Another stupid lawsuit!

[Jeff Matthews]

Stan, you're right, and I have thought about those verdicts that I considered, based on my opinion, to be aberrations, travesties, etc. The thing about it is our rules are the best in the world. But, as in all rules, there is room for "wiggling" around. Otherwise, we'd never need attorneys, courts and juries.

Nobody can write a rule that works in every case without having that rule speak in general principles. It's the generality of the principles that allows the "wiggle" room - words like "unreasonably," "prompt," "safe," "extreme," etc.

That's the best we can do, and so on occasion, you will see cases that you totally disagree with. I too never thought the smoker cases had a leg to stand on.

That said, I have never been able to think of a rule that could be written any better and still work in all cases. Try thinking how you'd re-write it, and I could tear whatever you write apart in a heartbeat - supposing what you write is a sincere attempt at striking a fair balance for everyone involved.

This has always been the case. If you went back into the 1800's, you'd see cases where you thought - the jury must have been stoned. It's nothing new.

Despite the potential for aberrations, we still have the best system in the world in my opinion.

[TheEAR]

Jeff,

You are one serious lawyer! Never giving up and sticking for the little guy(when the reward is fat and juicy dollars).

The world does not need attorneys,courts and juries.These people profit from misery of others and when they work for YOU the "victim" they make sure the get a huge piece of the pie,as large as possible.This is why they claim huge amounts of money in the name of justice.

What do you call a world with no money hungry lawyers who will sue a lamp post and the bolts holding it to the ground,a perfect world.

[jacksonbart]

Gee wiz

[st. patrick]

The law is a living ideal, to be applied by juries based upon current thoughts and perceptions about societal values, the latter of which change with time and developments in our world. Lawyers advocate for clients, but those arguments and ideas are accepted or rejected by juries depending upon the collective wisdom of the group (jury).

If you don't like the decisions of juries, do not blame the lawyers, but rather blame those of our fellow citizens who do everything they can to AVOID serving on a jury.

Think of the guy who hates politicians , so he doesn't vote. In my opinion, he is not entitled to complain about the system if he is not going to participate in it. Next time someone you know is tempted to try "escaping" from jury duty, ask them who they would like judging their case when the need arises. Sure, it can be inconvenient, but it a part of a process that we ALL need to maintain a balance in a civilized society.

[codhead]

Never heard of it. Okay.... What's the full, un-biased synopsis? I

don't believe it was a simple as "drunk dude drives off hillside and

rakes in millions from Ford."

I still remember a quote from an article at the time. Since he was

considered to be "a beloved sports figure", they settled - out of fear

that a jury would take pity on him, and award record damages.

I don't know this to be the case, but if I were to think like a lawyer,

I'd probably key in on the fact that this guy was driving a short

wheelbase SUV with a high center of gravity. Not that his choice of

vehicle would have kept him from driving off a hillside while drunk,

but a Sedan de Ville might have simply slid down the hill like a 5000

pound toboggan.

I'd have a hard time buying that argument as a juror, as I have zero

sympathy for a drunk that drives his car off the road. If the accident

was caused by a design defect that resulted in the catastrophic failure

of a steering component, I'd side with the plaintiff in a hot second -

regardless of his state of sobriety.

Don't discount the pity factor. If you were going to sue a physician in

a cerebral-palsy case, wouldn't you prefer a client with a live child

over a dead one? A certain unsuccessful vice presidential candidate

used to specialize in this very litigation. He was highly successful,

but seldom did he represent a family whose child had passed away.

Having a tiny victim to parade before the jury is a powerful courtroom

tool.

[Jeff Matthews]

EAR, you're right! I feel guilty. I was born with a silver spoon, and I should want to give all my time away for free or at least to earn a janitor's wages for the 7 years of school I had to attend and pay for after high school.

Of course, it's the money!

St. Patrick, you're right on who to blame, except that I would add you can also blame the juries who render verdicts if you don't like it - but don't blame the attorneys. It is our JOB to convince a jury. This reminds me of the commercials where the attorney pleads her own client guilty, the client looks at her in shock, and she says "Well, you are, aren't you?"

We don't get paid to go in and shoot our own clients' cases down. That's a job for the other side.

And also, before you blame the jury, try to know more about the evidence they heard, rather than incomplete snippets that get sensationalized by the media. You'll find the media's accounts are too often very incomplete.

[Tom Adams]

Well what the hellIll weigh in here too (need to get my post count up ya know [] ).

