Only in the US of A...

[supervike]

I agree medical costs are getting out of hand, but whether or not that suggestion is viable is hard to say.

I think rather there are a lot of personal-injury lawsuits are because plantiffs have absolutely nothing to lose. Sueing someone for the smallest transgressions is encouraged. If you lose the suit, big deal, your not out anything. Heck, a ton of settlements might go in your favor, just because the defendant doesn\'t want to drag things through court. Alot of times the only party that makes anything, of course, are the lawyers.

I\'m not sure about all the merits of it (since I am not in anyway involved in the legal system) but instituting a system where plantiffs are held accountable for lawsuits would help curb the amount of them being filed.

I\'ve heard talk about the \'loser pays\' system which much of the free world uses. If you bring suit against someone, and ultimately lose, you have to pay the court costs and fees. Why wouldn\'t that work here?

 

[Klute]

Im just glad I live in good old Blighty with its excellent judicial system and totally honest politicians and erm eh.......

 

[Shadzar]

Originally posted by reverend
Read this my lovely people!

A Charlotte, NC lawyer~~~

when was this?

i will get the newspaper and see what all else happened.

or if need be i will drive over to charlotte and check the public records.

 

[lahatiel]

Didn\'t actually happen, Shads. Keep reading past the first post, down to mine and the links I gave.

 

[Itchy]

Originally posted by No Such Agency
Would any Americans here care to comment on the suggestion that a lot of personal-injury lawsuits are pursued simply because the plaintiff cannot otherwise afford their medical bills for even a minor injury? I\'ve heard that even a broken finger let alone a major limb can result in $1000\'s in medical costs.

Well, i JUST (2 weeks ago) broke... er... had two bones sawed (got me right on the knuckle and got both bones) off at work, so worker\'s comp paid the medical bills. i didn\'t sue, but i\'m pretty sure i could have. EVERYBODY\'S had pieces thrown from that saw and blood drawn... i\'m just the one who uses it 99% of the time and was unlucky enough to have the piece thrown hit my hand and throw it into the blade.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Alot of things are expensive. That dosn\'t mean stealing (suing in alot of cases) is right.

 

[Infidel Castro]

I\'m a gullible lad. I thought it was true at first . Or, rather, I wanted it to be true.

Gave me a right old laugh though.

I\'m off to sue the maker of my stove...it keeps catching fire :flame:..

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by snifflesAnd most of the time, no matter what amount is awarded, the only people who get any money is the lawyers.

Just have to set the record straight - like everything else, you only hear about the bad insurance companies, never about the good ones.

You only hear about the bad lawyers too. I\'m a lawyer and I will say that the injured parties DO get the money. Lawyers get paid a fair rate for providing a service. Most of the time insurance companies pay, but when they refuse, injured persons need a lawyer to make them pay.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by supervike
I think rather there are a lot of personal-injury lawsuits are because plantiffs have absolutely nothing to lose.

Actually, if the plaintiff loses he still has to pay his lawyer and the court fees, so there is quite a bit to lose.

I\'m not sure about all the merits of it (since I am not in anyway involved in the legal system) but instituting a system where plantiffs are held accountable for lawsuits would help curb the amount of them being filed.

Even the honest ones

I\'ve heard talk about the \'loser pays\' system which much of the free world uses. If you bring suit against someone, and ultimately lose, you have to pay the court costs and fees. Why wouldn\'t that work here?

Here\'s the theory:
Loser pays the winner\'s bills - avoids frivolous lawsuits because you won\'t bring a suit if you\'re not guaranteed a win.
Also protects the poor because the rich company they sue will have to foot the bill.
Each party pays their own bills - avoids frivolous lawsuits because you are guaranteed to have to pay your bills.
Also protects the poor because the cost of losing isn\'t so high as to scare away even good cases. (if you have a 90% chance of winning, but the defendant pays $2million for lawyers - 10% chance of becoming destitute)

Both systems have equal merit and neither one solves the problem. If you can come up with a third I\'d love to hear it.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Itchy i didn\'t sue, but i\'m pretty sure i could have. EVERYBODY\'S had pieces thrown from that saw and blood drawn... i\'m just the one who uses it 99% of the time and was unlucky enough to have the piece thrown hit my hand and throw it into the blade.

