Ack! Bush tries to curb class actions suits!

[The Mad Monk]

You mean like McCain (who voted for the measure)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

McCain isn't really a moderate... a maverick conservative more like it. I would have voted for him for President, but I disagree with his vote here.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, as for the McDonalds story, so many myths have floated around it is ridiculous. McDonalds had been constantly warned about the heat of its coffee, which was served at such a high level because the beans were inferior (it was meant to hide that). Also the woman suffered 3rd degree burns and she only sued for her hospital bills. The million dollars+ were punitives (ie, a way for private parties to engage in deterrence against companies). That award was reduced on appeal to about $480,000.

If she sued only for bills, how did she get punative? The judge said 'no way, you desrve more!' That would be even sillier.

[The Mad Monk]

I still don't understand how it makes more sense to do a case that involves people from many states under a single state's jurisdiction, rather than Federal jurisdiction.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If she sued only for bills, how did she get punative? The judge said 'no way, you desrve more!' That would be even sillier.

Well they probably asked for punitives of some sort (throw everything in there - whether you expect to get it or not), but the jury gets to decide how much and stuff. More than a few times the jury will offer an amazingly large punitive award which is greater than the attorney even thought about asking for.:

http://www.aon.com/us/busi/risk_management/risk_transfer/punitive_damages.jsp

The potential size of a punitive damages award is unpredictable, and the process of arriving at it is just as arbitrary. There are no maximums and no minimums as in criminal law – the jury alone determines the amount.

Because of the randomness of it, I figure that lawyers and clients don't really count on getting punitive award damages. If they do, bonus. You sue on the basis of your compensatories.

I still don't understand how it makes more sense to do a case that involves people from many states under a single state's jurisdiction, rather than Federal jurisdiction.

It's called preventing overloading Federal courts. And it's also done all the time in other cases (people from different states suing other people from other different states), though if the defendant wanted to, he could remove it to federal courts (for diversity).

[notyoueither]

Also the woman suffered 3rd degree burns and she only sued for her hospital bills.

Me detects that you are playing fast and loose with the facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When something is so random as punitives, you aren't suing for it, but hoping the jury may give you it.

If you think there is some fast and loose facts going on, go ahead and do research on it. Especially note the fact that before the suit was filed, the plaintiff went to McDonalds and asked them merely to pay $20,000 for hospital bills, which, of course, was refused.

[notyoueither]

I am simply pointing out that you said with some authority that she did not ask for them, and then you said more meekly that she probably threw them in with the laundry list. Which is it?

Even though you no doubt know far more than I on the general subject, how can I trust what you say?

Punatives are the basis of the myth of the legal lottery in your country, from what I've read. The punatives is what makes people go to court in such a frenzy when they deserve not much in compensation for their own stupidity.

Case in point, having to explain to people that you should not microwave your pets to dry them off, or risk serious litigation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you don't trust me, then like I said, do some research. Type in on Google. Go ahead. You can also see where the mediator before trial said the case should be settled for $225,000, which the plaintiff was accepting of, but McDonalds said no way.

But don't take my world, go Google it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Case in point, having to explain to people that you should not microwave your pets to dry them off, or risk serious litigation.

You should have checked snopes.com, it'll disabuse you of myths like the microwave pets case:

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

(under "Origins", a #7 item)

[notyoueither]

Are you sure you want us to google 'stupid lawsuits'?

Okie dokie.

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_month_all.asp

You've heard the stories where some poor schlub plays Dungeons and Dragons for weeks on end, then freaking out and imagining himself to be in a D&D adventure, before he was finally committed to a mental institution. Nobody sued TSR, Inc., publisher of the D&D manuals -- don't ask me how I know that. I just do, okay?! -- because their kid didn't have a firm grip on reality. Nobody sued the friends of the whacko for criminal negligence just because their game-playing somehow caused his mental breakdown.

So why is a Louisiana woman suing Nintendo of America after her son had a deadly seizure? According to a story in the Baton Rouge (Louisiana) Advocate, Esther Walker of Livingston Parish is suing Nintendo, claiming that her son Benjamin Walker, 30, suffered a seizure that caused his death, because he played on his Nintendo 64 game system eight hours a day, six days a week, since he bought it. Walker purchased his Nintendo 64 in May 1999, and then bought 10 more games in the weeks that followed.

