For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #11789
View in linear mode

Subject: "Tort reform" Previous topic | Next topic
mlangdnSun Jan-05-03 07:25 PM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Tort reform"


          

I was reading the Sunday paper and on page one there was a story of a jury in California awarding $5 million in compensatory damages, and $290 million in punitive damages to a man who wrecked his '78 Bronco - killing several family members. It was never in dispute that he drove his vehicle in a dangerous and reckless manner. It was also undisputed that Ford had in its owners manual caveats to driving this vehicle and in what conditions prblems could occur. Ford had this information on this vehicle 20 years before automakers were required to do so. This jury had a juror that had a dream about this vehicle rolling over and killing the other juror's children.
An interesting verdict to say the least. No wonder we have to pay so much for a vehicle!




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Tort reform
Jan 05th 2003
1
RE: Tort reform
Jan 05th 2003
2
RE: Tort reform
Jan 05th 2003
3
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 05th 2003
4
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 06th 2003
5
RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
6
RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
7
RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
8
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
9
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
10
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
11
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
12
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
56
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
13
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
14
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 08th 2003
15
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
16
                               RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
17
                                    RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
30
                                         RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
32
                                              RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
34
                                                   RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
79
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
19
                               RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
31
RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
18
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
20
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
21
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
22
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
23
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
24
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
25
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
26
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
27
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
29
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
28
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
33
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
40
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
54
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
55
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
57
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
64
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
67
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
39
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
77
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
38
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
36
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
69
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
37
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 09th 2003
35
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
41
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
42
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
43
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
44
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
58
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
45
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
46
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
47
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
49
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
53
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
81
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
82
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
83
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
84
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
88
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
87
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
89
                               RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
90
                                    RE: Tort reform
Jan 13th 2003
91
                                         RE: Tort reform
Jan 13th 2003
92
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
62
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
70
RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
48
RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
50
RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
51
RE: Tort reform
Jan 10th 2003
52
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
59
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
60
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
61
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
63
                     WE MADE IT!!
Jan 11th 2003
65
                     RE: WE MADE IT!!
Jan 11th 2003
80
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
68
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
72
                               RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
74
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
75
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
76
RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
66
      RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
71
           RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
73
                RE: Tort reform
Jan 11th 2003
78
                     RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
85
                          RE: Tort reform
Jan 12th 2003
86

labyrinthSun Jan-05-03 10:38 PM
Member since Oct 13th 2002
1252 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#1. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 0)


          

Its not just the vehicle, how about insuring it.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

doctormidnightSun Jan-05-03 10:40 PM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#2. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 0)


  

          

Well, I guess he got a jury of his peers... Morons!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
jasonlevineSun Jan-05-03 11:49 PM
Charter member
7607 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#3. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 2)


  

          

Hey, it's one of the jurors!!!


- Jason Levine
Please donate to PCQandA!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
doctormidnightSun Jan-05-03 11:58 PM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#4. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to jasonlevine (Reply # 3)


  

          

ROFLMAO, thats great!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
andrini2000Mon Jan-06-03 07:26 AM
Charter member
2001 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 4)


  

          

LOL!!



Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

robert70Wed Jan-08-03 08:01 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 0)
Wed Jan-08-03 08:03 AM

          

I do not have all the facts but are you suggesting that a manufacture can sell an unsafe product provided that they make it known that the product might be unsafe and therefor they would not be liable if or when the product brakes down? A vehicle that explodes is if it is driven over 30 MPH -for example- would be acceptable provided it had a warning sticker on the dash. I do not think so.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
doctormidnightWed Jan-08-03 08:28 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#7. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 6)


  

          

"might be unsafe", you could say that about scissors, tape, a roll of Saran wrap, a can of coke.. they are all dangerous if an idiot is using them. The difference in this case is that the person admitted to driving the vehicle in an unsafe and dangerous manner.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
robert70Wed Jan-08-03 09:44 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#8. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 7)


          

I agree somewhat but if you go back to the original article it suggests that the manufacture knew there was a problem with the vehicle but rather than fix the problem preferred to put a disclaimer in the manuals. The fact that a known problem was not fixed is a deliberate act of omission by the manufacture. If in any given situation the act of omission is responsible for results that should/ could otherwise not be expected than it would be the actions of the manufacture that caused the problem.

TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
doctormidnightWed Jan-08-03 09:56 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#9. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 8)


  

          

>I agree somewhat but if you go back to the original article

There is no article, there is a post by a user that gives basic information.

>it suggests that the manufacture knew there was a problem
>with the vehicle but rather than fix the problem preferred
>to put a disclaimer in the manuals.

Thats not what the post said, it specifically states "It was also undisputed that Ford had in its owners manual caveats to driving this vehicle and in what conditions prblems could occur." All that means is that Ford said "These particular maneuvers might cause an accident". For all you know, those maneuvers could have included driving at 65MPH oh a rainy road and jerking the well to the left, then the right.

The fact that a known
>problem was not fixed is a deliberate act of omission by the
>manufacture.

No its not, because they specifically stated in the users manual "Don't fucking do this or you will get hurt".

If in any given situation the act of omission
>is responsible for results that should/ could otherwise not
>be expected than it would be the actions of the manufacture
>that caused the problem.

So if Ford decided not to include the sentence "If you drive over the speed limit and suddenly hit the brakes, you might get rear ended", and some jackass does exactly that, your going to blame Ford?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
robert70Wed Jan-08-03 10:58 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 9)


          

We do not have all the facts here and some of the original items are open to inturpitation. I will do a little more research on this one but I suspect we will find that yes the driver may have been partially to blame, but Ford allowed a known problem to go unfixed.
If I remember correctly this vehicle had a c of g problem that ford was aware of that caused it to roll over during certain manuvers and the manuals did in fact warn about the problem but the problem was not fixed until the next model year. I'll post back as soon as I find anything. It would be nice to get a transcript of the court case.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
robert70Wed Jan-08-03 11:10 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#11. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 10)
Wed Jan-08-03 11:15 AM

          

As suspected. - do a google search for "ford bronco lawsuits" I think it was the 2nd article but you can take your pick. Bronco's had a roll over problem that Ford knew about but refused to make the few changes that would have corrected the problem.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
doctormidnightWed Jan-08-03 11:22 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#12. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 11)


  

          

I'm still confused here. All I saw was a bunch of evidence that Ford knew there was a problem, and documented it, and still people went on doing the things they weren't supposed to do, that includes the owners, the retailers, and the manufacturers. Granted, in light of a lot of this information one could probably make the claim that these vehicles are not safe, but that still doesn't give a person the right to do something they know is stupid (and I read at least 5 cases where it was proven the drivers forced the car to turn over), especially if it is stated in the manual that they should NOT do it.

