AAA faces [spurious] lawsuit

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by st_swithin
When did the legal system pervert the definition of "peers" to "people who have absolutely no idea what's going on"?

The term came down from the English common law, so that peasants like us wouldn't be tried by a bunch of nobles who had side bets on how long we'd scream if drawn and quartered.

Or, much more importantly, that a noble would not be tried by a bunch of peasants out to make up for a millenia of oppression.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Her stepfather was covered by AAA, not her. AAA often will assist family of members, but they are under no legal obligation to do so.

Regardless, AAA sent a truck. They did more than they were obliged to do.

By sending a truck, AAA assumed a duty to the woman. The legal obligation began when they agreed to send the truck. They had no legal obligation to help her, but when they agreed and sent a two truck the legal obligation began.

Of course, by beginning to help, the tow truck driver assumed a duty. Since it was in his normal course of work, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer is liable for any tort of the driver. Usually, the driver will have no money, and so the people will sue the company, who are also liable.

HOWEVER, it seems the driver did not violate his duty here. The woman was negligent in getting in the stranger's car. Now, if the driver had said wait, and left and the woman, waiting in the parking lot had gotten killed, that might be a totally different story.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

Also the interesting thing with the McD's case is that the coffee was much, much too hot. The cup in which she was served was melting already when she took it. That's a little bit negligent, I'd say.

According to this site, polystyrene softens around 150 degrees C. Given the boiling point of water, how could the cup be "melting already"?

It loses some of it's structural integrity before actually running, so that's probably what they mean by "melting" - it's ability to hold a mass of fluid is certainly compromised below 150 C.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
HOWEVER, it seems the driver did not violate his duty here. The woman was negligent in getting in the stranger's car. Now, if the driver had said wait, and left and the woman, waiting in the parking lot had gotten killed, that might be a totally different story.

A point that's going to be important wrt proving negligence is that when the driver showed up, the woman was already talking to two people, using the cell phone of one, and the driver can't reasonably be expected to interrogate the three to form a definite state of knowledge about their familiarity with each other or the potential risk to the woman. Had he arrived and she was alone, with nobody around, that would be different, but the driver has no reasonable way to know that the woman is talking to two total strangers. She seemed comfortable with the situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A point that's going to be important wrt proving negligence is that when the driver showed up, the woman was already talking to two people, using the cell phone of one

This is very true. The issue is whether the driver's status as a tow truck driver means that he owes a greater duty of care to the person who he is supposed to help (such as in the case of carriers or employer/employee). There may have been a heightened duty of care, but the jury easily could have found that he met it. It may be close, depending on what other facts come out at trial.

[Straybow]

McStupidity

SpencerH, no such thing as "before cupholders." Even 50 years ago you could buy plastic holders that hang on the door/window slot. I bought one for my first car 20 years ago. I've got one hanging on my door even though my present car has a couple built in holders, just because sometimes they aren't big enough.

In general, I don't see much difference between holding the cup between the knees vs in the lap between the legs. If anything, that arrangement is less stable. And let's pry off the lid, instead of popping open the little hatch the lids come with to let you sip (or pour stuff in) with less danger of spillage.

It takes exactly one use of a styrofoam cup holding a hot liquid to know that it becomes softer, and it takes exactly one experience to know the danger of scalding liquid (and coffee is always served at >135° F, which is scalding). Did this woman never cook in her 81 years?

Again I hate to see pain and suffering of this extent. Yet stupidity should count more heavily towards her own share of the blame than 20%.

I see that McD's response was typical corporate stonewalling, which in a case with serious injury is stupid. They get what they deserve by not settling quickly, since they know what kind of tort awards are likely to come from a jury.

That doesn't mean I agree with the deep-pockets approach to tort awards. If the jury wants to see a punitive award based on gross sales, that should apply only to a class action suit, where all aggrieved parties can claim a share of the award.

---

If towing the car 60 miles to Boston instead of a fraction of that distance to a local garage is outside services normally provided under contract with the AAA, then the driver or company had a right to delay until resources could be spared to go that far out of the way.

I would also say that by refusing immediate service and requesting the tow all the way to Boston, the victim relieves the tower from immediate responsibility. Their implicit obligation then becomes limited to arrangements for the long distance transfer of the vehicle.

