Posted by Nate(DC) on January 13, 2003 at 21:49:20:
That’s like when my university asks me to give money and says you can designate where it goes…but at the bottom of the form notes that “your donations do not change the amount budgeted and allocated to each part of the university”
What a crock!
NT
Hot coffee and asset protection - Posted by Hank
Posted by Hank on January 09, 2003 at 19:46:15:
It seems as though real estate investors really spend so much time with the issue of asset protection.
Esate planning and tax stances as well - they overlap.
Imagine a world where an investor could just focus on providing quality housing for a reasonable amount of money.
How much are we… I mean tenants going to hane to pay for the increase in costs that the parasitic trail lawyers are bringing us with this mold cr@p ?
I know of a landlord in my area that was sunk because one of his tenant’s had a dog that bit somebody.
It’s the landlords fault.
MADNESS ! !
Ben NJ , when I make coffee or tea I boil the water first. I guess that makes it “insanely hot” .
OK, color me crazy but I expect “insanely hot” coffee when I buy it at a diner, a deli or even McDonalds.
And if I spill my molten mocha on myself I shouldn’t be the winner of litigation lotto.
Hey, I just burned the roof of my mouth the other day on what passes for pizza down here in FL.
Should I call my local tort lawyer because my slice was not served to me “lukewarm”…AARRRRGGGHH !!!
MADNESS ! !
Here’s another incredible suit - Posted by Stew(NE)
Posted by Stew(NE) on January 10, 2003 at 14:26:24:
I beleive it was John Stossel’s (Give me a Break!) show where this lawyer sued this business owner for not adhering to the American Disablity and Handicap Act of
providing the correct amount of parking spaces for the expected handicap population. The twist was he won the suit. The real twist was the business sold wheelchairs and other apparatus for handicap people.
Therefore, in the owner’s mind they didn’t need handicap parking signs because all of their clientle ARE handicap. The even sadder part is that the owners that had to pay off the suit (over 10K) and
add the signs were handicap and in wheelchairs. It get’s worst. John interviewed the stupid lawyer, who took the they broke the law stance, and had someone checked out the building that the
lawyers office was in and guess what, it was not under compliance.
Sorry Hank… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on January 09, 2003 at 21:16:21:
When I stop in Mcdonald’s for a cup of coffee I just don’t expect to leave without my reproductive organs!
I suppose we will never agree on this point! LOL
Another one… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on January 10, 2003 at 17:53:06:
some guy was on 60 Minutes for being the most litigious guy in America. At the end of the program, Mike Wallace said “before we even got to air this show,
this guy had sued 60 Minutes!”.
Sorry SUVs - Posted by Hank
Posted by Hank on January 10, 2003 at 15:04:12:
The link doesn’t work so I put the story up from the NY Times (Jan 5) .
The Lawyers Are Lurking Over S.U.V.'s
By DANIEL AKST
F you are a motorist, you may be worried about the safety threat posed by all those hulking sport utility vehicles. But if you are an automaker, your big worry until now has been regulation. S.U.V.'s have been a godsend, after all, to the auto companies, providing enormous profits and a bulwark against the foreign competition that has made the car business so tough.
Customers liked S.U.V.'s, and Washington hadn’t seemed to be in any mood to regulate, so the profits kept coming. All that may soon change, however, and for automakers, it’s time to be afraid ? very afraid.
It’s not that buyers are losing their taste for these gas-guzzling, rollover-prone behemoths. The problem is, a new class of people ? the nation’s trial lawyers ? is about to develop a special affection for S.U.V.'s.
The beginning of a new year is a good time for predictions, so here’s mine: S.U.V.'s are next on the agenda for the plaintiff’s bar. In America, for better or worse, we regulate hazards of this kind through the tort system. Public policy on tobacco, firearms and asbestos, among other hazards, has been shaped in recent years by this crude tool. More recently, a lawsuit was filed against a fast-food company, accusing it of making plaintiffs fat.
But why now? Is there something about the law or the facts that suddenly makes the legal case against S.U.V.'s compelling? The answer is that these suits have less to do with the law or the facts than with the social climate. The tobacco suits, for instance, would have seemed preposterous in the days when many more people smoked. But smoking eventually became socially unacceptable. Smokers were increasingly marginalized until they were finally ejected altogether from most public buildings, and cigarettes, once the height of cool, are now very much the opposite.