So, it would appear that this is a dual-liability case, in which the accident could only be caused by Fords negligence AND the drivers negligence.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 02:03 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#56. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 12)


          

Hi DM:
I did not mean to ignore your questions in this post, but I was working and did not have time to come back to it.
The caveat that you make mention of included hard braking and/or rapid cornering. What is one to do if a child or animal suddenly shoots out in front of you. And even if you did decide that rather than hitting the object you would take your chances on a roll over.
As the vehicle starts rolling over you now discover that the roof of the cab offers no more protection then the bake-light tray, you had used to carry the meals, that you had bought for yourself and your son, to your table. Next the seats start to give way and offers no support or resistance for the seat belt as you are suddenly heading for the windshield. If you managed to survive, is it safe to assume that you would conclude the auto maker had meet his responsibility because you had been warned in advance.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
Crazy_BabyWed Jan-08-03 11:54 AM
Member since Nov 15th 2001
533 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#13. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 10)
Wed Jan-08-03 11:56 AM

  

          

Here is the concept. I drove a 1970 Ford Maverick that had both front wheels turned at 45 degree angles opposite of each other due to the fact that the friggin tie rods were dead as was most of the rest of the front end assembly. Now, Ford didn't state in their manual a 'specific' OOPS (like the one in that article) that said if I drove blah blah ways it would be dangerous as it was up to ME THE DRIVER AND OWNER OF SAID VEHICLE to figure it out. Why are people so pathetic that they can no longer accept responsibility for their actions? . You see, in no uncertain terms, if you use an object in a manner that could cause harm, after being forwarned, than you and only you are responsible. Case in point; A bridge has a sign saying clearly that if you get too close to the edge physical harm may occur and the builder in no way assumes responsibility for your not taking heed of their warning but you decide to do the deed and stand on the edge, you fall. Personally I hope you die you idiot and so do the rest of us who have to pay the price of raised insurance premiums, et al. Now, getting back to the Bronco. If the dumb@@ss chose to go against the warnings and not only buy the vehicle in the first place but also drive in an unsafe manner than that individual is fully responsible for their own stupidity. As a consumer I am tired of the twits suing for things that they knew were bad for them and I feel strongly that they should be wiped out of existance with the retards that are currently threatening the world by means of terrorist BS.

OOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! I spilled coffee on my lap. (But the container said it was hot, DUH!)

If you want to get rich quick I feel for ya. The end results may not be what you are expecting.

EDIT: TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE!

JMFNSHO }>

Stranger than life

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
ylen13Wed Jan-08-03 12:10 PM
Member since Jun 14th 2002
436 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#14. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Crazy_Baby (Reply # 13)


          

>Here is the concept. I drove a 1970 Ford Maverick that had
>both front wheels turned at 45 degree angles opposite of
>each other due to the fact that the friggin tie rods were
>dead as was most of the rest of the front end assembly.
>Now, Ford didn't state in their manual a 'specific' OOPS
>(like the one in that article) that said if I drove blah
>blah ways it would be dangerous as it was up to ME THE
>DRIVER AND OWNER OF SAID VEHICLE to figure it out. Why are
>people so pathetic that they can no longer accept
>responsibility for their actions? . You see, in no
>uncertain terms, if you use an object in a manner that could
>cause harm, after being forwarned, than you and only you are
>responsible. Case in point; A bridge has a sign saying
>clearly that if you get too close to the edge physical harm
>may occur and the builder in no way assumes responsibility
>for your not taking heed of their warning but you decide to
>do the deed and stand on the edge, you fall. Personally I
>hope you die you idiot and so do the rest of us who have to
>pay the price of raised insurance premiums, et al. Now,
>getting back to the Bronco. If the dumb@@ss chose to go
>against the warnings and not only buy the vehicle in the
>first place but also drive in an unsafe manner than that
>individual is fully responsible for their own stupidity. As
>a consumer I am tired of the twits suing for things that
>they knew were bad for them and I feel strongly that they
>should be wiped out of existance with the retards that are
>currently threatening the world by means of terrorist BS.
>
>OOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! I spilled coffee on my lap. (But
>the container said it was hot, DUH!)
>
>If you want to get rich quick I feel for ya. The end
>results may not be what you are expecting.
>
>EDIT: TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE!
>
>JMFNSHO }>

Welcome to the 21 century. Yes he should have known better but manufacture is also to blame. They were aware of having a problem with a vehicle and refuse to fix till later date. No were dose it say read the manual before u drive the car it may save your life. Allot of people don't have time to read the manual from one to the other end so they can find out what kind of problem is known about this vehicle. When the consumer buys the car they assume that the car is safe to be driven with out having to do anything special.

As for the cup of hot coffee, yes the person should have known but the restaurant should have also known that people may do it and have not made it so hot. Or at least as they did after the fact put warning label to let a person known that the restaurant made the coffee so hot that it may burn them if spilled.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
Crazy_BabyWed Jan-08-03 07:02 PM
Member since Nov 15th 2001
533 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#15. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 14)


  

          

We have become a pretty sad race haven't we. What can we do? More lawsuits please, my brain is getting smaller. Might join up with this thread again tonight for some more light bantor.

Stranger than life

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 02:51 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#16. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Crazy_Baby (Reply # 15)


          

C-R: I will use a very simplistic analogy in the hopes that it will help you get a grasp on the liability logic of the Bronco lawsuit.
Lets suppose you buy a stereo and take it home and set it up. Now you read the manual and it states that "if you turn the volume up to 10 the stereo may explode and burn your house down". Nobody in their right mind listens to music with the volume that loud - "they must be crazy if they do" correct?
This stereo is perfect except for the caveat mentioned in the manual.
Now lets suppose that someone (intentionally or unintentionally) turns the volume up to ten and the stereo blows up and you house burns down.
Because someone was stupid enough to turn the volume up to 10; would you say it is their fault? All of this could have been avoided if the manufacture had made a engineering modification whereby the problem was either fixed or there would be no way on earth that you could turn the volume up to 10.
Is the stupid person that turned the volume up to 10 the person responsible for the fire - why not? or is the manufacture of an unsafe product responsible - why the manual had a warning?
IMHO I think a jury composed of 12 morons would indeed find that the manufacturer was at fault.
Getting back to the real lawsuits I am sure that their were many more considerations that had to be dealt with in comparison to my very simple example but I hope this helps you understand the liability issue.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
hal9000Thu Jan-09-03 05:06 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#17. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 16)
Thu Jan-09-03 05:09 AM

          


CRAVAT

"This stereo is perfect except for the cravat mentioned in the manual..."

Any stereo manual that would make mention of a "CRAVAT" would be suspect to begin with--excluding the volume problem. Besides, you don't drive a stereo on public streets...unless you live in the inner city.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 06:05 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#30. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 17)
Fri Jan-10-03 12:51 AM

          

Hal: Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake it makes a world of difference in meaning. The proper spelling should be caveat- which means a warning. But I am sure you knew that. Right?
TTYL Bob

P.S.- That sure is pretty,but do you have one in blue?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
hal9000Thu Jan-09-03 06:33 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#32. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 30)


          

Just having a little fun Bob. This may help:

http://www.spellcheck.net/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 06:59 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#34. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 32)


          

I knew that!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
hal9000Sat Jan-11-03 12:58 PM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#79. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 34)


          

I knew you knew that

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
mlangdnThu Jan-09-03 06:20 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#19. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 14)


          

Manuals are not written for later reading, RTFM NOW! In this way, we are better informed consumers and able to make good decisions. RTFM NOW and fix your own problems before they happen. RTFM NOW, and one may not have to ask someone else - after the fact.

Sounds pretty simple, huh?




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 06:12 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#31. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 19)


          

Hi Micheal: You are absolutely right in regards to manuals but that is not the subject we are discussing. I mentioned manuals as a way of pointing out that the manufacturer was aware that the product was defective and pointed that out by placing a warning in the manual.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
mlangdnThu Jan-09-03 06:10 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 6)


          

That is a bit overboard. What Ford had in the manual was that in certain conditions, this vehicle could roll-over. This was the same kind of warning that one sees on all kinds of moving equipment, including cars, trucks and construction equipment for example. This is not, nor was it ever, a vehicle capable of good handling at a high rate of speed doing sudden manuevers. On the same note, there is lots of products that carry explosion warnings if mishandled or used unsafely.