[Tattila the Hun]

Has there even been a case, where jury/judge, instead of awarding the.. plaintif (?) 3 brillion us $, would award the plaintif some percentage for his/her lost wages/pain/suffering/drifting towards the Dark Side, and giving the rest 75 % to, say, burn treatment research?

And parents trying to cash in on their dead children sickens me...
How can you put a prize tag on human life?

[Straybow]

Tsk, tsk!

Originally posted by SpencerH
I took a quick look at the Fumento piece and as a scientist, my first thoughts were, something stinks. I wonder who funded Mr Fumento? Just because there is no specific evidence in the literature does not mean that there are no indications, or that there is no likelyhood of something having an effect.

Ah, yes, attack the messenger when you've got no data. Don't just throw aspersions at the author, look for some real dirt if he is an industry shill. If not, ad hominem isn't the way to go.

If "the literature" were only specific medical experiments on exposure then yes, maybe few or no studies had been done on ingestion by means other than inhalation. But the literature includes health statistics of those living in polluted areas, those living in unpolluted areas, and industry workers. If there is near zero correlation of exposure to disease it is bad science to assert there is a correlation (industry shill or no).

Fumento's 'logic' is what kept the tobacco industry penalty-free for so many years.

Non sequitur. Tobacco was a product being sold to customers, whereas this is pollution caused by a leak. No comparison in terms of legal responsibility.

All heavy metals are toxic and carcinogenic, it's just a matter of how many ppm. PG&E were negligent, in my opinion criminally so.

Not so. Ferric metals can be highly soluble, and thus not accumulate in tissue to cause damage. For Iron in particular, we have a very high tolerance in solution.

Without solubility, precipitating reaction, and tissue absorbtion data on Ch+6 you can't contradict the overall health records which show no toxicity/carcinogen correlation. Assuming the biomedical data showed absorbtion or precipitation, you would still have to overcome the health data to assert that the particular concentration was responsible for uncorrelated ailments.

This is precisely why some measure of tort reform is necessary. These kinds of judgments can ruin lives and put people out of work, all for an easy fortune for litigators and a handout to fictitious "victims." It is immoral.

[Straybow]

Tattila, not that I know of. But many times a victim will use a hunk of a large award to start a fund or service of some sort for others who have suffered similar incidents.

Litigating law firms also earmark part of their award money towards more litigation. Yeah, that's great. Get a rope!

[SpencerH]

Re: McStupidity

Originally posted by Straybow
SpencerH, no such thing as "before cupholders."

Maybe you think model T's had cupholders In any case, what I meant was that 30 years ago cupholders were not a regular feature of cars (but could be added) and people did hold cups between their legs.

It takes exactly one use of a styrofoam cup holding a hot liquid to know that it becomes softer, and it takes exactly one experience to know the danger of scalding liquid (and coffee is always served at >135° F, which is scalding). Did this woman never cook in her 81 years?

I've occasionally eaten at McD's for 35 odd years in at least 5 countries and I've never seen a styrofoam McD's cup. They're paper. Coffee frrom McD's was notably hotter than from other places. They did it on purpose so that people wouldnt have a lukewarm coffee by the time they got to their car or whatever.

[SpencerH]

Re: Tsk, tsk!

Originally posted by Straybow
Ah, yes, attack the messenger when you've got no data. Don't just throw aspersions at the author, look for some real dirt if he is an industry shill. If not, ad hominem isn't the way to go.

Since you've 'thrown down the gauntlet" so to speak, I've looked into it a little further.

Mr Fumento is a lawyer who works for the Hudson institute writing about science (despite the fact that he is not a scientist or even an MD and IMO has no more expertise than any other non-scientist).

From his bio

"Fumento is the author of four books: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (Basic Books,1990, revised, Regnery, 1993); Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment (William Marrow, 1993); Polluted Science: The EPA’s Efforts to Expand Clean Air Regulations (AEI Press, 1997); and The Fat of the Land: The Obesity Epidemic and How Overweight Americans Can Help Themselves (Viking, 1997).

He also has authored a monograph on silicone breast implants and co-authored another on the alleged health risks of chlorine."

