Who ever knew the McDonald's coffee burn case was legit?

[eldaec]

I'm confused. If I read the story right....

Edwards is a lawyer.

And other lawyers were at some point involved in a court case.

And that court case with the other lawyers had what the author claims is a non-controversial outcome.

And this seems to mean people should/should not vote for Edwards?

American politics is strange.

[Abagadro]

Do you know what the cost of med mal is as a total of health care costs? THREE PERCENT.  Insurance rates have gone up because insurance companies lost their collective asses in the stock market bubble burst.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I heard about this case in germany, several years ago. Of course, only the "stupid women gets money from McDonalds because she spilled some hot coffee" part WAS actually reported over here.

Would that be the National Socialist Noise Machine?

[Nazrat]

You do understand that the only cases where any damages are awarded are cases in which there has been a finding by the court or the jury.  That means, by definition, the case was not frivolous.  So, any attempt at tort reform much be balanced by an understanding that there are actual cases with actual injuries out there.  

In Texas, we have had tort reform for a number of years.  Puntive damages are tied to actual damages with a total dollar value cap.  Any more reform than that is crazy.

Do you know how insurance companies make money?  By denying claims.  That don't make it by paying settlements or going to court.  They raise rates to insure that they have enough income at the end for their shareholders.  

So, insurance companies have entire teams of mathmaticians sitting around calculating all kinds of percentages on a variety of things.  Now, when the profit from denying claims is invested improperly, i.e., internet bubble stocks, the insurance companies have to find a way to calculate a new profit margin as they just lost their financial reserves.  

So, since they actually have to pay for people with legitimate injuries and since you are squealing about their rates already, insurance companies have decided to change the law so that less people will be able to recover for legitimate injuries.  Let's be clear.  Tort reform focuses almost exclusively on limiting the recovery for people found by a court of law to be injured.  It does nothing to address frivilous lawsuits which are handled quite effectively via Summary Judgment motions, Motions to dismiss, etc.  

The next time you hear the words, "Tort Reform," remember that they are talking about limiting monetary recovery for injured people and are not talking about frivolous lawsuits.


P.S.  I am a Republican.

[Romp]

my idea for tort reform:

If the plaintiff wins, he or she gets all of the money for the nominal and compensatory damages but the money from the punitive damages should go either to the government or a special fund of some kind to be used for some public benefit: eg the health system, schools or maybe even legal aid.

Punitive damages are merely to punish the wrong doer, really like a sort of fine and that is where the astronomical windfalls come from.  Because to really punish a corporation you need a really substantial sum.  But its not really money that the plaintiff should be entitled to, they should be entitled only to the money which compensates them for the damage they were caused.

I don't think people would be at all outraged to hear that in a court case someone was awarded 1 mill in nominal and compensatory damages plus the company had to pay 20 mill punitive damages which then went to the local community to fix up the schools and hospitals.  But people are outraged if someone is awarded 21 million.

The judge would also need to be the person that fixed the sum for punitive damages in this system, not the jury.

[Margalis]

my idea for tort reform:

If the plaintiff wins, he or she gets all of the money for the nominal and compensatory damages but the money from the punitive damages should go either to the government or a special fund of some kind to be used for some public benefit: eg the health system, schools or maybe even legal aid.

You didn't read some of the other posts about this...

What is the incentive for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers? They have to take on a major organization, spend maybe years in court, high legal fees, etc etc.

Big companies are not big soft targets. Lawyers will only take up their time on these cases if there is a substantial payoff opportunity.

Your idea would only work if the government were also providing the plaintiff's lawyers. On paper I guess it sounds great though.

[Romp]

the plaintiff still gets the nominal and compensatory damages, that should be incentive enough to bring an action.  In the majority of tort actions (probably today and certainly throughout history), that is all the plaintiff would ever get, because torts are brought against ordinary people or small businesses, not large corporations.  Punitive damages are basically a 'bonus' which you get by sueing a large corporation.

I can see your point though that bringing an action against a large corporation is a huge task due to the fact that they are going to have legions of lawyers and huge resources etc  Not having punitive damages could be a disincentive to bring an action because of this.  Perhaps you could have a % going to the plaintiff and the lawyers and the rest in the public fund.