The same is about to happen with S.U.V.'s. While sales remain strong, these vehicles are palpably losing cachet. Car shoppers are learning from the news media about market research showing S.U.V. buyers to be insecure and vain. Around the country, efforts are cropping up to dissuade or even shame S.U.V. drivers, including the “What Would Jesus Drive?” campaign of the Evangelical Environmental Network.
The efforts of S.U.V.-haters and trial lawyers will receive a boost from Keith Bradsher’s new book, “High and Mighty: S.U.V.'s ? the World’s Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way” (PublicAffairs), which could become the modern equivalent of Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe at Any Speed.” That book, which was published in the 1960’s and focused on the Chevrolet Corvair, helped revolutionize auto safety.
This is not to suggest that the facts on S.U.V.'s look good. Mr. Bradsher, a correspondent for The New York Times and formerly the paper’s bureau chief in Detroit, reports that for every life saved by a Ford Explorer, five others will be taken. If your car is hit from the side by another car, he writes, you are 6.6 times likelier to die than someone in the striking vehicle; but if you are hit by an S.U.V., the ratio rises to 30 to 1. They might as well call these things plaintiff makers.
And if you think buying an S.U.V. will protect you, think again. There is an automotive arms race out there, but it will not help anyone. According to Mr. Bradsher, the death rate for those in S.U.V.'s is 6 percent higher than it is for those in cars.
So, based on the facts alone, S.U.V. plaintiffs would seem to have a plausible case ? particularly those who were victimized while driving regular cars. But the truth is, the facts aren’t even that important. In the case of silicone breast implants, for instance, the science is quite definitive: these implants do not cause any major diseases. Yet that made no difference in the lawsuits, which took off on the wings of sympathetic female plaintiffs, a product fallen into social disrepute and a highly evolved, well-financed plaintiffs’ bar.
Some S.U.V. suits have been filed already, particularly relating to deaths and injuries from rollovers. With the kind of money at stake ? automakers are classic deep-pocket parties ? more serious litigation will come, including the inevitable class actions. Don’t be surprised if some ambitious state attorneys general get into the act, too.
We may even see a social benefit from such litigation. As Mercedes-Benz has proved, it’s entirely possible to design an S.U.V. that is reasonably safe for its owners as well as everyone else on the road. A lot of other car companies will soon discover the same thing. All they need is a little help from their lawyer friends.
Dear ATLA, - Posted by JHyre in Ohio
Posted by JHyre in Ohio on January 10, 2003 at 06:55:48:
Coffee goes in mouth not on doohickymajig in pants, LOL. Guess we’ll not agree on this or the English rule, but it’s fun disagreeing with you! How long til that criminal Ronald McDonald joins Joe Camel for seducing kids with his killer fat?
Cordially,
John Hyre
If you read the actual facts of the case… - Posted by Adam (Austin)
Posted by Adam (Austin) on January 10, 2003 at 08:10:39:
If you read the actual facts of the case, you WILL find that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit WAS NOT frivolous.
They were intentionally brewing their coffee MUCH HOTTER than industry standards. So hot, in fact, that 1-2 seconds of exposure to human skin would result in a 3rd degree burn. It was so hot that-- when the coffee was spilled-- it would not cool fast enough to prevent such burns.
This wasn’t just “hot coffee.” This was coffee so hot that it was way beyond what you would get at a local diner, or even Starbucks.
Madness ! - Posted by Hank
Posted by Hank on January 10, 2003 at 08:48:09:
Hotter than boiling water ?
If one doesn’t want to get burned by a liquid that was boiling a few minutes ago, one shouldn’t put said liquid between one’s legs while driving.
And how about this other case against McDonalds (class action I think) where fat people that drink milkshakes and scarf down big macs & fries while watching TV and not exercising are claiming McDonalds owes them MILLIONS of dollars for their condition.
Madness !
This case is about personal responsibility… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on January 10, 2003 at 08:39:06:
Mcdonald’s taking personal responsibility, that is. As I have said before (and so far no one has adequately refuted) is that we never want to be in a position where fat-cat executives can say “let’s roll the dice on burning and maiming a small percentage of our customer base. Sure we’ll pay a few judgments here and there and quietly settle out of court, but overall our analysis shows in the long run, it would be much cheaper than implementing a nationwide or worldwide change of policy. Now,that would cost us a fortune!”