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Stan mentioned something that I feel hasnt really been talked about and thats how we got here. Jeff keeps trying to justify these injury cases by hiding behind the law. While it may be the law NOW, it wasnt the law at the time of the laws creation. Make no mistake about it, attorneys, over a period of time, have pushed the envelope more & more resulting in a law that had good intentions becoming a law thats completely out of control. And these aberrations of today become the law of tomorrow. While I completely agree with people being responsible, accountable, and using common sense, where I think common sense really needs to come into play is in these legal interpretations thats resulted in the once noble law becoming perverted.

FWIW Im still baffled as to how a tire designed solely for a 16 rim, that has no known failures when used on a 16 rim, is suddenly a bad design when the specific application is violated.

BTW, I have a fairly comprehensive set of both metric and SAE standard tools. Also in my roll-around chest are 4 different size Cresent wrenches (adjustable spanners for any of you Brits out there). Now, any mechanic worth his salt will tell you that Cresent wrenches are also referred to as knuckle busters. So, I guess I can sue Sears for making a knuckle buster since the correct and safer design is the proper sized wrench?? Because I can tell you that Ive busted my knuckles many times over the years using a Cresent wrench yet Ive never had the thought of suing anyone because I was too stooped or lazy to get the specific size wrench.

I firmly believe that there needs to be some standards for product safety. The real question is not do we need these laws, but how far reaching should they be? Where does it stop? Folks 50 years ago wouldve thought todays standards were outlandish and an impossibility (recent eminent domain cases are good examples as well). But slowly but surely it has crept to this. So I ask if left unchecked, what will product safety laws be like 50 years from now?

I certainly mean no disrespect Jeff, but what incentive is there for attorneys (who pretty much create the laws with their ever envelope pushing cases) to put the brakes on with regards to cases that have crossed the lines from legitimacy to ridiculousness? Case in point is you never retreating (to my knowledge) on this issue in this thread. You have defended these laws almost to a fault and never admitting that they might just be overboard. Is it because you truly believe in them or is it because your family eating every night depends on it? If its the former, I respect your integrity. If its the latter, then therein lies part of the problem - a legal system more focused on deriving (obscene?) profit rather than altruistic intentions.

Good discussion/debate BTW. [Y]

Tom

[Jeff Matthews]

Never heard of it. Okay.... What's the full, un-biased synopsis? I don't believe it was a simple as "drunk dude drives off hillside and rakes in millions from Ford."

I still remember a quote from an article at the time. Since he was considered to be "a beloved sports figure", they settled - out of fear that a jury would take pity on him, and award record damages.

I don't know this to be the case, but if I were to think like a lawyer, I'd probably key in on the fact that this guy was driving a short wheelbase SUV with a high center of gravity. Not that his choice of vehicle would have kept him from driving off a hillside while drunk, but a Sedan de Ville might have simply slid down the hill like a 5000 pound toboggan.

I'd have a hard time buying that argument as a juror, as I have zero sympathy for a drunk that drives his car off the road. If the accident was caused by a design defect that resulted in the catastrophic failure of a steering component, I'd side with the plaintiff in a hot second - regardless of his state of sobriety.

Don't discount the pity factor. If you were going to sue a physician in a cerebral-palsy case, wouldn't you prefer a client with a live child over a dead one? A certain unsuccessful vice presidential candidate used to specialize in this very litigation. He was highly successful, but seldom did he represent a family whose child had passed away. Having a tiny victim to parade before the jury is a powerful courtroom tool.

Cod, you're right. See how everyone has come around to see how it works?

As far as the drunk dude rolling down a hill, sometimes the extent of the injury would have been less BUT FOR the dangerous propensity of the product. That's a legitimate issue. Still, it would be harder to sell that idea when you have a drunk plaintiff. So, who do we blame? I'd say we blame the SUV maker for "wussing out." Hey, if they were chicken, that's their problem.

[Jeff Matthews]

Well what the hellIll weigh in here too (need to get my post count up ya know [] ).

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Stan mentioned something that I feel hasnt really been talked about and thats how we got here. Jeff keeps trying to justify these injury cases by hiding behind the law. While it may be the law NOW, it wasnt the law at the time of the laws creation. Make no mistake about it, attorneys, over a period of time, have pushed the envelope more & more resulting in a law that had good intentions becoming a law thats completely out of control. And these aberrations of today become the law of tomorrow. While I completely agree with people being responsible, accountable, and using common sense, where I think common sense really needs to come into play is in these legal interpretations thats resulted in the once noble law becoming perverted.

