Natural selection at work

[Y33TREKker]

I don't care what McDs did, short of the employee pulling down her pants and pouring it on her crotch. If you are buying a piping hot liquid, placing it in your lap and driving in a large vibrating and moving metal can, you deserve to get burned and can hold no on other than yourself accountable. It would be like getting a sunburn at the tanning salon and then blaming the company.

That's all I'm saying. Given what you've just said, you don't have the facts correct, and are forming your opinion on misinformation.

From VT's wiki link:

Hot Coffee documentary

HBO premiered a documentary about the problems with tort reform. The film titled Hot Coffee premiered on June 27, 2011.[25] The title was taken from this case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. A big portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred. The film also discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit. As well as referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts.[26]

[Y33TREKker]

...Insert liberal paranoia. Take a read here (scroll down to Tort reform in US politics) and do some more research... plenty of people are still making nice sums of money in tort cases, and many prominent Dems (including our President) have voted for reform in the time since this case.

How is it paranoia if what you've just said verifies that what was being promoted in the early 90's as "necessary tort reform" is in need of reform ?

Plenty of people may still be making nice sums, but you're not including the people who have been prevented from receiving legitimate sums or receiving reasonable due course in the meantime.

[vt_maverick]

How is it paranoia if what you've just said verifies that what was being promoted in the early 90's as "necessary tort reform" is in need of reform ?

Plenty of people may still be making nice sums, but you're not including the people who have been prevented from receiving legitimate sums or receiving reasonable due course in the meantime.

Liberal paranoia. As in attributing every problem in the world to something Bush, Cheney, Rove, Big Oil, Multi-National corporations, etc. have done. If you want to say that companies are lobbying politicians in general to crush the little guy, I would say that is more likely. But if you're trying to attribute negative (from the little guy's perspective) policy change to one party I think it demonstrates a partisan paranoia.

IMHO the problem is that tort law, class action suits, etc. are used to accomplish what the criminal code was unable to do, i.e. punish the corporation for repeated abuse rather than simply award the actual $$$ required to make the plaintiff "whole." The reason the courts awarded the McDonald's lady so much money was directly because of the company's clearly demonstrated apathy for the situation - they wanted to send a message to McDonald's to change its ways. The problem is that removing limits on damages and due course encourages lawyers (if not victims) to sue too often and for too much, increasing (in the medical arena) malpractice insurance rates which therefore increase premiums, co-pays, etc. In the McDonald's example I would think a better practice would be to make them reimburse the plaintiff for her real (not pain & suffering) costs and then sick the DoJ on them for willful negligence.

[Y33TREKker]

Liberal paranoia. As in attributing every problem in the world to something Bush, Cheney, Rove, Big Oil, Multi-National corporations, etc. have done. If you want to say that companies are lobbying politicians in general to crush the little guy, I would say that is more likely. But if you're trying to attribute negative (from the little guy's perspective) policy change to one party I think it demonstrates a partisan paranoia.

Then again, it couldn't be that you're trying to generalize my response to suit your own argument could it?

Just because you are trying to portray my response as an indicator that I attribute all the worlds ills to the people/entities you listed doesn't mean that I was. Take from it what you will that the specific examples I included were more associated with the political party that they were/are.

If I'm paranoid about any political parties, it's about ALL of them. That's not partisan, that's realistic.

[Ldub]

Before you keep using the well-known '90's McDonalds lawsuit as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, I'd suggest you watch the movie "Hot Coffee" currently being shown on HBO.

That particular lawsuit, the real physical damage it caused to the elderly woman, and the repeated negligence displayed by McDonald leading up to the incident was twisted around by the media, the Bush administration, and the likes of Carl Rowe to pass tort reform which ended up making it near impossible for ANY U.S. citizens to seek reasonable recourse for legitimate damages against actual negligence of corporations.

Hopefully none of us here will ever have to find out the hard way the definition of "mandatory arbitration" should we be on the receiving end of any gross negligence of a business large enough to hide behind it's lawyers, but that's what happens when people believe everything they see and hear on tv.

