No, I'm not anti-lawyer, but I know the truth when I see or hear it.

 

 

We need tort reform! Badly!!

No, I'm not anti-lawyer, but I know the truth when I see or hear it.

 

 

We need tort reform! Badly!!

 

You might check out Hearsay's response to this very issue in the other thread. :thumb:

 

 

(Post #7 under Frivilous Law Suits)

Why is it that conservatives screamed about personal freedom when the climate change bill and health care reform started coming through but when it comes to restricting an individual's freedom to pursue compensation for being wronged, the freedom train comes to a standstill? Nobody in the Republican party seems to want European style healthcare, but they seem to be fine with European-style tort policy. In Britain, there is a cap on how much you can get in a malpractice claim, but that doesn't work here, because awards are based on the cost of future medical care, wheras in Britain... it's paid for already. I've yet to see much of a proposal for tort reform that doesn't DRASTICALLY curtail the individual citizen's right to be protected from negligent care.

I don't deny that "trial lawyers" (of which I am one) exhibit tremendous authority within democratic circles.

 

I do deny that "tort reform," as that term seems to be commonly perceived, is needed or appropriate.

You might check out Hearsay's response to this very issue in the other thread. :thumb:

 

 

(Post #7 under Frivilous Law Suits)

I did.

 

Why is it that conservatives screamed about personal freedom when the climate change bill and health care reform started coming through but when it comes to restricting an individual's freedom to pursue compensation for being wronged, the freedom train comes to a standstill? Nobody in the Republican party seems to want European style healthcare, but they seem to be fine with European-style tort policy. In Britain, there is a cap on how much you can get in a malpractice claim, but that doesn't work here, because awards are based on the cost of future medical care, wheras in Britain... it's paid for already. I've yet to see much of a proposal for tort reform that doesn't DRASTICALLY curtail the individual citizen's right to be protected from negligent care.

There is a huge difference in being compensated and some of the insanity that some of these crook lawyers get away with. A BIG part of the reason that future health care will be so much more expensive is directly linked to these over the top lawsuits. Common sense has gone out the window these days when it comes to how much cash someone can grab through the courts. Total madness.

 

I don't deny that "trial lawyers" (of which I am one) exhibit tremendous authority within democratic circles.

 

I do deny that "tort reform," as that term seems to be commonly perceived, is needed or appropriate.

I totally disagree with you there.

Should a woman be awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store? Especially when the tot was none other than her own own son?

Should a guy get $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord considering he was attempting to steal the car's hubcaps at the time?

How about the case of Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pa.? He was leaving a house he had just finished burglarizing by way of the garage. He couldn't get out because the automatic door-opener was malfunctioning. and he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Dickson was locked in the garage for eight days. He survived on a case of Pepsi, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance for undue mental anguish. He won $500,000.

Should a guy, after purchasing a brand new 32-foot Winnebago, driving the motorhome onto the freeway, setting the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly leaving the drivers seat and walking to the back of the coach to make himself a cup of coffee be allowed to sue for the impending accident? The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. The guy sued Winnebago for not warning him in the owner's manual that he couldn't do this. A jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. :idunno:

 

Oh, no, we don't need tort reform.... :eek:

I did.

 

There is a huge difference in being compensated and some of the insanity that some of these crook lawyers get away with. A BIG part of the reason that future health care will be so much more expensive is directly linked to these over the top lawsuits. Common sense has gone out the window these days when it comes to how much cash someone can grab through the courts. Total madness.

 

I totally disagree with you there.

Should a woman be awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store? Especially when the tot was none other than her own own son?

Should a guy get $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord considering he was attempting to steal the car's hubcaps at the time?

How about the case of Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pa.? He was leaving a house he had just finished burglarizing by way of the garage. He couldn't get out because the automatic door-opener was malfunctioning. and he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Dickson was locked in the garage for eight days. He survived on a case of Pepsi, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance for undue mental anguish. He won $500,000.

Should a guy, after purchasing a brand new 32-foot Winnebago, driving the motorhome onto the freeway, setting the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly leaving the drivers seat and walking to the back of the coach to make himself a cup of coffee be allowed to sue for the impending accident? The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. The guy sued Winnebago for not warning him in the owner's manual that he couldn't do this. A jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. :idunno:

 

Oh, no, we don't need tort reform.... :eek:

 

That last case about the mobile home and the $1.75 million settlement is an urban legend that supposedly happened in Oklahoma. It never happened at all. But there are, of course, some outlandish examples out there. But to be fair, lawyers never gave anyone a dime in those cases. Juries did. Are we advocating the abandonment of the citizen jury because they don't always reach the best conclusion?

I did.

 

There is a huge difference in being compensated and some of the insanity that some of these crook lawyers get away with. A BIG part of the reason that future health care will be so much more expensive is directly linked to these over the top lawsuits. Common sense has gone out the window these days when it comes to how much cash someone can grab through the courts. Total madness.

 

I totally disagree with you there.

Should a woman be awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store? Especially when the tot was none other than her own own son?

Should a guy get $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord considering he was attempting to steal the car's hubcaps at the time?

How about the case of Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pa.? He was leaving a house he had just finished burglarizing by way of the garage. He couldn't get out because the automatic door-opener was malfunctioning. and he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Dickson was locked in the garage for eight days. He survived on a case of Pepsi, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance for undue mental anguish. He won $500,000.

Should a guy, after purchasing a brand new 32-foot Winnebago, driving the motorhome onto the freeway, setting the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly leaving the drivers seat and walking to the back of the coach to make himself a cup of coffee be allowed to sue for the impending accident? The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. The guy sued Winnebago for not warning him in the owner's manual that he couldn't do this. A jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. :idunno:

 

Oh, no, we don't need tort reform.... :eek:

 

 

We might need tort reform but the cases you cited are false.