On the other hand, I would rather have these guys saying, “jeez, what do you mean there is NO cap on punitive damages, you’re telling me we’re screwed if we don’t fix this problem NOW!”
Re: This case is about personal responsibility… - Posted by Andrew
Posted by Andrew on January 10, 2003 at 10:57:11:
Hi Ben,
If the coffee were “too hot” in the eyes of the customers, then why do they buy it at McDonalds? A person could make it at home, buy it somewhere else or not at all, it’s up to each individual to make that choice.
See, I think that the market takes care of these things. There is obviously some demand for very hot coffee (like for people who set it in a cup holder during their drive to work) or else McDonalds would not make it that way.
When someone drops a cup of hot coffee or a sharp knife or a heavy brick and hurts themself, then it’s called an accident. It’s not the products or the manufacturer’s fault, especially when the product is not being used as intended. It’s just an accident, and contrary to the legal professions opinion, they do happen.
Unfortunately, we’ve become convinced that every mishap has some evil scheme behind it and somebody, other than us of course, must pay for it!
It’s well known that small cars are more dangerous than large cars. Do you think it’s a conspiracy that manufacturers make small cars to purposely kill their customers? Perhaps the individuals that purchased the car decided it was worth the increased risk since they will pay a lower purchase price, insurance, and gas costs? If it wasn’t worth it to them, they wouldn’t buy it.
Just my 2 cents… keep the change!
-Andrew
Re: This case is about personal responsibility… - Posted by BaldRepublican
Posted by BaldRepublican on January 10, 2003 at 10:49:51:
I, on the other hand like my coffee so hot that it may burn someone. Ever since that case there has not been a MickeyD’s that I have not checked the temp of my coffee before pulling away and often have to give it back if it’s to cold while the line behind me gets longer and longer.
Emphatically Disagree - Posted by JHyre in Ohio
Posted by JHyre in Ohio on January 10, 2003 at 09:24:54:
I had them put ice in mine. Probably costs them billions to do that over and over. If the American public is so d@amned dumb that it cannot ask for ice in its coffee, then it cannot be protected from itself. Everyone would have to wear stretch pants because zippers are just too hard to operate.
ATLA lawyers think that everyone but individuals are rsponsible for everything…common sense is dead. Every item produced in the US bears a warning that no one reads proclaiming the obvious…IRONS ARE HOT! YOU SHOULD NOT EAT BRICKS! DON’T STICK YOUR HAND UNDER THE LAWNMOWER! This is sheer idiocy and costs the consumer billions (these costs add up, you know). The only beneficiaries - plaintiff’s lawyers who get massive fees, while the consumer pays more and more…and businesses cease to exist.
My grandfather has little steam engines that he used to take out for us grandkids…and now for my kids. The company that made them was out of Pennsylvania…I asked him how to contact them. He said you can’t, because such little engines are no longer made in the US, as the plaintiff’s lawyers put the companies out of business. You see, steam engines are HOT, and the public just had to be protected against that massive danger by bankrupting an industry. The cost of “winning” a lawsuit is so high that items that are at all potentially dangerous when in the hands of a 65 IQ user (that is, everything) must be banned or dramatically increased in price. This is the plaintiff lawyers work…reasonableness, the standard once esteemed at law has been replaced by de facto strict liability. That’s a call for Congress, not the courts, and certainly not the lawyers’ lobby. Being fined out existence should at least be preceeded by representation in the lawmaking process. Instead it replaced by vior dire, where the plaintiff’s lawyers job is to select the population segment most likely to GIVE! GIVE! GIVE! (lots of someone else’s money) based on statistical models. American jobs, American business, American consumers and American Democracy (Hey, shouldn’t the people we actually vote for address these issues? Oh wait, they have, but the Naderites aren’t happy with the results.) suffer. Trial lawyers and their Democrat allies profit- immensely.
Witness the absudity of the tobacco situation…a few lawyers make billions (the equivalent of several hundred thousand per hour - where’s Democratic class warfare when you actually need it?) and cigarettes are effectively taxed to oblivion because the public SHOCKINGLY discovered that they were bad for you! Congress and the legislatures have the ability and right to regulate such matters…a bunch of greedy do gooder wannabe’s should not have the right to effectively make law. The system is way out of whack - their is litle disincentive to file a suit, because nothing happens if you lose. There’s a huge incentive for defendants to settle - even if they’ve done nothing wrong. The consumer, worker and businessman all pay through the nose for this brand of “justice”.