According to Esther Walker's lawsuit, "Benji" Walker had six seizures as a result of the game. The sixth one happened on January 22, 2001. According to the lawsuit, ". . . Benjamin passed out, fell forward and hit his head and mouth on a table, which caused a severe closed head injury, loss of teeth, and moderate bleeding." Walker died in the hospital on January 26th, 2001.

The lawsuit also says that Walker had his first seizure in September 1999, and had five subsequent seizures over the next 17 months while playing the games. Esther Walker claims that Nintendo produced a defective product, but failed to give any adequate warnings about the health risks.

What should they have said? "WARNING: TABLES ARE HARD. DO NOT HIT YOUR HEAD ON THEM."

Or how about this: "WARNING: IF YOU SUFFER A SEIZURE AFTER PLAYING OUR GAME FOR 48 HOURS PER WEEK, MAYBE YOU SHOULD CUT BACK A LITTLE BIT, AND OH I DON'T KNOW, TAKE A WALK OUTSIDE OR SOMETHING? I MEAN, COME ON, YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME LONGER THAN A REGULAR FULL-TIME JOB!"

The company has understandably denied any wrongdoing. And why shouldn't they? They're not like the tobacco companies who purposely made cigarettes addictive and then lied to the world about it for more than 60 years. Nintendo makes games for people to play. What is there to warn about? "WARNING: THERE IS A TENUOUS, NOT-YET-PROVEN LINK BETWEEN CERTAIN ELECTRONIC VIDEO IMAGES AND SEIZURES. SO DON'T PLAY THIS GAME. DON'T EVEN BUY IT. SURE, WE MAY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT THAT'S OKAY. DON'T WORRY ABOUT US. WE'LL MANAGE SOMEHOW. WE CAN STAY WITH FRIENDS."

As sorry as I am for her loss, I can't believe that Esther Walker is somehow surprised by all of this. Let's look at her own statements. Benjamin Walker played his Nintendo 64 for eight hours a day, six days a week, for seventeen months! Of course the guy had seizures! Anybody who does something that much is bound to have some sort of problem. Whether it's morbid obesity owing to lack of exercise, an exploded bladder, or severe social awkwardness, if you sit in front of a TV for 48 hours per week, something will go wrong.

I can't even work for eight hours a day, let alone all in a row. I usually spend two or three hours a day playing computer games or cruising the 'Net for pictures of Pamela Anderson (Note: if my boss is reading this, that last sentence is completely untrue. I only put it in there for comedic effect. I actually work 40 hours a week, non-stop. Did I say 40? I meant 60 hours a week.).

But what makes it worse is that Benjamin Walker continued to play even after he suffered his first seizure four months after he bought the game. Not only that, he continued on his eight-hours-a-day-six-days-a-week playing schedule, racking up another four seizures. The fifth one happened while he was playing again, and it just happened to be the one that did him in.

Doesn't it make sense that if the family were able to establish a connection between the seizures and Walker's game playing, they would have stopped him from playing? One would expect him to think, "I seem to black out when I play. Maybe I should quit." But apparently this never occurred to him, or if it did, they chose to ignore it.

And here's the added bonus: Esther Walker is suing for unspecified damages for medical and funeral expenses, mental and emotional anguish, and the lost future earnings of her son. Medical and funeral expenses, I can understand. Mental and emotional anguish, no problem. But the "lost future earnings" of her video-game-playing-for-48-hours-per-week son? What kind of future earnings do you expect someone who plays that many hours to have? Grown men who spend that much time playing games don't have great career possibilities, let alone huge earning potentials.

And when you factor in the distinct possibility, although this is just a guess on my part, that Benjamin Walker did not have his own place (i.e. he lived in his mom's basement), the "future earnings" potential is pretty much in the toilet, unless someone finally starts paying video game geeks six-figure salaries for blasting bad guys and picking up magic coins.

So should we feel bad for Esther Walker? Absolutely. Should we learn something about playing video games in moderation. You betcha. Is she entitled to untold millions of dollars because her son didn't quit playing the games that caused his first five seizures? Certainly not.

If anyone should get any benefit out of this, it should be the new XBox game system and their latest advertising slogan: "Now, 64% Seizure Free."