Makes a person wonder just why this particular incident is being so widely reported.

I'm sorry...

Let's everyone pretend I used the warning label on my windshield sunshade as an example:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRIVE WITH SHADE IN PLACE

Is that a good enough example of a business covering it's @$$ due to possible frivolous litigation?

Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...

Double sorry...

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..

[Marlin]

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...

MANY MANY DECADES!!!!

Double sorry...

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..

TV,ha, you probably had to listen to it on the radio......

(editors note: next time "highlight & embloden" stuff you add to my quoted post, it makes it more noticeable)...

L W

[Ldub]

TV,ha, you probably had to listen to it on the radio......

No...not exactly grommet...

I read it on the wall of a cave...

[Marlin]

I had changing the color in mind when I was typing it and got side tracked. We are packing for the ECORS race tomorrow. I get to play pit crew for team ISUZU!!!! YIPPPEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will have to teach me how to rip those gnarly waves sometime.

[Ldub]

You will have to teach me how to rip those gnarly waves sometime.

LOL...been too many years...but feel free to use this as a reference...

"Grommet" was the best of both worlds reference that I could think of...since it included youth & oceania, both of which, can be associated with you better than I.

[Y33TREKker]

...Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...

That's the problem, it's NOT just you. There are a lot of people who still believe the spinned version of the story that was portrayed by the media, certain politicians, corporate America, etc.

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...

Double sorry...

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..

Go ahead and continue to make light of the suffering of the victim in this case if you think it will help you save face in this particular discussion. (Is that just you too?)

All I'll do is repeat that I hope none of us here ever fall victim to the same kind of treatment offered by those cover-their-@$$ laws enacted back then under the guise of those "necessary" tort reforms.

[Ldub]

Go ahead and continue to make light of the suffering of the victim in this case if you think it will help you save face in this particular discussion. (Is that just you too?)

OK...works for me...

And a TRIPLE sorry to you sir.....

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving...

I thought this was a conversation with differing viewpoints...

BTW, this thread started off with a random act of stupidity...

[Y33TREKker]

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving...

IMO, while your folksy verbiage is always a nice touch, acting without guile and actually being without guile are two different things. But that's just me.

I thought this was a conversation with differing viewpoints...

So did I. At least that's how they usually start anyway. Unfortunately, some just can't seem to let them go at that though. But......whadayagonado.

[Osteomata]

IIRC, McDonalds coffee was significantly hotter than any other large scale provider, and they had had multiple complaints and warnings about it. Its not a matter of stupid people not knowing that coffee is hot, but rather normal citizens haveing a reasonable expectation of what "hot coffee" means, an understanding that was not at all in line with McDonalds superheated version.

My general view, as a soft libertarian, is that there are three methods to control the potential rapaciousness and abuses by large power corporations:
1. government regulation, which as its own set of problems, mainly due to regulatory capture
2. liability law, i.e., civil law suits
3. public opinion translated to market power

I think 3 alone is wonderful, but insufficient. I generally oppose 1 since it will often result in the fox guarding the hen house, and so I am not at all bothered by our supposedly overly litigious society.

[Osteomata]

And yet there is almost no issue about which you could not make the same authoritarian justification. If the primary determinant regarding government control of individual decisions is merely "is there a social cost", why then no intrusion by the state is unjustified. Mandatory breathalizer interlocks on all new cars, operators licenses for bicycles, banning of toys in happy meals (oh wait they are doing that one in CA). At what point do you draw the line.

I'd have to disagree...

....it make all our health & Auto insurance premiums higher
due to the HIGH cost of caring for / fixing cranial trauma .

AJBTW... I love/ride bikes, and hate helmets..

....but, it makes sense.

JMHO

Jo

[VXR]

I'm sorry...

Let's everyone pretend I used the warning label on my windshield sunshade as an example:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRIVE WITH SHADE IN PLACE

Is that a good enough example of a business covering it's @$$ due to possible frivolous litigation?

Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...

Double sorry...

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..