GOP Demonization of Trial Lawyers and How Edwards Will Fight Back If He’s the Democratic Nominee

[Time for change]

Republicans have been expressing nothing but contempt for trial lawyers for many years now. When John Edwards ran for Vice President in 2004 the anti-trial lawyer rhetoric heated up a notch. If he wins the Democratic presidential nomination, that rhetoric will heat up quite a bit more. Edwards is not just any trial lawyer. He is one of the most talented and successful trial lawyers ever to practice law in our country.

When Republican hostility and contempt for trial lawyers first became apparent to me, it was difficult for me to understand. The Republican Party is the party of the rich and powerful. Trial lawyers usually make quite a bit of money. So it would seem that the Republican Party would be very cozy with them. Furthermore, I too held a good amount of suspicion towards trial lawyers. It seemed to me that they made a lot more money than they deserved. I enjoyed lawyer jokes like bigots enjoy ethnic jokes. It seemed to me that since I held both Republicans and trial lawyers in such poor esteem that they should be natural allies.

But I eventually learned that my feelings about trial lawyers at the time were indicative of my ignorance on the subject. The irony is that the extent of my ignorance was largely due to Republican propaganda against trial lawyers – and I didn’t even know it. Like so many other Americans, then and now, I was disgusted at what I perceived as an overly litigious society characterized by a multitude of trivial lawsuits, which I believed led to skyrocketing costs that hurt us all.


The reason for Republican demonization of trial lawyers

As the Party of the rich and powerful, Republicans have long been much more corporate friendly – and consequently unfriendly to ordinary Americans – than Democrats (though there are many Democrats who lean in that direction as well). Far right wing Republican presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have exhibited their corporate affinities largely by using their powers to reduce regulations on corporations that require them to act in ways that reduce the likelihood of damages that they might cause to the American people. Such damages include such things as harm to workers’ health due to dangerous working conditions, harm to the health of consumers who buy dangerous products, harm to the environment, and economic harm accruing through monopolistic practices. Powerful corporations have the money to make political contributions that win them much favorable legislation at the expense of the American people, and corporate friendly politicians are rarely averse to being influenced by those contributions.

But deregulation doesn’t entirely reduce their accountability for the damages that corporations cause. No matter how far deregulation proceeds, under our system of law American citizens have the right to sue corporations who cause them harm. That’s where trial lawyers come in. They are the last line of defense against corporations that are unconcerned about the harm that they cause to others.

Thus trial lawyers represent a great threat to corporate power, which explains Republican contempt towards them. To deal with this problem Republicans have come up with “tort reform”. The main purpose of “tort reform” is to decrease the accountability of powerful corporations for the harm that their actions cause to the American people – which is done by severely limiting the right of the people to seek redress in the courts for such harm. And to give “tort reform” political saliency, Republicans demonize trial lawyers.


An example of how Edwards has held corporations accountable through our tort system

Since John Edwards is bound to be demonized as a trial lawyer if he wins the Democratic nomination, let’s take a look at an example of what that work has entailed. Edwards describes four of his cases in detail in his book, “Four Trials”, but I’ll just describe one here:

Valerie Lakey was a five year old girl who got stuck in a swimming pool because of a defective pool drain which suctioned up 80% of her small intestine, thus requiring lifelong medical treatment costing millions of dollars, and involving the need to receive food through intravenous and gastric tubes for more than 12 hours a day for the rest of her life. Though there was more than one responsible party, I’ll confine this discussion to the liability of the pool products manufacturer, Sta-Rite Industries, who supplied the defective pool drain cover that led to the Lakey family tragedy.

Prior to that tragedy, Sta-Rite already knew that their drain cover was defective, as they had previously been involved in several other claims related to defective drain cover related accidents. Subsequent to those claims, a study had been commissioned and had concluded that “unless deflected by a proper drain cover, the vacuum force created by a pool pump could trap and drown a relatively strong, aware adult” Yet Sta-Rite continued to sell the defective drain cover that they knew to be defective.

Edwards produced an engineer expert witness who testified that a solution to the defective design would have cost two cents per drain cover. Sta-Rite objected to Edwards’ demand for evidence of all previous cases, but the judge denied Sta-Rite’s objection, so Sta-Rite was thereby forced to produce literally a truckload of relevant evidence. The evidence clearly showed that Sta-Rite had been aware of numerous serious injuries resulting from their defective drain cover, yet they didn’t feel it was their responsibility to do anything about it, so they did nothing. Here is an excerpt from Edwards’ jury summation:

How many times has it happened to them?... When it happened to them the first time, what did they do to insure that it would never happen again? What did they do the third time?... the eighth time?... There are thirteen children that we know about so far… It’s continuing to happen.

The jury awarded the Lakey family $25 million, the largest verdict in North Carolina’s history. Sta-Right agreed to pay up immediately, without appeal, if the Lakey family would agree not to pursue punitive damages. Though they clearly would receive much more money than the $25 million in punitive damages if they pursued the case, the Lakeys could not afford to wait because they desperately needed the money for Valerie’s medical care. Edwards was outraged over the offer, but it had to be accepted.


The McDonalds spilled coffee tort case as a prominent example of right wing propaganda

Probably most Americans are at least aware of the McDonalds spilled coffee case, where a jury awarded a woman several hundred thousand dollars after she spilled a cup of McDonalds coffee on herself. The case has become sort of a joke and metaphor for our “out of control” tort system – due largely to right wing propaganda. Few Americans are aware of the facts of the case:

On February 27, 1992, 79 year old Stella Liebeck pulled the lid off a cup of hot coffee she had just purchased from McDonalds, following which some of the coffee spilled onto her lap, causing third degree burns of her genitals, inner thigh and buttocks. She spent 8 days in the hospital undergoing painful skin grafting and debridement of her wounds, following which she had to return to the hospital for additional skin grafting and was immobilized for several months.