[Imran Siddiqui]

And has she won a cent out of her suit? I doubt it. Anyone can sue, but few win.

[notyoueither]

Difference is in any system where punatives were not the holy grail, nobody who had the intelligence to pass the bar would ever give these loons the time of day, let alone file court papers.

[notyoueither]

This one isn't about injury, but it's a hoot.

http://www.kconline.com/deckers/1102.html#11024

Good Thing His Name's Not John Smith
Erik Deckers
Laughing Stalk Syndicate
Copyright 2002

When I was growing up, I thought I was the only Erik Deckers on Earth (my friends and family hoped for the same).

But a few years ago, while Internet "ego surfing" (looking for one's name on search engines), I made a startling discovery: I'm the only Erik Deckers in America, but I'm NOT the only one on the planet. As far as I know, there's only one other -- a 49-year-old real estate agent in Brussels, Belgium.

I've emailed my namesake a few times, and we've exchanged pleasantries, family history, and I've promised to stop using his credit card at Amazon.com.

Belgian Erik and I also realize it's not uncommon for two people with unique names like ours to share them, and we've had a good laugh about it. But we also drew up some ground rules: he promised not to write any humor columns, and I promised not to sell any houses in Belgium.

However, Belgian Erik used to be a journalist, and I've had a few people ask about this great little fixer-upper outside Brussels, so we may have to reconsider our options.

But other people aren't so fortunate. In 1998, former basketball superstar Kareem Abdul-Jabbar took issue with the name choice of Karim Abdul-Jabbar, the Miami Dolphins' running back. So Kareem sued Karim, claiming he took the name without permission, even though both men changed their names as required by their Muslim faith.

In April 1998, the two Abdul-Jabbars settled the suit, and agreed that Kareem held the commercial and merchandising trademark rights to the name, while Karim would be known simply as "Abdul" for the same reason. He later changed his name to Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar, but he's not playing football anymore, so it doesn't matter.

But what if someone demands that you stop using your name altogether, even though it was your name to begin with?

Bill Wyman, music reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is being threatened with a lawsuit by Bill Wyman, former bassist for the Rolling Stones.

Why? Because English musician Bill Wyman doesn't want to be confused with American writer Bill Wyman.

"I must ask that you immediately cease and desist from authorizing or permitting any such use of our client's name," said Howard Siegel, English Bill Wyman's attorney, in a recent letter to American Bill Wyman.

But something makes me think that despite his indignation, Siegel isn't as concerned about this as he wants everyone to think. He doesn't seem to care whether there are other Howard Siegels in the world. Or if he is, he apparently hasn't threatened them with legal action.

Not that any of them could be confused with Howard Siegel the New York lawyer. Not Rabbi Howard Siegel of Bellaire, Texas. Not Howard Siegel, the realtor from Vernon Hills, Illinois. Not even Howard Siegel, the Canadian regional theater actor/director.

There was also no indication whether English Bill Wyman is going after other Bill Wymans either, like the Salon.com editor, or the ones who live in Dallas, Denver, or Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

American Bill Wyman recently wrote about this ordeal in a Journal-Constitution article, and the story has received worldwide attention, nearly all of it in American Bill Wyman's favor.

In his column, American Bill Wyman reported that Siegel would allow him to use his own name "if I could prove that I had come by it legally."

No problem. American Bill Wyman was born on January 11, 1961. English Bill Wyman didn't change his name until 1964.

American Bill Wyman 1, English Bill Wyman 0.

Siegel also said that American Bill Wyman could continue to use his own name if he added a disclaimer to everything he wrote "clearly indicating that (you are) not the same Bill Wyman who was a member of the Rolling Stones."

If I were American Bill Wyman I would require the same disclaimer of my English counterpart, especially when it comes to any Bill Wyman and the Rhythm Kings album.

What makes this demand so funny is that English Bill Wyman changed HIS name. He was originally William George Perks. I would need an overinflated sense of self-importance to demand that someone give up their real name when mine was originally just a stage name.

With all the negative press coverage I've seen on this story, I think English Bill Wyman should just quit while he's ahead. He may even want to consider changing his name.

English Erik Deckers has a nice ring to it.


=====
Erik Deckers
(published week of November 22nd, 2002)

[notyoueither]

Oh, those are the first two google items. I wonder what else is down there and how many of the top 100 will come from the United States?