FWIW Im still baffled as to how a tire designed solely for a 16 rim, that has no known failures when used on a 16 rim, is suddenly a bad design when the specific application is violated.

BTW, I have a fairly comprehensive set of both metric and SAE standard tools. Also in my roll-around chest are 4 different size Cresent wrenches (adjustable spanners for any of you Brits out there). Now, any mechanic worth his salt will tell you that Cresent wrenches are also referred to as knuckle busters. So, I guess I can sue Sears for making a knuckle buster since the correct and safer design is the proper sized wrench?? Because I can tell you that Ive busted my knuckles many times over the years using a Cresent wrench yet Ive never had the thought of suing anyone because I was too stooped or lazy to get the specific size wrench.

I firmly believe that there needs to be some standards for product safety. The real question is not do we need these laws, but how far reaching should they be? Where does it stop? Folks 50 years ago wouldve thought todays standards were outlandish and an impossibility (recent eminent domain cases are good examples as well). But slowly but surely it has crept to this. So I ask if left unchecked, what will product safety laws be like 50 years from now?

I certainly mean no disrespect Jeff, but what incentive is there for attorneys (who pretty much create the laws with their ever envelope pushing cases) to put the brakes on with regards to cases that have crossed the lines from legitimacy to ridiculousness? Case in point is you never retreating (to my knowledge) on this issue in this thread. You have defended these laws almost to a fault and never admitting that they might just be overboard. Is it because you truly believe in them or is it because your family eating every night depends on it? If its the former, I respect your integrity. If its the latter, then therein lies part of the problem - a legal system more focused on deriving (obscene?) profit rather than altruistic intentions.

Good discussion/debate BTW. [Y]

Tom

Tom, it is because I believe in them. I think nothing is wrong with them. What can be wrong from time to time is the "aberrant" results that might come when they are applied. But the law is good.

Also, the law is meant to be stretched. You may think it is on the verge of outlandish - or it has already reached an outlandish state. What do you think was the thought years back when the law was "stretched" to require that Blacks be provided "separate but equal" education and other public facilities?

People were just so shocked and amazed. "Pretty soon, you'll see 'em wanting to marry White gals." Isn't it amazing how strecthing the law also leads to a better social framework for everyone to live on fairer terms?

[Tom Adams]

Oh - and one more thing....we've yet to touch upon those product liability cases that never get to trial because the cost of defending them is more than the cost of settling. And in that regard, is the suit truly all about "spanking" the manufacturer or just getting money? Seems to me that if I were gonna expose some company for their poorly designed product, I wouldn't settle. I'd want to take them to court for all the world to see.

I'm amazed at what my wife's company (JCB backhoes) pays out yearly in product liability settlements that 9 times out of ten are bogus. Just recently they paid some guys wife $30K (she asked for $50K) because the dumass got drunk and got his drunk dumass friend to give him a ride in the backhoes' bucket and dies when the driver hits a power line and fries the idiot. Their claim was that there was no warning label on the bucket stating that the bucket should not be used to transport humans or used around power lines. Now, does anyone in their right mind think this is legit? And if it is, then why would someone settle for a mere $30K for the loss of a human life? And this is just one of many cases.

Tom

[Jeff Matthews]

Oh - and one more thing....we've yet to touch upon those product liability cases that never get to trial because the cost of defending them is more than the cost of settling. And in that regard, is the suit truly all about "spanking" the manufacturer or just getting money? Seems to me that if I were gonna expose some company for their poorly designed product, I wouldn't settle. I'd want to take them to court for all the world to see.

I'm amazed at what my wife's company (JCB backhoes) pays out yearly in product liability settlements that 9 times out of ten are bogus. Just recently they paid some guys wife $30K (she asked for $50K) because the dumass got drunk and got his drunk dumass friend to give him a ride in the backhoes' bucket and dies when the driver hits a power line and fries the idiot. Their claim was that there was no warning label on the bucket stating that the bucket should not be used to transport humans or used around power lines. Now, does anyone in their right mind think this is legit? And if it is, then why would someone settle for a mere $30K for the loss of a human life? And this is just one of many cases.

Tom

Why did the company pay $30k? Wouldn't they prefer to have their day in court for all the world to see?