The problem is that lawyers are making the law. Their “process” is guided by how much money they can make, little more. No solution is perfect, as legislators also like money. Unlike the plaintiff’s bar, they ARE ultimately accountable and have to measure the actual consequences of what they inflict on the public in the name of protecting them. The plaintiff’s lawyers are under no such constraint. They want the settlement. Class action lawsuits are especially egregious…the lawyers make millions, and the consumers each get five bucks of vouchers that are never used and product prices increase…hey, that’s impressive! Wow, we are all much safer. Justice in action.
There will always be some injustice…the object is to minimize it at a reasonable cost. The plaintiff’s bar does not do that. Rather, ridiculous standards, ridiculous awards and an anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-jobs environment prevail. Far too much money is not productively spent - and lost productiviy means lost jobs, lost standards of living and lost lives…because if you can’t afford a product (like say, medicinal drugs) because lawyers make them too expensive, you could well die. Of course, that’s not nearly so dramatic as some fool holding boiling liquid between her thighs.
John Hyre
PS: Ben, your a good guy…but on this we’ll not agree.
Re: This case is about personal responsibility… - Posted by Hank
Posted by Hank on January 10, 2003 at 09:05:48:
People know that one boils water to make coffee or tea. Now unless there’s a McDonalds on the top of Mt. Everest, that fresh, hot coffee is gonna be … well how 'bout that…
HOT !!!
How about this lawsuit.
A guy driving his RV puts the cruise controll on … and then goes in the back to make a cup of coffee.
RV crashes - hope he didn’t burn himself.
He finds a sheister lawyer and now the crash is the RV manufacturers fault.
There’s a small number (I hope) of lawyers out there that have given all lawyers a bad name.
These guys are radical. They’ve gone too far and must be stopped.
We need some kind of tort reform.
This is pure speculation but… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on January 10, 2003 at 11:33:31:
any big coffee drinker (like me) knows that coffee has a very short shelf life before getting bitter and gross. What if Mcdonald’s highly paid research team discovered (eureka) that coffee purposely kept at ridiculously high temperatures has a shelf life ten times as long as lower temperature java. Now we know employees and customers may get burned and maimed but
maybe we can offset that cost by preventing the tremendous loss of all that wasted coffee? Hmmmm.
Well said - Posted by Hank
Posted by Hank on January 10, 2003 at 14:41:57:
Here’s an informative site for those interested in the abuses that happen all to often in our legal system.
Note: Anyone going to this site that thinks the hot coffee case should have been thrown out, should wrap their heads in heavy duty duct tape lest their skulls explode.
I’ll agree on one thing… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on January 10, 2003 at 10:53:55:
I have always felt that the assault on the tobacco companies was patently ludicrous but now it has become more hypocritical than anything. All these state funds supposedly earmarked for “children’s education” and “anti-smoking awareness” are now being used to fill budgetary gaps in every OTHER area other than smoking! What a disgrace!
Re: This case is about personal responsibility… - Posted by John (Rome)
Posted by John (Rome) on January 10, 2003 at 10:26:29:
wait a minute…he left the wheel…duh…he crashed…wonder why…and yet… he won???
Geez…there’s a saying here…the imbecile’s mother is always pregnant…
scary…
J.
Re: This case is about personal responsibility… - Posted by Nate(DC)
Posted by Nate(DC) on January 10, 2003 at 09:39:36:
There was a case recently in Minnesota where a woman tripped over an orange traffic cone and fell, and sued the city (who had placed the traffic cone there, for the purposes of directing traffic at a street festival) for damages.
Luckily, the judge in this one had a brain, and ruled that she was not entitled to damages, since the city could not be expected to warn her of a traffic cone which was, in itself, a warning sign.
The case is Engleson v. Little Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, Civil No. 01-1072 (D.Minn), 11-28-02, if anyone’s curious. The decision is available online.
NT
Nice conspiracy theory, Ben! 
(NT) - Posted by Andrew
Posted by Andrew on January 10, 2003 at 14:30:56:
NT