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
Crazy_BabyThu Jan-09-03 07:45 AM
Member since Nov 15th 2001
533 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#20. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 18)
Thu Jan-09-03 07:54 AM

  

          

Just some late night bantor on the subject. Let's just get rid of all the warnings and let people do what they will do. I once used a sewing machine at the age of 7 or 8 to see if my fingernail was strong enough to withstand the needle and found out that it wasn't; my bad. I am not going to go after the machines manufacturers to 'heal' my pain, although in todays society I could. My point is that if you are dumb enough to 'see' the warnings but take no heed than you are dumb enough to deserve what you get and nobody but you should pay. Frivolous lawsuits like this cost the people, like me, too much money. This being in the way of increased product price and I for one don't like price hikes, especially in a slow to dead economy. Yes the manufacturer could fix the problem or the consumer could abide by the documentation and use the product in the way that is best. IMNSHFO, as long as their are imperfect products and stupid people that use them we shall forever be amused.

Edit: And PS Bob, I like my music loud. The louder the better and have blown the fuses on my system a few times in the process (but still haven't burned down my house ). I read the manual and it told me I would. Now if it said it would explode I would have been smart enough to take it out into the middle of a field or some such place to test it out but "NOT" at the expense of others and I definatley would not be blaming anyone but myself for the consequences.

Stranger than life

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
hal9000Thu Jan-09-03 08:08 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#21. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Crazy_Baby (Reply # 20)


          

I once used a sewing machine at the age of 7 or 8 to see if my fingernail was strong enough to withstand the needle and found out that it wasn't; my bad.

LOL! Cool! Hey, last summer when I was in Thailand, I dared Al to try and staple my mouth shut with an industrial size staple gun. Whoops! My mistake. Took me months to digest the staples.

Am I going to sue the staple gun manufacturer even though I saw Al read the yellow warning sticker on the staple gun and disregard it? Hell No! I accept personal responsibility for my actions--well my dare actually. That's why now I post rebuttals to Al's posts every chance I get.

Well see ya, I'm due back on planet earth.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
YarddaawgThu Jan-09-03 10:12 AM
Charter member
798 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#22. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 21)


          

Robert70 and ylen13 are perfect examples of the MORONS that get selected for these juries. Plaintifs attorneys try their damdest to select people of this warped mentality in these cases. Tort law MUST be reformed.


Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
YarddaawgThu Jan-09-03 10:18 AM
Charter member
798 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#23. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 22)


          

And Robert70.....

Your analogy with the stereo is asinine beyond belief. }>

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
hal9000Thu Jan-09-03 10:30 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#24. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 23)
Thu Jan-09-03 10:37 AM

          

LOL! But wait...there was a CRAVAT!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
81 NewbeeThu Jan-09-03 11:09 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#25. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 24)


  

          

Here are a few more to chew on.
It's time once again to consider the candidates for the annual
> Stella Awards.
> The Stella's are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who
> spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds.
> That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous
> successfu lawsuits in the United States. The following are this
year's
> candidates:
>
> 1.Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by
a
> jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler
who
> was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were
> understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
> misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
>
> 2.A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
> medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda
Accord.
> Mr. Trumanapparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of
the
> car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hub caps.
>
> 3.Terr! ence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a
> house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
able
> to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
> malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
connecting
> the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
> vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight
days.
> He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog
food.
> He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him
> undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.
>
> 4.Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
> and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next
door
> neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced
yard.
> The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might
have
> been just a little provoked at the time by M! r Williams who was
shooting
it
> repeatedly with a pellet gun.
>
> 5.A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
> Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink
and
> broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because
Ms.
> Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
> argument.
>
> 6.Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
owner
> of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom
window
> to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while
> Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room
to
> avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and
dental
> expenses.
>
> 7.This year's favorite could easily be Mr Merv Grazinski of
Oklahoma
> City, Oklahoma. Mr Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago
> motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway,
he
> set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to
go
> into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the
> R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr Grazinski sued
> Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he
couldn't
> actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor
home.
> The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit,
just
> in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation
vehicles.
It's a field day for the ambulance chasers!!!!!!!!! }>

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
ylen13Thu Jan-09-03 11:24 AM
Member since Jun 14th 2002
436 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#26. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 25)


          

>
>>
>> 1.Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by
>a
>> jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler
>who
>> was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were
>> understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
>> misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
>>
>>

I can understand how the jury could come to their decisions regarding all of the other cases but I can't regarding this one. How was it fault of the owner that her own son was running and caused her to trip over him??

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
81 NewbeeThu Jan-09-03 11:40 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#27. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 26)


  

          

Can you REALLY understand these verdicts??.How about the guy who robbed the house or the idiot who set the cruise controlon his motor home motor home.If I ever decide to sue PCQandA for making me live a sedentary life style that may ruin my health I want you on my jury

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
ylen13Thu Jan-09-03 12:49 PM
Member since Jun 14th 2002
436 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#29. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 27)


          

>Can you REALLY understand these verdicts??.How about the guy
>who robbed the house or the idiot who set the cruise
>controlon his motor home motor home.If I ever decide to sue
>PCQandA for making me live a sedentary life style that may
>ruin my health I want you on my jury

yes i can undestand both of them.If u use logic its possibel to understand and i can see how the jury came to the verdic.I will acknoledge that the robber verdic is much easier for me to undestand then to be abel to undestand the cruise control.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
YarddaawgThu Jan-09-03 12:18 PM
Charter member
798 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#28. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 26)


          

>>>>>I can understand how the jury could come to their decisions regarding all of the other cases but I can't regarding this one. How was it fault of the owner that her own son was running and caused her to trip over him??<<<<<<<<

You, ylen13, and people like you, are the problem. The awards in ALL the cases newby listed are are stupid beyond belief. You and your ilk seem to believe that the money comes to the plaintif from thin air. It dosen't. We all pay through higher insurance rates and or higher prices for all good and services we may need.

Maybe there needs to be a test for COMMON SENSE before being selected for a jury.

This should apply to criminal juries also.
}> }>

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
Crazy_BabyThu Jan-09-03 06:58 PM
Member since Nov 15th 2001
533 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#33. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 28)


  

          

Morning thoughts. Will the incessant bleating never end? I am going insane. Next we shall be suing concrete makers as it is too hard and causes bunions. EEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!

Stranger than life

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
robert70Fri Jan-10-03 01:47 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#40. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 28)


          

>You, ylen13, and people like you, are the problem. The
>awards in ALL the cases newby listed are are stupid beyond
>belief. You and your ilk seem to believe that the money
>comes to the plaintif from thin air. It dosen't. We all
>pay through higher insurance rates and or higher prices for
>all good and services we may need.

This reminds me of the doctors who went on strike because their insurance rates are going up - instead of getting rid of the .01% of the doctors who have caused 90% of the increase they would prefer to shoot the messenger.
>
>Maybe there needs to be a test for COMMON SENSE before being
>selected for a jury.
>This should apply to criminal juries also.
>
I can not foresee the day when the courts will put aside the law and the facts in favor of how a decision affects you financially.

I can not explain it, but for some reason I keep waiting to hear someone say that hookers can not be raped.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
YarddaawgSat Jan-11-03 12:11 AM
Charter member
798 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#54. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 26)


          

Ylen13 writes:
>>”yes i can undestand both of them.If u use logic its possibel to understand and i can see how the jury came to the verdic.I will acknoledge that the robber verdic is much easier for me to undestand then to be abel to undestand the cruise control.”<<

Sense this exampel is easyest fer him to understand, lets examene the case of the rober.

Ø 3.Terr! ence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a
> house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
able
> to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
> malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
connecting
> the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
> vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight
days.
> He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog
food.
> He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him
> undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

Okay, ylen13. Here’s your chance to demonstrate your superior brilliance, depth of thought and logic to us all. Please post your train of thought that would arrive at this decision if you were on that jury.


}> }>

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
hal9000Sat Jan-11-03 12:20 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#55. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 54)


          

Yeah! And use a spell-checker of some kind and a space after periods.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 02:23 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#57. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 54)
Sat Jan-11-03 02:27 AM

          

While you are waiting for a response I'll give you a little brain teaser.