[HaemishM]

What is the incentive for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers? They have to take on a major organization, spend maybe years in court, high legal fees, etc etc.

Big companies are not big soft targets. Lawyers will only take up their time on these cases if there is a substantial payoff opportunity.

Your idea would only work if the government were also providing the plaintiff's lawyers. On paper I guess it sounds great though.

First off, let me say, 'FUCK THE LAWYERS.' On all sides. Equally.

However, I think one of the biggest problems with civil suits is that lawyers are being motivated purely by the profit potential of cases, and that is why lawyers get the rap of shyster and ambulance chaser. Lawyers only take cases they feel is profitable, and thus good cases which may not be profitable get tanked, which is just as bad mojo as the idea that lawyers get only the diddly-squat of plaintiff.

How about the lawyers get an amount of the punitive damages equal to the nominal and compensatory award that the client gets? Lawyer's fees are in many cases, absolutely outrageous. I read of one high-class divorce case where the lawyers were charging something like $300 an hour or something equally silly.

So say the plaintiff gets $1 million, the lawyer gets a million and the rest of the punitives go to a charity/community fund dictated by the plaintiff.

[Abagadro]

$300 an hour is quite low.  Most attorneys in major markets charge this.  The top lawyers in the big cities are $1000/hour and even higher.  But that's the market. No one would pay it if it wasn't.

The point is that the lawyer takes a large RISK in taking a case like this. Risk of working for YEARS and getting jack squat.  The big payoff is to compensate for the risk and for the other cases you took and didn't get paid on. Do you do your job for free?  Frankly if a company does something bad enough to justify punis, I say fuck them and yahoo to however had the guts to go up against the sleezebags and take a chunk of their hide. They deserve everything they get.  Go read the Campbell v. State Farm SCOTUS case if you want to see how punitive damages work in the real world.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/01-1289P.ZO


(BTW, I don't do contingency work, so don't think this is based upon self-interest)

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I'm confused. If I read the story right....

Edwards is a lawyer.

And other lawyers were at some point involved in a court case.

And that court case with the other lawyers had what the author claims is a non-controversial outcome.

And this seems to mean people should/should not vote for Edwards?

American politics is strange.

No. Its a way for Edward's supporters to 'pre-smear' anyone that questions Edwards record as a prosecutor. I've heard nothing thus far from any conservative groups that have done so. OMG HES A LAWYER! THE REPUBLICANS WILL TALK ABOUT MCDONALDS COFFEE NOW AIEEEEE!!

[Abagadro]

Its a way for Edward's supporters to 'pre-smear' anyone that questions Edwards record as a prosecutor.  I've heard nothing thus far from any conservative groups that have done so.

Yes, the Republicans would never, ever in a million years do such a thing.

Scroll down to the section delightfully titled: EDWARDS ISN’T JUST BEHOLDEN TO PERSONAL
INJURY TRIAL LAWYERS, HE IS ONE HIMSELF.

The problem the GOP has is that the Republican candidate for Senate in Florida is a PI trial lawyer too.


EDIT: Oh, and lets not forget the weasels like Hannity and Carlson who have been deriding Edwards about his career, talking about how he specializing in "jacuzzi" cases (with requisite sneer). Well that "jacuzzi" case was a 5 year old girl in a wading pool having her intestines sucked out of her anus when the suction drain held her down under the water. Edwards proved the company knew about the problem with the drain cover, had had multiple reports about the dangerous condition, there were 13 children previously injured by the drain and that it could have been fixed easily and cheaply.  The jury awarded 25 million in compensatory damages alone.  Punis could have trippled that, but the family settled for just the comp amount before the jury considered them so that they wouldn't have to go through years of appeals.

[personman]

Mcdonalds was specifically keeping their coffee at a VERY high temp to keep it warm until you get to work.

That was the reason McDonald's gave the media.  What the court learned going through the corporate memos was that McDonald's imposed the coffee policy to minimize free refills.  That part didn't anger the judge who rightfully observed McDonald's is well within their rights to make their products as unpalatable as they wished.

What angered the judge and was reflected in the court's initial punitive ruling was that McDonald's execs consistently lied and stonewalled access to their internal records, records which confirmed the lies and more.