Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway -LAT

[Rose Siding]

snip>
Although the origins of the tales are unknown, some observers, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, say their wide acceptance has helped to rally public opinion behind business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system by restricting some types of lawsuits and capping damage awards.

"I am astonished how successful these urban legends have been in influencing policy," Turley said. "The people that created these stories did so with remarkable skill."

The tales are making the rounds at a time when business lobbyists and conservative politicians seem to have gained the upper hand in their drive to rein in lawsuits — a campaign that they call tort reform but that trial lawyers and consumer groups say is an assault on the legal rights of ordinary people.
.....
And some polls suggest that there is public support for further change.

For example, a survey conducted for the American Tort Reform Assn. in 2003 found that by a ratio of 2 to 1, respondents believed that lawsuits were harming the economy and stifling job creation. In a survey released in June by Common Good, a conservative legal reform group, 83% of respondents said it was too easy to file invalid lawsuits, and 55% agreed with the statement that "many people use the justice system almost like a lottery — they start lawsuits to see if they can win millions."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tortmyths14aug14,0,2326040.story?track=tothtml

[Captain Hilts]

1. The woman getting millions from McDonald's spilled coffee is the worst.

She got nowhere near millions. The judge struck down the award, yet EVERYONE mentions this ruling.

I worked in 'Tort reform' and, yes, it's funded by the tobacco and pharmaceutical firms - AND WAS KARL ROVE'S BREAD AND BUTTER FOR YEARS.

[Silverhair]

3. It is also an attempt to hurt Democratic Party finances.

Trial lawyers are overall huge contributors to the Democratic Party & to Democratic candidates. Serious tort reform would greatly damage their income, and thereby their contributions.

BTW - I have met a few people who actually make their living by suing. They look for situations in which they can sue some company with deep pockets, and usually settle for a few thousand in "go away" money.

Edit: typo

[DefenseLawyer]

5. It's not just the damages that are distorted in that case.

McDonald's Corp. had intentionally kept its coffee at extremely high temperatures and that over 700 people had been burned by their coffee. McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforced a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
The woman had offered to settle the case for $20K but McDonald's refused. The corporation got nailed by the jury because they purposely offered a dangerous product knowing that some might get hurt, but did so anyway to make a buck.

[Captain Hilts]

9. YES! They had received hundreds of complaints about the coffee temp.(nt)

[rsdsharp]

10. The compensatory damage award was $200,000.

This was reduced to $160,000, because Mrs. Liebeck was found to be 20% at fault by the jury. The orginal punitive damage award was 2.2 million dollars -- two days profits on McDonalds' coffe sales world wide. The judge reduced this to three times compensatory damages, or $480,000. The total judgment was $640,000, and it was settled on appeal (meaning that McDonalds almost certainly paid less than that).

These points are never mentioned by the right wing. The only thing they ever get right is the fact that she spilled the coffee while holding it between her legs. They don't know, or ignore that she was a passenger in the car, and that it wasn't moving at the time of the accident. They also ignore the fact that the spill occurred while she was trying to put cream and sugar into the cup. She had to take the top off to do it, because McDonalds' corporate policy prohibits the store from putting those items into the cup before it's served.

[WildClarySage]

2. The irony of it all... a jury of your peers may be competent to sentence

you to death, but isn't competent to determine damage awards when big corporations are involved. Apparently we should trust them to police themselves. They've done such a bang-up job of it in the past... *sigh*

[TahitiNut]

7. And the whole premise of a corporation is LIMITED LIABILITY.

The reason 'corporations' were even invented was to limit the liability an owner has for the harms caused by the economic activities (s)he undertakes - limited to only the assets of the 'corporation' rather than the owner's. It was seen as a way of reducing risk - and 'risk' is the sole rationale for 'profit'. Well, risk has never been lower and profits never higher as owners now have the best government their money can buy. And still they're not sated. Never will be.

[Egalitariat]

4. My neighbor was the top lawyer for a major Railroad before he retired

He said he paid about $3 million a week in settlements and verdicts. He said about a lot of it was for asbestos related suits, which he didn't mind paying.

But he said almost a third of that was for personal injury claims of people (not employees) who were trespassing when they were injured. He hated paying those.

[slor]

6. I am printing copies to pass out...

to my wife's rethug family.

[enki23]

8. these legal urban legends are related by our fucking president

and all his cynical, lying, scumbag compatriots. may they all rot in their imaginary fucking hell for all imaginary eternity.