What do criminals, morons (like ylen 13 and myself), and (the self righteous) you have in common in regards to the law?



NEED ANOTHER CLUE?

It also holds true in regards to your constitution.

>Okay, ylen13. Here’s your chance to demonstrate your
>superior brilliance, depth of thought and logic to us all.
>Please post your train of thought that would arrive at this
>decision if you were on that jury.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
ylen13Sat Jan-11-03 04:03 AM
Member since Jun 14th 2002
436 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#64. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 54)


          

>Ylen13 writes:
>>>”yes i can undestand both of them.If u use logic its possibel to understand and i can see how the jury came to the verdic.I will acknoledge that the robber verdic is much easier for me to undestand then to be abel to undestand the cruise control.”<<
>
>Sense this exampel is easyest fer him to understand, lets
>examene the case of the rober.
>
>Ø 3.Terr! ence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving
>a
>> house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
>able
>> to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
>> malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
>connecting
>> the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
>> vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight
>days.
>> He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog
>food.
>> He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him
>> undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.
>
>Okay, ylen13. Here’s your chance to demonstrate your
>superior brilliance, depth of thought and logic to us all.
>Please post your train of thought that would arrive at this
>decision if you were on that jury.
>
>
>}> }>

Its simple this rubber had to survive on bag of dry dog food and a case of Pepsi, any normal person would go crazy if he had to eat that for 8 days. It was negligent of the homeowner not make sure that the car garage worked. The owner would have been negligent if that was also any of his family member stuck their for 8 days because they forgot to get their keys from the house and shut the door. Furthermore if the owner did know that it don't work then he should have either fixed it or install one of those doors that u can open manually from inside if needed. As for the argument he is a robber, well in this situation he was the victim unable to get out of garage for 8 days and he deserve some compensation for the suffering regardless if he breaking the law in the first place or not when he got stuck in the garage.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
YarddaawgSat Jan-11-03 06:29 AM
Charter member
798 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#67. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 64)


          

And you call that logic? So if a driver runs off the road and hits that big oak tree in front of my house I can be sued because I should have anticipated this could happen and had the tree removed? What about my right to have the tree? Under your “logic” I can only own the tree at my financial peril.

Your definition of logic is certainly not the same as mine. My logic suggests that had the plaintiff not engaged in a criminal act, he would not have had to endure this "mental anguish". End of case – Order plaintiffs attorney to pay all legal cost, loss of time from work and order punitive damages to be paid to defendant by plaintiff and or his lawyer. (Hell – For half a million $ I and every one I know would “subsist” on dog food and Pepsi Cola for 8 days.)

What about the homeowners “mental anguish” while the case is pending? Can the homeowner ever go on vacation again without suffering undue “mental anguish? What about the sanctity of his home? Who can he sue? Would this case have been filed if he did not have insurance? Do you suppose the homeowner could find a lawyer to sue the burglar who would work on a contingency fee basis?

The illogical result of this jury’s decision is that, in this case, crime does pay. The scum got more than he ever dreamed by committing a criminal act.

AWW! But I suppose my thinking is not very logical, huh? But remember – I buy homeowners insurance.

Yarddaawg

"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
(1879-1955

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Fri Jan-10-03 01:10 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#39. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 25)


          

Hi Newbie: I am not familiar with the specifics of all these cases but I am sure that the law and the facts had something to do with the awards. Here is something to consider though imagine how much they would have got had they not been so stupid!!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 11:15 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#77. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 25)


          

>Here are a few more to chew on.
> It's time once again to consider the candidates for
>the annual
>> Stella Awards.
>> The Stella's are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who
>> spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds.
>> That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous
>> successfu lawsuits in the United States. The following are this
>year's
>> candidates:
>>
>> 1.Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by
>a
>> jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler
>who
>> was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were
>> understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
>> misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
>>
>> 2.A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
>> medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda
>Accord.
>> Mr. Trumanapparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of
>the
>> car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hub caps.
>>
>> 3.Terr! ence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a
>> house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
>able
>> to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
>> malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
>connecting
>> the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
>> vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight
>days.
>> He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog
>food.
>> He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him
>> undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.
>>
>> 4.Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
>> and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next
>door
>> neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced
>yard.
>> The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might
>have
>> been just a little provoked at the time by M! r Williams who was
>shooting
>it
>> repeatedly with a pellet gun.
>>
>> 5.A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
>> Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink
>and
>> broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because
>Ms.
>> Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
>> argument.
>>
>> 6.Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
>owner
>> of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom
>window
>> to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while
>> Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room
>to
>> avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and
>dental
>> expenses.
>>
>> 7.This year's favorite could easily be Mr Merv Grazinski of
>Oklahoma
>> City, Oklahoma. Mr Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago
>> motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway,
>he
>> set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to
>go
>> into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the
>> R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr Grazinski sued
>> Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he
>couldn't
>> actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor
>home.
>> The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit,
>just
>> in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation
>vehicles.
This is all B.S. www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
robert70Fri Jan-10-03 12:43 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#38. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 23)
Fri Jan-10-03 12:44 AM

          

>
And Robert70.....
>
>Your analogy with the stereo is asinine beyond belief. }>

I can understand you having difficulty at grasping the simple concepts so let me help you out:
1) Manufacturer makes unsafe product.
2. Manufacturer is aware of potential problem and hazards.
3. Manufacturer does nothing except issue a warning to hazard.
4. Potential problem becomes real problem.
5 Real problem causes damage.
6. Payday! (just joking here ).

Your willingness to accept sub-standard and unsafe product, without any liability, may lead you to receiving an "application for employment" from Ford in the near future, but should you receive one from Boeing, please treat it as a hoax.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 08:35 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#36. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Yarddaawg (Reply # 22)
Fri Jan-10-03 08:09 PM

          

>Robert70 and ylen13 are perfect examples of the MORONS that
>get selected for these juries. Plaintiffs attorneys try
>their damdest to select people of this warped mentality in
>these cases.

If you were selected as a juror would you make a decision be based on the law and the facts or on your opinion.
Go to www.law.cornell.edu/topics/products_liability.html and read para 2 and 3 and 4.

LINK HAS BEEN UPDATED.

Tort law MUST be reformed.
I have never expressed an opinion for or against reform but why go through all that trouble when juries that reach a verdict based on the law and the facts are Morons, as you state above.
Through out this discussion I have pointed out how large corporations have tried to profit by selling defective merchandise and then try ducking out of their responsibility should the defect cause harm.

Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for a large Corp. like Ford to sell known defective merchandise. Yes there may be what appears like abuses of tort law but what about all the genuine cases - or should we let the manufacturers screw them so the Corps can give larger dividends to their shareholders and make products that are more dangerous. Think about it before you rush to respond.
TTYL Bob


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 06:43 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#69. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 21)


          



>LOL! Cool! Hey, last summer when I was in Thailand, I dared
>Al to try and staple my mouth shut with an industrial size
>staple gun. Whoops! My mistake. Took me months to digest the
>staples.
>
See what happens when you get out too much!

TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 11:53 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#37. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to Crazy_Baby (Reply # 20)


          

Hi C_R ... if you keep on doing that your going to go blind...I mean deaf.
TTYL bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
robert70Thu Jan-09-03 07:09 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#35. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 18)
Thu Jan-09-03 07:11 PM

          

Hi Micheal: You are correct in stating it was a little overboard But I was hoping that an exaggeration would make the concept - that Just because a manufacturer warns of a problem it does not excuse them of their liabilities if the product is faulty - clearer or easier to grasp.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
labyrinthFri Jan-10-03 03:31 AM
Member since Oct 13th 2002
1252 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#41. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 35)


          

Create a society were lawyers make the laws, and you will have a society that will only benefit lawyers. The House and the Senate, when they were created were supposed to be populated by citizens, not lawyers. Now we have a government powered by lawyers, and lawyers advertizing for clients. Is it any wonder that nobody must take responsibility for their actions, except for the well to do. (Corporations, small companies, anybody that has insurance or assets.) There isn't a lawyer in the land that will sue somebody without assets. They won't get any money in return. As a landlord, I know better then to try and collect money owed, it costs more then the money owed. (You can't get blood out of a turnip.) So you will never see a lawyer sueing a turnip, but the corporation which profited on the turnip can be sued because some dumb jack-a** left it out of the 'fridge' for two days and then after rubbing it around a wooden cutting board, which hasn't been cleaned in six weeks, cuts it up, and eats it raw, and wonders why he or she has been poisoned. The lawyers claim they are protecting the rights of the little people. No, they aren't. They are costing us plenty. Look at your insurance bills. Look at your cost of Government. The only people being protected are the ones involved in the protection industry, lawyers and insurance people. After all its their game, their language, and their court system.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
81 NewbeeFri Jan-10-03 04:25 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#42. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to labyrinth (Reply # 41)


  

          

It's the fact that no one is RESPONSIBLE for their actions and the results today.It is someone else or something that caused the problem.There is an acceptable excuse for everything from truancy to murder.I believe it is the result of this faulty logic that leads to these asinine verdicts.If you don't agree with me I can't help it.I was raised during the depression and was dumped on Utah Beach in WW2 and worse of all it rained on me on the golf course this AM.You are damn luckey I didn't murder someone by now.Of course if I do I know that some of you will understand and not punish me.I just couldn't help it.}> }> }> }> }>

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
labyrinthFri Jan-10-03 04:56 AM
Member since Oct 13th 2002
1252 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#43. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 42)


          

Hell, take out the golf shop Pro, I would, for sending me out in the rain in January. LOL

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
81 NewbeeFri Jan-10-03 05:08 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#44. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to labyrinth (Reply # 43)


  

          

I think I'll take out the weatherman.The forecast was for rain to start in the LATE afternoon.They can tell me the world will be warm 100 years from now, but they can't predict the next days weather accurately.Makes me suspicious.I hope they are still manufacturing long johns in 2102

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 02:35 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#58. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 42)


          

Hi Newbee:
After reading the link in message 36 it appears that manufacturers also have some responsibilities or should they not count?
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
mlangdnFri Jan-10-03 06:21 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#45. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 35)


          

Most of what we have read in this thread is exaggeration - on both sides. My original point that I did not make was that I believe this verdict to be wrong. One cannot be allowed to do something that stupid and expect to be compensated for said stupidity. Is this vehicle unsafe? Most definitely, under the conditions laid out in the manual. This vehicle was never designed for highway use in particular. It is a vehicle designed for off-road and at a much slower pace. The vehicle is good for hunters and farmers exploring the land. It is not a passenger car - never was.




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
andrini2000Fri Jan-10-03 06:27 AM
Charter member
2001 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#46. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 45)


  

          

But there is something very noticeable.
Something for nothing...the American Way.
That ought to be our new motto!!
And before any of you get wound up, think for a second.
It's true!!



Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
mlangdnFri Jan-10-03 06:54 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#47. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to andrini2000 (Reply # 46)


          

I believe you are unfortunately right on this one.




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
Crazy_BabyFri Jan-10-03 07:35 AM
Member since Nov 15th 2001
533 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#49. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to andrini2000 (Reply # 46)


  

          

Yes my happy magician you are right.

Stranger than life

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
robert70Fri Jan-10-03 09:08 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#53. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 45)
Fri Jan-10-03 09:32 PM

          

Hi Michael:

>Most of what we have read in this thread is exaggeration -
>on both sides.

I am not sure your wife would agree with you on that point if she had to change your diaper and wipe the drool from your face (or worse yet)
because some auto maker refused to make a $16.00 alteration to your vehicle.
Case and point "Ford Maverick" gas tank.


My original point that I did not make was that I believe this verdict to be wrong.

I am not sure but this might be the case http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128817799 There is no mention of any erratic driving and the weak roof structure is the cause of the legal action

One cannot be allowed to do something that stupid and expect to be
>compensated for said stupidity. Is this vehicle unsafe?
Most definitely, under the conditions laid out in the manual.
>This vehicle was never designed for highway use in
>particular. It is a vehicle designed for off-road and at a
>much slower pace. The vehicle is good for hunters and
>farmers exploring the land. It is not a passenger car -
>never was.
>
>You can come to your own conclusions after you read para 1 to 4 @
>http://rivkinradler.com/22400b.html

If you really think the auto industry is concerned about your welfare, there is some interesting reading if you do a search on Ralph Nader+Corvair.

TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
mlangdnSun Jan-12-03 08:33 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#81. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 53)


          

This is the right case. In the paper, which I found in the garage, the article says that Juan Romo illegally passed a car on the right. The abrupt manuevering is what caused the rollover. He does something illegal, then hits the lawsuit lottery. The article was written by Thomas J. Heiden. He is the senior trial counsel for Latham & Watkins in Chicago.




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
ylen13Sun Jan-12-03 09:04 AM
Member since Jun 14th 2002
436 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#82. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 81)


          

>This is the right case. In the paper, which I found in the
>garage, the article says that Juan Romo illegally passed a
>car on the right. The abrupt manuevering is what caused the
>rollover. He does something illegal, then hits the lawsuit
>lottery. The article was written by Thomas J. Heiden. He is
>the senior trial counsel for Latham & Watkins in Chicago.
>
>
>
>
>Michael

if the car can't handle passing anothe car on the right side then the car should have been sold to the public in the first place. As for abrupt manuevering is the same thing as emergency manuvering.So dose it mean drivers shouldn't do it unless they are willing to lose control of the vehicle? It seems the lawsuite was a good one.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
MadDadSun Jan-12-03 09:11 AM
Charter member
1854 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#83. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 82)


          

Eye dun't knose what it menes.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
mlangdnSun Jan-12-03 09:21 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#84. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to ylen13 (Reply # 82)
Sun Jan-12-03 09:37 AM

          

When this vehicle was manufactured, it complied with every safety requirement in existence (1978). It even complied with 1999 reqiurements that went into effect more than 20 years after this vehicle was made.

All SUV's have higher ground clearance and tires that are designed for offroad use. Most drivers know and accept this. They are not dangerous when driven properly. Yes, it can be acknowledged that for highway driving, a circumstance can come up that would call for abrupt manuevering, and this is where defensive driving comes into play. The first rule of the road is to "leave yourself an out". If one puts this vehicle in freeway traffic, then one has no "out". Remember what it was designed for, and use it that way.

This is like using gasoline in place of charcoal lighter, then wondering what in the hell just happened when the explosion takes off your hair and eyebrows (if you are lucky).

The only winner in this case is the contingency fee lawyer that pockets an obscene amount of money. None of that $290 million will ever be used for safety purposes - not one cent. To reach this conclusion one must say that Ford acted from malice, and I cannot believe this conclusion. (I drive a '97 F150 Ext. Cab) This fine is the average pay for 5,000 Ford employees, or soon to be ex-employees. Does anyone think that Ford will just pay-up with no consequence to the rest of us? This will result in higher prices for vehicles - and not just from Ford. Do you not think that the other carmakers are blind to this result?

If we cannot be held responsible for ourselves and our actions, we are going to sue ourselves back to the stone-age. What producer could take a chance?


Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Sun Jan-12-03 12:57 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#88. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 84)
Sun Jan-12-03 01:00 PM

          

>When this vehicle was manufactured, it complied with every
>safety requirement in existence (1978). It even complied
>with 1999 reqiurements that went into effect more than 20
>years after this vehicle was made.