 

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

 

 

Here's an article from 2005 with the same problems of "false stories" to support the position of "immediate reform."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-30-tort-reform_x.htm

Maybe somebody should sue the purveyors of these tall tales...

That last case about the mobile home and the $1.75 million settlement is an urban legend that supposedly happened in Oklahoma. It never happened at all. But there are, of course, some outlandish examples out there. But to be fair, lawyers never gave anyone a dime in those cases. Juries did. Are we advocating the abandonment of the citizen jury because they don't always reach the best conclusion?

No, just tort reform that will reduce such madness.

We might need tort reform but the cases you cited are false.

 

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

 

 

Here's an article from 2005 with the same problems of "false stories" to support the position of "immediate reform."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-30-tort-reform_x.htm

I should have checked Snopes first, my mistake. Thanks, Hatz.

 

OK, these are real:

 

A woman famously sued McDonald's in the early 1990s after she spilled scalding coffee on her legs. A jury awarded her more than $2 million, which was reduced by a judge to $640,000. Even $640,000 goes too far.

 

Former Washington, D.C., Administrative Judge Roy Pearson made headlines in 2007 when he sued a local dry cleaner, claiming it had lost a prized pair of pants he planned to wear on his first day on the bench in 2005. Pearson initially asked for $67 million but later reduced that to $54 million.

 

A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios is suing for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.

 

A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."

 

 

Civil lawsuits cost the US economy over 200 billion dollars per year! According to the US Federal News, every taxpayer in the US is now paying a “lawsuit tax” of around $700 – $800 per year.

I should have checked Snopes first, my mistake. Thanks, Hatz.

 

OK, these are real:

 

A woman famously sued McDonald's in the early 1990s after she spilled scalding coffee on her legs. A jury awarded her more than $2 million, which was reduced by a judge to $640,000. Even $640,000 goes too far.

 

Former Washington, D.C., Administrative Judge Roy Pearson made headlines in 2007 when he sued a local dry cleaner, claiming it had lost a prized pair of pants he planned to wear on his first day on the bench in 2005. Pearson initially asked for $67 million but later reduced that to $54 million.

 

A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios is suing for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.

 

A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."

 

 

Civil lawsuits cost the US economy over 200 billion dollars per year! According to the US Federal News, every taxpayer in the US is now paying a “lawsuit tax” of around $700 – $800 per year.

 

I think having more facts outside of a sentence synopsis goes a long way. In the case of the infamous McDonald's coffee suit, the coffee was nearly twice as hot as most anywhere else serves coffee, thus causing much more severe burns. Does that alter it's frivolity? I don't know, but it certainly adds more depth than someone being too dumb to know that coffee is hot.

 

As to the others, they may be as ridiculous as they sound, but only one of them features an actual award. I would be curious to know more of the facts on that one.

I think having more facts outside of a sentence synopsis goes a long way. In the case of the infamous McDonald's coffee suit, the coffee was nearly twice as hot as most anywhere else serves coffee, thus causing much more severe burns. Does that alter it's frivolity? I don't know, but it certainly adds more depth than someone being too dumb to know that coffee is hot.

 

As to the others, they may be as ridiculous as they sound, but only one of them features an actual award. I would be curious to know more of the facts on that one.

But come on, Habib, $2 million or $640,000 for a severe burn from coffee even twice as hot as usual is absurd!

I should have checked Snopes first, my mistake. Thanks, Hatz.

 

OK, these are real:

 

A woman famously sued McDonald's in the early 1990s after she spilled scalding coffee on her legs. A jury awarded her more than $2 million, which was reduced by a judge to $640,000. Even $640,000 goes too far.

 

Former Washington, D.C., Administrative Judge Roy Pearson made headlines in 2007 when he sued a local dry cleaner, claiming it had lost a prized pair of pants he planned to wear on his first day on the bench in 2005. Pearson initially asked for $67 million but later reduced that to $54 million.

 

A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios is suing for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.

 

A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."

 

 

Civil lawsuits cost the US economy over 200 billion dollars per year! According to the US Federal News, every taxpayer in the US is now paying a “lawsuit tax” of around $700 – $800 per year.

 

Not a problem RTS.

 

You still have enough REAL cases to make a good point worthy of discussion. :thumb:

The problem, RTS, is that you would like to throw out the baby with the bath water. Tort reform advocates propose "caps" on jury awards. I can cite you a heck of lot more examples of innocent people horrendously disfigured or killed by the pure and unadulterated recklessness of businesses, to whom $250,000 in caps would not fill their left pinky in how their life has been altered.

 

Again, the most frequent Plaintiffs are small businesses. The SBA never tells you that. And your statement that the "costs" to the US economy from lawsuits causes our insurances rates to go up is simply patently false.

 

Incidentally, the woman in the McDonald's coffee cup lawsuit simply asked McDonald's, without a lawyer, to pay her $450 ER bill for the 3rd degree burn she suffered from the coffee, which was almost twice as hot as the industry standard. McDonald's arrogantly refused. Bad business decision. She found a trial lawyer and he stuck it up and broke it off in their hinder, and lawyers are going to keep doing that until businesses decide to return to the customer-is-first-attitudes we once had in this country, which incidentally is something Republicans are often fond of reminding us of.

In the case of the infamous McDonald's coffee suit, the coffee was nearly twice as hot as most anywhere else serves coffee, thus causing much more severe burns. Does that alter it's frivolity? I don't know, but it certainly adds more depth than someone being too dumb to know that coffee is hot.

 

NOOOO. Only a MORON puts ANYTHING hot between their legs. If they do, it's a risk they choose to take. Tough luck: THINK next time.