (the difference for reference sake is if you were playing baseball and a guy isn't out unless he strikes three times without a run or is caught out if either of these conditions are not met he may continue to make runs until he is out) on sunday from a delivery that moved back into me quite sharply and kept lower than I expected I was clean bowled (clean as in I didn't touch it with my bat and bowled as in it hit the 'wickets' or object I was defending so I was out), I blamed the pitch for this but later found out I had in fact played under the ball so I had in fact overcompensated for the low bounce and really it was entirely my fault (at least I made my second highest score ever of 28!  ).
Another issue is Pride. People who take responsibility and do it with pride are better by a monumental distance over those who are just prideful, prideful people don't like being wrong and thus lack responsibility (much like politicians, they are the virtual king of being prideful).
Now back more directly to the original post....
Sueing should be a final solution to an issue. It shouldn't be the first, second or third action, but the last of many non-litigation actions preceeding it. In fact having mediation almost compulsory might clean up alot of the mess. The decisions should be clear and concise with little chance to overturn in such as way that the original decision still stands but the payout is reduced to a mere 1 or 2 % of the original value. An example would again be cricket for me, we have to sign (well not have to but it helps drop the premiums on the state association by doing so for everyone) a document that says we will not make frivolous claims (an example would be if myself and a collegue were to pick up a pair of wickets and have a sword fight and one was injured from this would probably mean that neither of us could sue the association just each other).
People need to take pride in their level of responsibility. I can just imagine the world with everyone with no responsibilty and believe me I don't want to be there.
Greyslayer ..... *gets off the soapbox, you notice a big difference in height* (yeah I'm short  ).
|
Bob_Richter
10/09/02 01:10 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Also recently, a teenager broke into a hotel where the owner and his family lived. He was either drunk or stoned (I neither remember nor care for this excuse) and started ransacking the family's belongings. The father, fearing for his wife and children, got a baseball bat and whacked the intruder, seriously injuring him. Then he called the cops. Said intruder then sued for damages and pain and suffering, bankrupting the poor householder<<<
>>>Oh, BTW: I used to do martial arts, and one of the other studentsa was a police officer. The instructor said he'd heard that as long as you used resonable force to stop a criminal, you were OK. He asked her, and she said yes, so he asked for a definition of "Resonable Force". Her reply (verbatim) was : "Resonable force is anything that does not stop the criminal from carrying out the crime. If you stop them doing whatever, that is excessive force."<<<
...about living in US Washington State is that I can defend my home with lethal force with no fear of legal repercussions.
American legal system ain't set up for justice either, but at least it's a little less dedicated to screwing up homeowners.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightmare
10/11/02 08:48 AM
194.251.240.113
|
"Several years ago a woman, here in the states, had just gotten a cup of coffee from McDonalds. She placed the cup between her legs and drove away in her car. Suprise, she spilled the coffee and burned her self in a most sensitive area. Her excuse, McDonalds made the coffee too hot. So she sued and won, thankfully it was appealed and the sum reduced, I don't really remember the complete facts. Uh, hello anybody home, I thought coffee was supposed to be hot!"
McDonalds kept their coffee some 40-50 degrees over what is common for coffee 
http://www.snopes2.com/ , the section with urban legends of the legal kind. There`s a link to this text, but unfortunately, I can`t seem to get the proper URL from it so I`ll copy-paste instead. The original text is from The Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
THE MCDONALD'S SCALDING COFFEE CASE
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, now 81, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third- degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 50 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 5233
|
|
|
|
|
|
|