Could it be that maybe the company had a little "stink" of its own somewhere? Like maybe the company tolerated this kind of stupidy and allowed it to go on over there? I'm not saying it did, but there might have been something just a tad negative against the company. Or maybe the company was pristine and just did not want to take any chances or spend more money to fight it. If that's the case, it's their prerogative. I can't say I feel too sorry for them, though. They voluntarily settled.

[Jeff Matthews]

Also, if the case against JCB Backhoe was so PATENTLY ludicrous, how much effort do you think it would take to defend it? It seems if it was such a ludicrous case, you could almost do nothing and just pay the attorneys to do the minimum and get this right to a jury post haste.

[Jeff Matthews]

In return for all those lawyer jokes, here's one for us card-carrying members:

The practice of law would be a truly noble profession............

....................................................................................................... if it wasn't for the clients. []

[TheEAR]

In return for all those lawyer jokes, here's one for us card-carrying members:

The practice of law would be a truly noble profession............

....................................................................................................... if it wasn't for the clients. []

[]

Jeff,

Nothing against a good lawyer,a just cause deserves just reward. Who does not work for money? We all work for the bottom line,money.

I was talking with a lawyer moments ago about the McDonald's HOT COFFEE case and after 20 minutes of I agree mostly on how hot a "hot" cofee sold in a fast food chain can be.And the woman got around $40000 clear in the end,if memory serves me well. A small amount like this is not grotesque compared to what some people get for much less agravation.

The small tire on a larger rim case is a bit pushing it but again,here the user did not follow safery guidlines.IMO should be awarded a free set of tires and rims at best.

The smokers who sue tobacco companies are playing IGNORANTS,as anyone knows when you inhale SMOKE you harm your lungs and will have to deal with health issues at one point. Same as drinking a weak poison and then suing the poison maker for health loss.

And finally our beloved iPod case,a case if IRRESPONSIBLE use that deserves a big steel capped boot where the sun does not shine.

[oldtimer]

In return for all those lawyer jokes, here's one for us card-carrying members:

The practice of law would be a truly noble profession............

....................................................................................................... if it wasn't for the clients. []

Yes we all despise our customers, yet depend on them to pay the bills.

[customsteve01]

I just don't get it stupid people do dumb things and finds a lawyer so they both can make alot of money. And this is called the law?????

Jeff you never answerd my question a few pages back

Steve

Edit: I have done my part and served on a jury. It was kinda fun.

[TheEAR]

I just don't get it stupid people do dumb things and finds a lawyer so they both can make alot of money. And this is called the law?????

Jeff you never answerd my question a few pages back

Steve

Edit: I have done my part and served on a jury. It was kinda fun.

Jeff understands them,as a lawyer he profits from these tools. [] Any lawyer loves a cause that can make him famous and win a big money pie.

You would get it too,if the money was there.I understand Jeff now.

[Jeff Matthews]

Almost. Money is motivation. Motivation is restrained by the law. When the law says the case has merit, it's a case I might take. When the case does not have merit in the eyes of the law, I will not take it.

"Merit" is what I think judges/juries will decide based upon their understanding of the law as provided to them via precedent/statutes/instructions.

Am I motivated by money? Yes, I'm not Mother Teresa. How 'bout you all? Want to come plumb my house for free? Give me free A/C?

[customsteve01]

Ya know Jeff, I understand suing when you have been wronged and you have lost something due to the negligent of others. What I don't understand is all this frivalist stuff that make the lawyers and clients money when they have lost nothing to the negligent of others but have themselves done something stupid. All it does is cost the rest of us in higher prices.

I have another question for you. The airplane we fly will take 50 people around 3000 miles. The flight attendant sits right by the main door where I bet in cruise the DB level approaches 100 DB. Lets say for sh!ts and giggles that it was in the 115 range. What your saying is that any airline that flies these a/c along with the manufacturer could be sued because there is a feasible way to make the a/c quieter? But to make it quieter you would have to add weight as insulation and thicker windows. After doing this mod the a/c would have a lower DB level but it probably would not be able to fly 50 people 3000 miles. This would mean this a/c would not be able to preform as stated but it would be safer for the occupants. Would the lawyer in this case make a bundle and or the person bring the case to the lawyer be entitled to money? If so why would they get money they didn't loose anything. all this would do is cost the airline and manufacturer and would just be passed on to the public.

Steve

[TheEAR]

Steve,

You hit the nail spot on,plus its ONLY IN AMERICA.Most places around the world would not even allow this crircus inside a court room.Well maybe they are all wrong and evil,right.