Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

In letting that lady win the suit with the lady suing the microwave company because she wanted to dry her cat in it (seriously....what was she thinking) make a joke out of the US legal system.


[edit] just reread and turns out it wasn't a cat but a poodle and she didn't win [/edit]


I'm not saying the system IS a joke....but lawsuits like that have made everyone over here facepalm at the thought taking a system like it seriously.

(Personally I think it's not the system to be blamed but those involved in the case, just like McD wasn't to be blamed but the lady who spilled coffee on herself.

LX yea the legal system here is such a joke sometimes it would work alot better if there were more normal everyday working people that dealt with SOME of these issues i am not saying all lawyers are bad or good but in the end it should come down to the judge to throw out something menial and should of told the plantif well you should of thought about it before you did it.
side note: i have noticed ALL fast food resturants/starbucks etc serve thier coffee hotter than the avg drip coffee maker...when i am on the road i preffer that hotter cup of coffee because it stays warmer longer and i dont have to rush to drink it.
why does a coffee cup need a warning label you dont see a warning on every electrical outlet saying danger there may be 110/220 volts in here

Imho one thing that makes the law system bit different there in U.S is that there it is possible to ask and get money - a lot of money - for emotional distress in no-crime cases like this. So why wouldn't people (and their lawyers) take advantage of it?
Is it lawyers, victim or judge that decides what is the real value of emotional distress (= someone feels bad or hurts his mind) and how does money compensate it?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Imho one thing that makes the law system bit different there in U.S is that there it is possible to ask and get money - a lot of money - for emotional distress in no-crime cases like this. So why wouldn't people (and their lawyers) take advantage of it?
Is it lawyers, victim or judge that decides what is the real value of emotional distress (= someone feels bad or hurts his mind) and how does money compensate it?

yea if you find yourself in one of these kangaroo court cases you can ask for alot of money and get it...thats all fine and dandy but guess what those top execs dont like paying out of thier pocket so they raise prices and let the consumer pay for another consumers bone head mistake....NO THANKS

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

thats a good point, since the coffee was poured on her . . . but, I'll leave you back on topic, -- research in understanding what actually happened makes both arguments easier to discuss.

Provide us a link then because the case I am referring to is the case linked to earlier in this thread and in that case she spilled the coffee in her lap. it was not poured in her lap by another party.

Originally Posted by JMS

Provide us a link then because the case I am referring to is the case linked to earlier in this thread and in that case she spilled the coffee in her lap. it was not poured in her lap by another party.

Yes, you're correct. I think that is the link I remember. I missed that link clearly proving McDs at fault posted here. So, assuming others have read the link, then I don't see eye to eye on this case. I see no similarity to this case, obviously demonstrating fault, with the baseball case. Since you see these cases as similar I'll step out of the discussion. To me they are like night and day.

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

Yes, you're correct. I think that is the link I remember. I missed that link clearly proving McDs at fault posted here. So, assuming others have read the link, then I don't see eye to eye on this case. I see no similarity to this case, obviously demonstrating fault, with the baseball case. Since you see these cases as similar I'll step out of the discussion. To me they are like night and day.

We may disagree on this one point but as to my assertion that as a society the U S is far too litigious over far to many petty instances, do you agree with that?

Yes, absolutely! I did a quick search and found several statistics on this issue. I was curious since "we" seem to think that there are four grevious litigations; what would that percentage be? 0001%? But I hit a lot of sights discussing this problem. It would seem that the simple solution is to force those that sue people to pay for all the legal fees. I guess they have a system like that in Europe.

I still don't understand how these silly baseball teams determine that their damages are $75k. Why not 85K? Why not 45K? To me that leads to an immediate conclusion that the lawsuit is frivilous.

But, I don't think it has anything to do with "common sense" as can be clearly seen in the lack of it in this thread. Or, from my perspective most people's sense is only "common". They couldn't solve a soduku puzzle even if all but one number was filled in. I think the only way to instill "common" sense is to apply damages if you lose.

But, my sense, at this point, is that common sense, when applied to litigation, would simply be another bad decision. We have guys that still think McDs had no liability in that case. A strong indicator to me that "common" sense is not going to be a valid determiner. Perhaps, we need to move up to "critical" thinking instead.

Toyota, for example, what does common sense tell us their damages for their gas pedal problem should be? They paid, in damages, 21 hours of profit to the U.S. right? Should the victims get a dime of that? A speeding Toyota barrels down the road and the average U.S. "common" person can't figure out that they should turn the engine off? So they have to pay the government money? How about the guy that spent 3 years in jail, just before the news broke, for killing three people with a Toyota, and claimed the gas pedal got stuck? No one bought his story and he is still in jail. He hasn't gotten a dime.

So, back to our original case. Should we assume that these three "Bi" individuals should be able to make a "common" decision and not sue? Or did they make a "common" decision, based on the intellect of the average american? Shouldn't we just use "common" sense and realize that someone that is "Bi" is having trouble making decisions in the first place?

Edit - - I found a good article that walks through many of the McD's coffee litigations for the last several years and how many jurors found that their initial thoughts (common, perhaps?) didn't apply. It also discusses the case I thought you were referring to when a McD's employee accidentally spilled coffee on a patron causing sever burns. It is also interesting (scary) to see that the award was debated from 1 to 9 million during the jury's debate.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

You've convinced me, singlehandedly in this thread, that common sense is a very bad decision tool.

In all those words you used AFDavis, I am not certain that you answered my question, which is, are we in the US too litigious?

Yes, absolutely! And the case you posted is a great example!!