I\'m sorry to hear about your injury. You probably could have sued, but it\'s a guess as to what you\'d have gotten. Are you saying you lost a finger?
I don\'t know the law where you live, but many things could prevent you from wining a law suit. (contributory negligence, assumption of risk etc.)
If you feel the company did a bad thing and caused you harm, ask them to compensate you. If they refuse, talk to a lawyer.

 

[Hoblit]

Originally posted by vincegamer
Both systems have equal merit and neither one solves the problem. If you can come up with a third I\'d love to hear it.

Unfortuneately, the only way to prevent a whole lot of frivolous lawsuits is for people to start taking accountability for there actions.

If I order a cup of coffee, and spill it while getting into my car and burn myself. My fault I knew the coffee was hot. If I remove the guard on a chainsaw and it snags and comes back and takes off a hand, my fault. As soon as the whole culture of \"it\'s not my fault\" falls away, then and only then will frivolous lawsuits stop being filed.

[me steps off soapbox]

 

[Legacy Account]

How quickly does an amusing thread turn dull when lawyers and law get involved.....?

 

[ZaPhOd]

The cookie story makes me wanna puke. It is unbelievable what Western society has become over the years.

 

[lahatiel]

Originally posted by HoblitIf I order a cup of coffee, and spill it while getting into my car and burn myself. My fault I knew the coffee was hot.

Heh... I wondered how long it would be until the McDonald\'s case came up, or at least an allusion to it. I was actually just in a discussion about this case on a Blood Bowl forum a coule weeks ago. lol I\'m not going to repeat everything I said there, as you\'d be scrolling for screens. But to sum up: I used to refer to that case as the textbook example of frivolous American lawsuits. Then, I happened to become friends with a couple of people who happened to be lawyers, and one night the subject came up and they educated me on facts I hadn\'t known:

McDonalds coffee and the Liebeck lawsuit

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit: McDonald\'s Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors Say, In Case of Burned Woman

McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit and Beyond: The Tort Reform Myth Machine

MythBuster! The \"McDonald\'s Coffee Case\" and Other Fictions

Again, there are a lot of bad examples in American law. But once I did some research, I came to learn the coffee case is not one of them.

PS - Sorry, Spacemunkie!

 

[sniffles]

Originally posted by vincegamer
You only hear about the bad lawyers too. I\'m a lawyer and I will say that the injured parties DO get the money. Lawyers get paid a fair rate for providing a service.

Point taken, Vince. You\'re probably sick of lawyer-bashing. I\'ve just heard of so many cases where the plaintiffs ended up getting nothing after legal fees. But I shouldn\'t believe everything I hear.

 

[supervike]

well now...

Originally posted by lahatiel
Heh...I wondered how long it would be until the McDonald\'s case came up, or at least an allusion to it. I was actually just in a discussion about this case on a Blood Bowl forum a coule weeks ago. lol I\'m not going to repeat everything I said there, as you\'d be scrolling for screens. But to sum up: I used to refer to that case as the textbook example of frivolous American lawsuits. Then, I happened to become friends with a couple of people who happened to be lawyers, and one night the subject came up and they educated me on facts I hadn\'t known:

First off, let me say that I understand what you are saying here, and I\'m not really sure what my opinion on it is. I\'ve swayed back and forth on my opinion on the McDonalds Coffee Trial several times, BUT, I think I will take on the role of the Devils Advocate here...

The first two links present some of the facts of the case, but yet don\'t even match each other. One says the woman was 81, one 79. One says she had an 8 day hospital stay the other 7. I realize these are pretty mundane facts, but if these simple facts are distorted, what about the bigger ones.

My point is simply this, why do all these people care about the case one way or the other. They are using it to further whatever agenda they may have, be it anti-tort reform or to show the world that we do need protection from frivilous law suits. BOTH sides have an agenda.

The second link shows the information was supplied by the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. I\'d imagine they wouldn\'t want to see any sort of tort reform. They have a slightly vested interest.

Secondly, let me say that what happened to that poor woman was horrendous. I wouldn\'t wish that on my worst enemy, let alone a kindly little grandmother. But the facts on those pages say that since McDonalds had 700 other scalding incidents that it Willfully and Maliciously caused injury....it also says McDonald\'s sells over a BILLION cups of coffee per year. 700 out of BILLIONS seems to be a very miniscule number. I wonder how many people slipped and fell in the bathrooms of McDonald\'s? No one has sued to have the bathrooms padded.(at least not yet!)