In previous reply postings (to you) links were provided to some of the documents that prove the very opposite to what you are saying. It is your option to believe what was quoted in those links, or not believe them. But one thing that I can conclude from the verdict and the fine is that someone more closer and more aware of all the details involved in this suit choice to believe the evidence that was presented in court.

>All SUV's have higher ground clearance and tires that are
>designed for offroad use. Most drivers know and accept this.
>They are not dangerous when driven properly. Yes, it can be
>acknowledged that for highway driving, a circumstance can
>come up that would call for abrupt manuevering, and this is
>where defensive driving comes into play. The first rule of
>the road is to "leave yourself an out". If one puts this
>vehicle in freeway traffic, then one has no "out". Remember
>what it was designed for, and use it that way.

It was documented that the vehicles in question had a propensity to roll over at a speed of 20 MPH for a U-turn and 32 MPH if someone tried to swerve around on object on a paved surface. Ford was aware of this problem but rather than fix it - as their engineers had suggested - they chose not to. And instead they set aside a contingency fund to cover any resulting court action. And they also placed a "cover my ass" warning in the manual that they could attempted to use as a defense.


>This is like using gasoline in place of charcoal lighter,
>then wondering what in the hell just happened when the
>explosion takes off your hair and eyebrows (if you are
>lucky).
>
>The only winner in this case is the contingency fee lawyer
>that pockets an obscene amount of money. None of that $290
>million will ever be used for safety purposes - not one
>cent. To reach this conclusion one must say that Ford acted
>from malice, and I cannot believe this conclusion. (I drive
>a '97 F150 Ext. Cab) This fine is the average pay for 5,000
>Ford employees, or soon to be ex-employees. Does anyone
>think that Ford will just pay-up with no consequence to the
>rest of us? This will result in higher prices for vehicles -
>and not just from Ford. Do you not think that the other
>carmakers are blind to this result?

You amaze me, with no mention of the loss of life involved in this and the many other similar cases, you go on spouting how much it is going to cost poor old Ford - who by the way deliberately opted not to follow the advice of their own engineers; but rather produce a vehicle which has brought about endless pain and suffering to many. Remember Ford had choices and options in regards to the design of this death trap, as well as a responsibility to its customers, that you are not quite willing to see.


Ford is not alone, in its attempt to fool the public into believing that everything they build has your saftey as a priority.

IF YOU ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ONLY PEOPLE HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, AND THAT CORPORATIONS ARE EXEMPT I SUGGEST YOU GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE.

If money is going to be the deciding point then lets stop FORCING auto makers to do re-calls. I am quiet sure we should then be able to see the cost of cars drop considerably as a result.

"TAKE RESPONSIBLY FOR YOURSELF" HE CRIED AS HE COUNTED HIS CORPORATE PROFITS.



If we cannot be held responsible for ourselves and our
>actions, we are going to sue ourselves back to the
>stone-age. What producer could take a chance?

Can you site me any cases where a company was successfully sued after it had been proven that the company had used proper care and diligence in producing a product?



On a lighter subject:
"Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and remove all doubt". Is an old saying that popped into my head does anyone know where it came from?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
robert70Sun Jan-12-03 10:32 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#87. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 81)
Sun Jan-12-03 10:34 AM

          

>This is the right case. In the paper, which I found in the
>garage, the article says that Juan Romo illegally passed a
>car on the right. The abrupt maneuvering is what caused the
>rollover. He does something illegal, then hits the lawsuit
>lottery. The article was written by Thomas J. Heiden. He is
>the senior trial counsel for Latham & Watkins in Chicago.
>
>
>
>
>Michael

Hi Michael:
If you infuriated by the fact that Mr. Roma was doing something illegal at the time of the accident than that is a whole separate issue, to which Mr Roma will have to answer for. In and of itself that has little or nothing to do with the fact that Ford knowingly produced a vehicle that had the propensity to roll in the event of a driver taking emergency evasion actions which Ford preferred to call abrupt maneuvering.
In an earlier post where I directed you to a link that had details about Ford knowing about the problem as well as other specifics in regards to Ford's reckless dis-regard for the safety of its customer's you told me you do not put much faith in articles that are (were) written by lawyers.
I am confused because now you are citing an article written by a lawyer, and believing it like it contains all the pertinent details and is the gospel truth.
Please help in resolving my confusion. Why the change in heart?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
mlangdnSun Jan-12-03 09:16 PM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#89. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 87)


          

What really rankles me is the $290 million fine. When a lawyer writes an article against such an enormous verdict, something is bad wrong. I know lawyers have a bad rap, however, in this case, the jury has gone beyond common sense.

While I am not without sympathy for those killed in the accident, what does sympathy for them have to do with finding facts? This is a cold look at the case, but necessary. The rollover would not have happened if he had followed the rules of the road, and he must live with that fact. No amount of money will relieve that guilt.

Gun manufacturers have been sued for producing an unsafe product. But to date, it has always been found that it is not the gun, only the person behind the gun. Given a few more years, gun makers may end up similar to Big Tobacco. This is a bad analogy because everyone by now should know that BT hid a lot of stuff from consumers.

It is not just the cost to Ford. There will be thousands of families affected by this. This does not compensate a loss, and in any case like this, it never will. I have lost loved ones in car accidents and motorcycle accidents. I damn well know that money will never take their place. Suing after doing something stupid is gross and is an attempt to replace guilt.

On a side note, I work for a meat manufacturer, in case you think I may have some other interest in this case.




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Sun Jan-12-03 11:33 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#90. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 89)
Sun Jan-12-03 11:38 PM

          

>What really rankles me is the $290 million fine. When a
>lawyer writes an article against such an enormous verdict,
>something is bad wrong. I know lawyers have a bad rap,
>however, in this case, the jury has gone beyond common
>sense.

One of the main reasons that Ford was fined so heavily was because in there attempt to side step any responsibility - they lied,covered up and destroyed documents so as to appear that they were unaware of any problems. Just a little side note here: How many people or corps would undertake to lie and destroy documents if they were as clean as fresh snow. It was this combined with Ford"s setting aside of a contingency fund ot offset the lawsuits that they knew were going to result from their lack of care and due diligence when they rushed the Bronco to market in order to beat GM and thereby gain a larger share of the market. To get back to your point in regards to the sum - the amount reflects the seriousness of their cover-up scheme and the courts unwillingness to allow an automaker to willingly and knowingly produce a unsafe vehicle.



while I am not without sympathy for those killed in the
>accident, what does sympathy for them have to do with
>finding facts? This is a cold look at the case, but
>necessary. The rollover would not have happened if he had
>followed the rules of the road, and he must live with that
>fact. No amount of money will relieve that guilt.

You are correct there, my friend, So the court had to send a message to Ford and others that in your haste to make $$$ The needless loss of life because off a total lack of concern for the safety of consumers will not be tolerated. Think of it as an insurance policy to force auto makers to put your safety ahead of their need for profits. You will just have to believe me when I say this decision has saved many lives of an unsuspecting public.

This is not the first nor the last of the law suits that ford will face in regards to the first year model of the Bronco. Ford knowingly and willingly produced a death trap on wheels. Then they lied about being aware of any problems., and refused to take any corrective actions.


>
>Gun manufacturers have been sued for producing an unsafe
>product. But to date, it has always been found that it is
>not the gun, only the person behind the gun. Given a few
>more years, gun makers may end up similar to Big Tobacco.
>This is a bad analogy because everyone by now should know
>that BT hid a lot of stuff from consumers.

If guns were backfiring and blowing up in people's faces then gun manufacturers would be facing the same type of suits that Ford is.

>It is not just the cost to Ford. There will be thousands of
>families affected by this. This does not compensate a loss,
>and in any case like this, it never will. I have lost loved
>ones in car accidents and motorcycle accidents. I damn well
>know that money will never take their place. Suing after
>doing something stupid is gross and is an attempt to replace
>guilt.


