Welcome to the world of frivolous lawsuits

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The problem is, people then turn around ans say, because of these frivlous lawsuits, the whole tort system should be revised. That would be a very bad thing indeed. Without tort, we'd live in a much more dangerous society.

I agree but I think the US needs a Supreme Court decision similar to what the SCC did in Canada where they put a cap on the amount a pain and suffering award can be. They set it at $100,000 in the 1970s for a quadrapelegic and indexed it to the consumer price index to reflect inflation. I believe its somewhere around $300,000 now. With this as the maximum for pain and suffering, it means that people aren't reasonably expecting a big payday for every minor injury. Note that there can still be multi-million dollar awards for lost income, future income or the costs of care but the pain and suffering element will always be measured against the set worst-case limit.

The second thing I think the various states would do well to adopt would be the Canadian approach regarding court costs. I was suprised when I saw a John Stossel ( sp?) where he reported in many US states there are NO negative results for a losing plaintiff that brings a frivolous lawsuit. IN Canada , those costs act as a deterrent-- The only downside is that a person with a legitimate but possibly losing action would not seek recourse to the courts for fear of having to pay costs. That is a real fear but the courts here sometimes do waive costs in circumstances of unsettled law.

[Dinner]

"It says right on it 'jelly,'" says Mrs. Chyton, a former model who was once a cheerleader for a popular professional basketball team.

Please tell me she's blond.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, I noticed that now.

That vaginal jelly case is pretty fun though - I'd love to see someone really try to argue that with a straight face in front of a jury.

[Grrr]

Twist to bottle opening case

Aust judge throws out case of man trying to sue brewery for wrist injury while trying to open twist-top beer

30 October 2003

An Australian man who tried to sue a brewery after hurting his hand attempting to open a twist-top stubbie has been laughed out of court.

The Sydney restaurateur claims he suffered a permanent wrist injury in his efforts to force the top from the bottle.

Australian correspondent Steve Price says the man hurt himself while trying to open the beer at the Mossman Tennis Club.

The complainant gave evidence saying the bottle was so hard to open that he screamed with pain.

However, another person had a go immediately after, and removed the cap with relative ease.

The judge has thrown out the case.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.asp?id=36580

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I was suprised when I saw a John Stossel

Anything Stossel says should be taken with a mountain of salt. He's been caught multiple times making up his facts.

Personally, I'm with MtG on this. I think stronger peer review would do a lot to reign in these cases. Stop them before they get to court.

On the other hand, one person's frivlous is another person's righteous cause. People today still get apoplectic over the woman who was awarded quite a sum of money when she burned herself with McDonald's coffee. Even a cursory look at the facts supports this woman's case (and the jury award was both punitive and reversed), but the pro-corporate folks just love to talk about this as if it were frivolous.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Spec
May 20, 1997.
A guy sued Anheuser-Busch for emotional distress after drinking the company's beer without later having "success with women."
.

You are supposed to get the women to drink it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Anything Stossel says should be taken with a mountain of salt. He's been caught multiple times making up his facts.

ahh-- I tend to think he is correct regarding how MOST US states treat court costs-- the concpt is confirmed by our very own MTG above

[Spec]

Here comes more:

January14th, 2002
-A New York woman sued the company that makes The Clapper, claiming she "had to clap too hard in order to turn her appliances on."

June 16, 2003
-In a high-profile case last year, a Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Missouri worker unsuccessfully sued IBM, claiming that the "faulty design" of IBM's keyboards produced pain that prevented her from working.

And the worst....

In December 1996, a New York jury awarded $5.3 million to a secretary who claimed she was injured by a Digital Equipment Corporations keyboard. Rather than asserting that keyboards were defective, her lawyers contended that Digital neglected to warn its users about the dangers of typing.



-

[Dinner]

I remember a case from a few years back some idiot women sued intel claiming that he computer's CPU was putting voices in her head and telling her to do things.

[DinoDoc]

Mother leaves daughter unattended, collects $2 million

Here's a good one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spec
June 16, 2003
-In a high-profile case last year, a Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Missouri worker unsuccessfully sued IBM, claiming that the "faulty design" of IBM's keyboards produced pain that prevented her from working.

Carpal tunnel syndrome hurts like a mother ****er.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber



I agree but I think the US needs a Supreme Court decision similar to what the SCC did in Canada where they put a cap on the amount a pain and suffering award can be. They set it at $100,000 in the 1970s for a quadrapelegic and indexed it to the consumer price index to reflect inflation. I believe its somewhere around $300,000 now. With this as the maximum for pain and suffering, it means that people aren't reasonably expecting a big payday for every minor injury. Note that there can still be multi-million dollar awards for lost income, future income or the costs of care but the pain and suffering element will always be measured against the set worst-case limit.

$300,000 for negligently or recklessly inflicted quadroplegia is ridiculous. Imagine spending 40 or more years of your life that way, for no reason other than the stupidity or recklessness of someone else, and getting a mere 20 dollars a day to "compensate" for all the experiences of life that you are forced to lose do to the actions of another.

Economic loss is nothing - it's subject to all sorts of provability and debate, and in the end, does nothing to "compensate" you, it only sees that you would have had something approaching what you would have had anyway.

And you can combine the two in nasty ways, for example, my brother never had a chance in litigation against the VA medical system (despite repeated hair-raising episodes of butchery) because what are the "economic losses" of a disabled veteran with psych problems? Nobody would hire him anyway, since he was a crippled vet with a screw loose, so his compensible economic value was very low.

Capping certain types of lesser injury claims is one thing, but capping all types of pain and suffering claims, even when there's reckless or grossly negligent conduct resulting in severe injury, is just a subsidy to those who are reckless and grossly negligent. Personally, if that type of system was instituted, I'd be more inclined towards vigilantism.

I was suprised when I saw a John Stossel ( sp?) where he reported in many US states there are NO negative results for a losing plaintiff that brings a frivolous lawsuit. IN Canada , those costs act as a deterrent-- The only downside is that a person with a legitimate but possibly losing action would not seek recourse to the courts for fear of having to pay costs. That is a real fear but the courts here sometimes do waive costs in circumstances of unsettled law.

That is correct. "Costs" as defined in US civil law do not include attorney's fees, and do not include generally include expert witness fees unless ordered by the court. If you sucessfully defend an action, you not only suck up your own attorney's fees, and the economic value of your own lost time, but you also suck up large categories of actual costs of litigation which do not fall into the legal definition of "costs." Parties also generally don't pay the costs of the court itself, although jury fees are typically paid in advance by the party requesting a jury trial (in state court litigation, I haven't gotten that far in a Federal court civil matter).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Mother leaves daughter unattended, collects $2 million

Here's a good one.

No, that's not a good one, because the defendant's lawyers had no balls and neither did the defendant.

If I was a PM executive, I would disqualify the law firm from doing any further work for PM, and terminate the responsible employees and managers who took that decision.

The diversity busting tactic would backfire on law and motion, then you'd move to Federal court and out of plaintiff lala land.

You can't blame stupidity within the system when you have well-heeled defendants with the means take an action to it's proper conclusion.

[Az]

personally, my heart hardly aches for Phillip Morris, but that's a different question.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You can't blame stupidity within the system

Why not? The thread is about stupid lawsuits and this certainly qualifies.