Yes the coffee was hot. But McDonalds maliciously tried to burn that poor woman? That seems to be a stretch. Sympathy and liablity are two different things, yet I think in cases like these, they often get combined and confused.

 

[Shadzar]

how about the whole cigaretes in USA thing....

for 40+ years people smoke, and then end up getting sick from just inhaling smoke.

now i smoke, and have for 13 years.

i see NO reason to blame to tobacco companies if i get sick.

i knew the risks of inhaling immolated material vapors when i started. its not like a little common sense wouldnt tell you that. (like the McCoffee crap.)

is the world lacking so much in common sense the would figure that coffee is gonna be served at room temperature. or that ingesting/inhaling any kind of burnt medium is good for you?

OMG! look out \"black pepper\" someone is gonna sue the makers of it, cause it caused them to SNEEZE!

people in the world today just do without thinking what the consequences of their actions will result in it seems.

if more people would just think along the lines of \"hey my son is eating a lot of McD\'s food and putting on a little wieght...maybe he needs to stop eating so much of it, cause it isnt good for him\"

then maybe the we would all stand a better chance of living happily. and with the lower need for insurance and lawsuits prices of most everything would drop!

(woohoo! even more minis i can buy and still not have enough time to paint them.~~~sorry kinda got longer than i wanted but it happens when i do things first thing in the morning. )

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Shadzar
how about the whole cigaretes in USA thing....
for 40+ years people smoke, and then end up getting sick from just inhaling smoke.
now i smoke, and have for 13 years.
i see NO reason to blame to tobacco companies if i get sick.
i knew the risks of inhaling immolated material vapors when i started. its not like a little common sense wouldnt tell you that. (like the McCoffee crap.)

Did you know it was addictive?

is the world lacking so much in common sense the would figure that coffee is gonna be served at room temperature. or that ingesting/inhaling any kind of burnt medium is good for you?

How hot should coffee be? If I give you coffee that is 100 is that OK? Am I doing something wrong if it\'s 200? What if it\'s 500? What if it\'s hot enough to seer the flesh off your body in seconds? How do you determine how hot it should be? If you use industry standard, then McDonalds was being irresponsible.
As to cigarettes, does common sense tell you whether or not they are addictive?

OMG! look out \"black pepper\" someone is gonna sue the makers of it, cause it caused them to SNEEZE!

Well, if I decide to package pepper under pressure so that you could not open it without it shooting up your nose, would that be irresponsible of me? Do I have a responsibility to warn you that it\'s under pressure? Does common sense tell you to assume all spices are going to shoot out of the bottle? No one else\'s spices do.

people in the world today just do without thinking what the consequences of their actions will result in it seems.
if more people would just think along the lines of \"hey my son is eating a lot of McD\'s food and putting on a little wieght...maybe he needs to stop eating so much of it, cause it isnt good for him\"
then maybe the we would all stand a better chance of living happily. and with the lower need for insurance and lawsuits prices of most everything would drop!

I agree that personal responsibility is not high enough. Blaming fast-food sellers for obeisity is probably not going to work because they never claimed their food was slimming or even healthful. Then again, it doesn\'t create a chemical dependency while greatly increasing your chance of developing a fatal illness either. Also it\'s not the fact that McDonalds learned their food was fatening and decided to suppress the fact.
I don\'t find the two equivalent.

(woohoo! even more minis i can buy and still not have enough time to paint them.~~~sorry kinda got longer than i wanted but it happens when i do things first thing in the morning. )

I doubt a decrease in insurance costs would ever translate in a decrease to costs to consumers. It\'s just going to mean more $$ in the pockets of the people who own stock in those companies.

 

[darthfoley]

Wow, vince...pretty much every question you asked serves as a perfect example of why I have such negative feelings for the \'lawyer mentality\' (meaning no offense to you).

 

[vincegamer]

I didn\'t mean to perpetuate a negative lawyer stereotype.
A lawyer\'s job in the case of a plaintiff suit is to find out why what someone did was wrong. You have to look at all sides. A good lawyer will often have to tell a client \"sorry, but you screwed up and it\'s not their fault.\"
I\'m just trying to point out that a knee-jerk reaction that law suits are a waste of money or an abuse of the system is just as bad as a knee-jerk reaction to sue the deepest pockets you can find whenever something goes wrong.