Any chance Ford should have thought of that before knowingly and willingly making a death trap on wheels and then marketing it to an unsuspecting public.

Ford mis-judged the number of legal cases it would face, as well as the amount of punitive damages that would be awarded - once it was learned that they lied and cheated and tried to cover everything up.

I have no pity for Ford and if you do I think it is sick.
TTLY Bob
>

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
mlangdnMon Jan-13-03 03:09 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#91. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 90)


          

Fair enough - I enjoyed this and I wish you well.
No hard feelin's from me.





  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
robert70Mon Jan-13-03 04:19 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#92. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 91)


          

>Fair enough - I enjoyed this and I wish you well.
>No hard feelin's from me.

And I wish you well also. I always enjoy a good exchange of ideas because we all try to make decisions based on fact and sometimes the limitations of our "own world" does not give us all the true facts. Why we believe what we do is relevant to what we know.
Take care and I will
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 03:19 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#62. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 18)


          

>That is a bit overboard. What Ford had in the manual was
>that in certain conditions, this vehicle could roll-over.
>This was the same kind of warning that one sees on all kinds
>of moving equipment, including cars, trucks and construction
>equipment for example. This is not, nor was it ever, a
>vehicle capable of good handling at a high rate of speed
>doing sudden manuevers. On the same note, there is lots of
>products that carry explosion warnings if mishandled or used
>unsafely.
>
>
>
>
>Michael

Me again:
Would you conceder 20 or even 32mph as HIGH rate of speed.

Read these articles: @www.rolloverlawyer.com/
and http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/broncoIInews.htm

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
mlangdnSat Jan-11-03 07:14 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#70. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 62)


          

Hi Bob,
Sorry, but I cannot put much stock in an article that has as its sponser an ambulance-chasing lawyer. That may be an unfair assumption, but it is consistent with the way I gather information. That one does not count. The original article in my Sunday rag did say that plaintiff admitted to driving in a reckless manner, however, I have burned the paper days ago in my fireplace so I cannot reference it or the author.




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

MadDadFri Jan-10-03 07:31 AM
Charter member
1854 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#48. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 0)


          

People People People
Poor Stella, always the scapegoat.

This is about the lady who "spilt the hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds:

"You probably have never heard that after the coffee spill, Mrs. Liebeck spent seven days in an Albuquerque hospital and about three weeks recuperating at home with her daughter. Then she was hospitalized again for skin grafts. She had lost 20 pounds—down to 83 pounds—and was practically immobilized. The grafts were almost as painful as the burn.
Mrs. Liebeck wrote to McDonald’s asking the company to turn down the coffee temperature. She was not planning to sue but she thought she was entitled to her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000, plus lost wages of her daughter who stayed home to care for her McDonald’s offered her $800.00.

She then did what many aggrieved people do. She went hunting for a lawyer.
That lawyer took her case to the cornerstone of our justice system: a jury. Initially this was a jury that was annoyed at having to listen to a case about spilled coffee. But they learned that coffee at 170_ would cause second-degree burns within 3.5 seconds of hitting the skin and that the company had not lowered the heat under the coffee despite receiving 700 burn complaints over 10 years.

Knowing these facts and others, it may not now surprise you to find that the jury awarded her $160,000 in actual damages and $2.7 in punitive damages. The judge eventually lowered the amount to $640,000.
With only a few exceptions, only the headline got reported, none of the details–“Despite lawsuit brew, hot coffee no burning issue” “Award to a woman scalds McDonalds” “Ronald McDonald better have a really good lawyer” “Turning up the heat on McJava”."

She has every damn right to every penny she got, and she also has the right to stop being made a scapegoat.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
81 NewbeeFri Jan-10-03 09:31 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#50. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to MadDad (Reply # 48)


  

          

Hi Mad Dad,I am aware of your basics of the case and aware of the final settlement.She is probably getting more than her 15 minutes of fame.I still believe that there are too many law suits and that many of the awards are extreme.I am still convinced that lack of personal RESPONSIBILITY is rampent in this country.The big problem is that the lawyers are the real winners.Some of them have ended up richer than some of our politicians.(so they have contributed handsomely to repay the politicians).The system is broken.The blame someone or something else for our misdeeds is the mantra of these times. }> }>

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
ylen13Fri Jan-10-03 10:17 AM
Member since Jun 14th 2002
436 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#51. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 50)


          

>Hi Mad Dad,I am aware of your basics of the case and aware
>of the final settlement.She is probably getting more than
>her 15 minutes of fame.I still believe that there are too
>many law suits and that many of the awards are extreme.I am
>still convinced that lack of personal RESPONSIBILITY is
>rampent in this country.The big problem is that the lawyers
>are the real winners.Some of them have ended up richer than
>some of our politicians.(so they have contributed handsomely
>to repay the politicians).The system is broken.The blame
>someone or something else for our misdeeds is the mantra of
>these times. }> }>

actualy their is nothing wrong with the system.The system is a game and you need to learn to play the game or u will lose it.Its as simmple as that. Also i personall wished their were less rules so the game could be played better, have alot of friends who are lawyers and they would be enjoying every minute of it even more then they are enjoying it now.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
MadDadFri Jan-10-03 05:42 PM
Charter member
1854 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#52. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 50)


          

"170_ would cause second-degree burns within 3.5 seconds of hitting the skin and that the company had not lowered the heat under the coffee despite receiving 700 burn complaints over 10 years".

I think this is where the personal responsibility lies in this case.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
doctormidnightSat Jan-11-03 02:39 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#59. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to MadDad (Reply # 52)


  

          

700 out of 20 Billion (and thats a VERY conservative estimate) is about 0.000000035%. A higher percantage of people have probably had sex in a McD's.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 02:56 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#60. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 59)


          

>700 out of 20 Billion (and thats a VERY conservative
>estimate) is about 0.000000035%. A higher percantage of
>people have probably had sex in a McD's.

Does that number also include those people who nobly accepted
their pain and suffering as their "personal responsability"?

But you make my point very elliquently!!

What can be done to make Corporations accept THEIR RESPONSABILITY?


TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
doctormidnightSat Jan-11-03 03:07 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#61. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 60)


  

          


>Does that number also include those people who nobly
>accepted
>their pain and suffering as their "personal responsability"?

Why would it include people that didn't complain?

>But you make my point very elliquently!!

And what point was that? I wasn't talking to you.

>What can be done to make Corporations accept THEIR
>RESPONSABILITY?

Stop selling coffee to idiots, there's a start. Reminds me of that line from Clerks.. "What do you mean there's no ice!? I'm supposed to drink this coffee hot?!"


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 03:53 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#63. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 61)


          

>
>>Does that number also include those people who nobly
>>accepted
>>their pain and suffering as their "personal responsibility"?
>
>Why would it include people that didn't complain?

You tried to illustrate the insignificance of the number of complaints that McDonald's received, in order to logically justify McDonald's lack of action.


>>But you make my point very eloquently!!
>
>And what point was that? I wasn't talking to you.

Then I can't answer that question, but read the next line.

>>What can be done to make Corporations accept THEIR
>>RESPONSIBILITY?
>
>Stop selling coffee to idiots, there's a start. Reminds me
>of that line from Clerks.. "What do you mean there's no
>ice!? I'm supposed to drink this coffee hot?!"

Or why not lower the temperature so that the coffee is still hot enough to meet the costumer's expectation, but not hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. I think we all know that accidents can and do happen whether idiots are involved or not.
What a novel idea!!
TYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
waldoSat Jan-11-03 05:06 AM
Charter member
2547 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#65. "WE MADE IT!!"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 63)


  

          

I can't believe we made it!!

If you lived as a child in the 40's, 50's, 60's or 70's. Looking back, it's hard to believe that we have lived as long as we have....