The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS

"alleged health risks of chlorine"



Maybe they should read his work to the victims of Bopal!

If "the literature" were only specific medical experiments on exposure then yes, maybe few or no studies had been done on ingestion by means other than inhalation. But the literature includes health statistics of those living in polluted areas, those living in unpolluted areas, and industry workers. If there is near zero correlation of exposure to disease it is bad science to assert there is a correlation (industry shill or no).

I havent seen those statistics but since the workers didnt ingest the Cr-6 it's not relevant.

Non sequitur. Tobacco was a product being sold to customers, whereas this is pollution caused by a leak. No comparison in terms of legal responsibility.

A leak of a product that they themselves knew (and admitted in their own documentation) was toxic.

Not so. Ferric metals can be highly soluble, and thus not accumulate in tissue to cause damage. For Iron in particular, we have a very high tolerance in solution.

Without solubility, precipitating reaction, and tissue absorbtion data on Ch+6 you can't contradict the overall health records which show no toxicity/carcinogen correlation. Assuming the biomedical data showed absorbtion or precipitation, you would still have to overcome the health data to assert that the particular concentration was responsible for uncorrelated ailments.

Solubility effects absorbtion, yes. That doesnt mean that you should ingest toxic material. Or perhaps you agree with the 'expertise' of Mr. Fumento when he says in his rebuttal to Ms. Brockovich

"Never mind that numerous agents such as plutonium and forms of asbestos are highly carcinogenic when inhaled but simply pass through the body when ingested."

Feel free to ingest all the plutonium you want, it wont harm you.

I followed the link provided by Mr. Fumento to the EPA's data on Cr-6 and in my expert opinion as a cellular microbiologist (and contrary to his totally inexpert one) the weight of data on Cr-6 exposure in humans and other animals clearly suggests that all forms of exposure including skin, ingestion, and inhalation can have severe detrimental effects including rashes, cancer, and birth defects.

I wouldnt want myself or my kids exposed to it (and I suspect neither would Mr Fumento). This was not a frivolous lawsuit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is precisely why some measure of tort reform is necessary. These kinds of judgments can ruin lives and put people out of work, all for an easy fortune for litigators and a handout to fictitious "victims." It is immoral.

You mean when people mess up totally? The main thing tort reform does is deny justice to people who need money to live because some ******* ruined their lives, preventing them from ever working again, etc.

Coffee frrom McD's was notably hotter than from other places. They did it on purpose so that people wouldnt have a lukewarm coffee by the time they got to their car or whatever.

Apparently they actually did it because they use lower quality coffee beans and by jacking up the temperature it makes it taster better than the crap it would have tasted like if they did it normal.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
Can you name another outrageous verdict of the top of your head? Thought not ...

The Loewen Group is a Canadian funeral home company that was the victim of a runaway Mississippi jury that held it liable for $500 million in damages in 1995 for ostensible antitrust damage to a local funeral home company worth less than $10 million. The company could not post the $625 million bond that was a prerequisite for appeal, and was forced to settle for $175 million.

Here's another one for giggles: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...ticleID=594014

[mindseye]

Re: McStupidity

Originally posted by Straybow
In general, I don't see much difference between holding the cup between the knees vs in the lap between the legs.
(...)
It takes exactly one use of a styrofoam cup holding a hot liquid to know that it becomes softer, and it takes exactly one experience to know the danger of scalding liquid (and coffee is always served at >135° F, which is scalding). Did this woman never cook in her 81 years?

Uh, maybe you missed the part where McDonald's coffee was found to be served at 180-190F. This is a lot hotter than the norm of 130-140F. At 180-190F, third degree burns are almost instantaneous.

Who cares whether it's between your knees, legs, or hands - if you spill 185F coffee on yourself, you're almost certainly going to suffer third degree burns. That is why the jury decided that McDonalds was negligent - because coffee will occasionally be spilled, and people should not be seriously and permanently injured because it was intentionally (despite warnings) heated to such a dangerous level.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Apparently they actually did it because they use lower quality coffee beans and by jacking up the temperature it makes it taster better than the crap it would have tasted like if they did it normal.

That makes sense. I dont think I ever drank the muck. I did burn my mouth many times with the filling from the old hot apple pie. The damn stuff was like lava.