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to mention hitchhiking to town as a young kid!)

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors!

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. Our parents knew that all the neighbors would watch out for all the kids. No cell phones. Unthinkable!!

We played dodgeball and sometimes the ball would really hurt. We got cut and broke bones and broke teeth, and there were no law suits from these accidents. They were ACCIDENTS! No one was to blame but us! Remember accidents?

We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it. We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank sugar soda but we were never overweight..we were always playing outside. We shared one grape soda with four friends, from one bottle, and no one died from this.

We did not have Playstations,Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, video games at all, 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, Internet chat rooms...we had friends. We went outside and found them. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rung the bell or just walked in and talked to them. Imagine such a thing! Without asking a parent! By ourselves! Out there in the cold cruel world! Without a guardian! How did we do it???

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't, had to learn to deal with disappointment. The teams actually kept score and the winning team was allowed to be excited and the losing team learned to be good sports about it and learned that, in life - sometimes you win and sometimes you lose!

Some students weren't as smart as others so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors!!

Tests were not adjusted for ANY reason.

Almost no one went to "pre-school" and when we graduated high school, we all knew how to read, use proper grammar and do basic math.

We all learned how to count out change without a calculator to tell the amount.

The worst problems in school were tardiness and chewing gum in class.

Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected. No one to hide behind. The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law; imagine that!

If you misbehaved, your parents spanked you and no one arrested them for doing that. We also learned that when a parent said, "No", they actually meant that our lives would not be ruined forever by being denied every little thing we wanted an any given moment.

New toys were received on birthdays and holidays...not on every trip to the store. Parents gave us gifts out of love, not out of guilt.

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors ever. The past 50 years has been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

And you're one of them!

Congratulations!!

Please pass this on to others who were blessed to grow up as kids, before lawyers and government regulated our lives, for our own good.WALDO


Walter A Robertson

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
Crazy_BabySat Jan-11-03 11:51 PM
Member since Nov 15th 2001
533 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#80. "RE: WE MADE IT!!"
In response to waldo (Reply # 65)


  

          

Thank you Waldo for the breath of fresh air. Yes I do remember and am proud to have been a part of it. That is why I am so sad as to where we are as humans today, just sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

Stranger than life

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
doctormidnightSat Jan-11-03 06:29 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#68. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 63)


  

          

>You tried to illustrate the insignificance of the number of
>complaints that McDonald's received, in order to logically
>justify McDonald's lack of action.


I did nothing of the sort, I stated that more people had had sex in a McD's in that time period than had been burned by coffee. There are a lot of conclusions you could draw from that statement.

>I think we all know that accidents can and do happen whether idiots >are involved or not.

And I think that there is empirical data that would suggest there is a link between being an idiot and "accidents" happening to you. I also think there's a link between screwing in McD's and this coffee thing, but Hal has yet to file a report on his website.. I'm waiting for that one.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 07:36 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#72. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 68)
Sat Jan-11-03 07:39 AM

          

Hi DM:
I apologize if I mis-understood what you were saying in response to message #52 in which Mad dad pointed out the temp. of the coffee that McDonald's serves and the number of reported burn complaints that they ignored. I thought you were trying, by your calculation, to show how insignificant that number was in comparison to the total number of customers served.
My point was to illustrate that they ignored 700 complaints but It only took 1 court case for them to get their ass in gear if I can use the phrase.
Again DM my humble apologies if I mis-understood you.
TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
doctormidnightSat Jan-11-03 08:56 AM
Charter member
11300 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
#74. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 72)


  

          

No big deal, it was just an inocuous comment meant to inject a little humor into this topic. However, now that you mention it, the number in and of itself is immaterial, when placed in a certain context. However, I bet if you went back to those 700 people, you would find that environmental reasons had more to do with their injuries than the temperature of coffee.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
hal9000Sat Jan-11-03 09:23 AM
Member since Jan 21st 2002
3876 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#75. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to doctormidnight (Reply # 61)
Sat Jan-11-03 11:00 AM

          



Hmm...I wonder how many having a degree of thought and reason dine at McDonalds to begin with. The only time I've eaten there is when I was drunk, broke or in a particularly sadistic mood. On those occasions, I even enjoyed sitting in one of the tawdry, plastic booths taking in the squalor of the place; listening to sniffling children and breathing in the putrid smell of fresh grease.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
robert70Sat Jan-11-03 10:22 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#76. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to hal9000 (Reply # 75)


          

>"Stop selling coffee to idiots, there's a start..."
>
>Hmm...I wonder how many having a degree of thought and
>reason dine at McDonalds to begin with. The only time I've
>eaten there is when I was drunk, broke or in a particularly
>sadistic mood. On those occasions, I even enjoyed sitting in
>one of the tawdy, plastic booths taking in the squalor of
>the place; listening to sniffling children and breathing in
>the putrid smell of fresh grease.

Children, scaldding hot coffee and idiots - I think I smell a lawsuit here. No I'm mistaken - I shit myself laughing at your descriptive way with words!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
MadDadSat Jan-11-03 05:21 AM
Charter member
1854 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#66. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to MadDad (Reply # 48)


          

I'm a little bit biased because my daughter was involved in a bike accident 7 years ago when she was 12. Her girl scout troop went on a bike and hike trip to Kelly's Island on Lake Erie. The girls were out riding their bikes in the late afternoon on their first day there. A dog ran out in front of my daughter's bike, she hit the dog, flipped over her handle bars, and break her tibula and fibula in her right leg. Kelly's Island is a state park, with posted rules that all dogs must be on a leash at all times.
We got a lawyer, filed suit, settled out of court. Wasn't a huge amount of money, just barely enough to buy a new car (she didn't, I'm just using that as an example). The money was put in a trust fund for her until she turned 18. She did use it to pay for a year of college, and still has a little bit left. The lawyer got 25 percent.
I'd do it again.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
mlangdnSat Jan-11-03 07:25 AM
Member since Nov 05th 2002
816 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#71. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to MadDad (Reply # 66)


          

This is the only case in this thread that seems reasonable to me. I would have done the same. You did not say if you sued the state or the dog owner? Who took responsibilty?




Michael


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
MadDadSat Jan-11-03 07:39 AM
Charter member
1854 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#73. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to mlangdn (Reply # 71)


          

We sued the dog owner. His homeowner insurance company paid the settlement. They denied having the dog off the leash at first, but there were several Girl Scout eyewitnesses who saw otherwise. They eventually owed up to it. We could have continued the case into court, but my daughter eventually recovered, all was fine with her leg. They made a proposal, we counter-offered, and they accepted.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
81 NewbeeSat Jan-11-03 11:54 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#78. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to MadDad (Reply # 73)


  

          

That is a law suit I can accept and makes some sense.Compare it to the guy who set the cruise control on his Winnabago and left the cab.I hope most of us can see the folly of awarding that dimwit anything.Also compare it to the robber who got stuck in the garage.These two guys were a menace to the human gene pool.So were the members of the the juries on those cases.
Ok Hal ,Now I know you don't eat at McDonalds but what do you drive?

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
robert70Sun Jan-12-03 09:37 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2002
324 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#85. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 78)


          

Hi Newbee: Just in case you missed the link in message #77 check out
www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx


TTYL Bob

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
81 NewbeeSun Jan-12-03 10:20 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#86. "RE: Tort reform"
In response to robert70 (Reply # 85)


  

          

Thanks much.I did miss that and am happy to learn it was another hoax.It helps heal my faith in mankind.That is the difficulty with the net.It is too easy for an old fart like me to go off the deep end on what seems so stupid and end up looking more stupid than the guy in the Winnabago.So many weird things happen these days that it is hard to separate fact from fiction.Thanks again. :'(

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #11789 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.