Two years after the accident Liebeck wrote a letter to McDonald’s, without financial demands, asking them to please lower the temperature of their coffee. McDonald’s wrote back offering her $800, which angered her and thus motivated her to hire a lawyer. Her lawyer filed suit for $100,000 in compensatory damages plus $300,000 in punitive damages, and the case went to court.

In court, the following salient evidence came out: 1) McDonald’s sold its coffee at 185 degrees F, despite an industry standard of 120-130 degrees; 2) McDonald’s was aware that a burn hazard exists at 140 degrees and that the temperatures at which they pour their coffee into styrofoam cups will burn the mouth and throat; 3) Over a ten year period, more than 700 instances of burns from scalding coffee, including burns of infants and children, had been reported to McDonald’s; 4) During the same period of time, McDonald’s had settled several law suits, most of them out of court; 5) Yet they continued to serve coffee at dangerous temperatures because most of their customers like it like that, since they don’t open the cup or drink the coffee until they get to work, by which time it has had time to cool. Thus, it is a cost-benefit issue for McDonald’s.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages (double what her lawyer asked for), but reduced it to $160,000 because they held her to be 20% responsible for her accident. They also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $480,000. Both sides appealed the verdict, and later they settled out of court for an amount which McDonald’s required (as part of the deal) be undisclosed to the public.


The corporate effort to wreck our justice system

What most opened my eyes to this issue was Ralph Nader’s excellent book, “No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America”. Nader’s book goes into great detail on the many legal mechanisms that corporate America has used to diminish their legal accountability for injuries and deaths that they cause, and the propaganda that they use to convince the American people of the need to diminish their legal accountability.

Nader describes the typical whining by powerful corporations about lawsuits:

The same profitable companies that have told Congress and the media that the product liability "explosion" is driving their business out of business have reported something quite different to investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Time after time, the same companies report in their SEC filings that liability exposure poses no material threat to their bottom line.

Bill Clinton vetoed a 1996 bill that would have greatly limited the rights of Americans to recover damages in product liability cases. But the push continued, culminating in the 2005 “Class Action Fairness Act”, which our Republican Congress pushed through and George W. Bush then signed into law.

With the tremendous power imbalance that exists between wealthy corporations and individual citizens, one of the few ways that people have of fighting back against corporations is to combine together to file class action suits. The “Class Action Fairness Act” severely curtails that possibility by requiring that class action suits be filed in federal rather than in state courts. Virtually all experts who analyzed this bill agree that it will prevent most class action suits from ever seeing the light of day – which indeed was the purpose of the bill.

One of the last chapters in Nader’s book is 64 pages long and is titled “The corporate effort to wreck our justice system.” This excerpt summarized the problem:

This organized attack on the civil justice system is a direct assault on victims. Led by corporate lawyers, corporation-financed “think thanks,” front groups, and campaign-contribution-hungry politicians like (former) Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich… it seeks a radical dismembering of the justice system’s ability to hold corporations accountable to people they have wronged. At its foundation, it is anti-consumer and anti-individual rights. As the nonprofit Alliance for Justice has put it, its agenda seeks to “elevate corporate profits and private wealth over social justice and individual rights as the cornerstones of our legal process”. The tort deform movement is a brazen effort by corporations and politicians beholden to corporate interests to pull off – under the guise of “common sense” reform – a nationwide perpetual bailout for polluters, swindlers, reckless health care providers, and makers of tobacco, defective vehicles, dangerous drugs, and many other hazardous consumer products.

Edwards’ appropriate response to attempts to demonize his trial lawyer work

We all know that if John Edwards wins the Democratic presidential nomination he will be mercilessly pilloried by his Republican opponents as a “predatory trial lawyer”. This is what Nader had to say about the demonizing of trial lawyers:

The tort deformers’ strategy is straightforward: Play on Americans’ suspicions about greedy “shyster” lawyers, i.e., those lawyers who represent individuals seeking compensation for personal injuries. Take the few lawsuits each year where juries award large punitive damages and distort the facts beyond recognition. Spread fears of job loss, of high insurance premiums caused by lawsuits, and of a national economy crippled by a litigation “explosion.”

John Edwards says that he doesn't think standing up for average people is a political liability, and that he will be ready for any such attacks. He says (See last paragraph):

I absolutely believe that what I've been doing for the last 22 years is perfect preparation for going to Washington and advocating for the people… I'm proud of what I have done… I am more than happy to have Valerie Lakey and Joe Blaney, whose wife was killed by a drunk driver a year ago – any of these folks – stand up and speak on my behalf, which I know they will. Whatever issue they raise about that, I intend to take it head-on.

The outlook for an Edwards nomination

Despite the demonization of trial lawyers, and despite Edwards’ constant marginalization by our corporate news media, he comes out better than any other presidential candidate – Democrat or Republican – in head to head match-ups against the opposition party’s candidates. This is how he compares with the two Democratic front runners according to the latest Rasmussen polls:

Edwards: +16 over Romney, +7 over McCain, +9 over Thompson, +12 over Huckabee, even with Giuliani
Obama: +4 over Romney, -2 against McCain, +7 over Thompson, +4 over Huckabee, even with Giuliani
Clinton: -1 against Romney, -6 against McCain, +2 over Thompson, +4 over Huckabee, -1 against Giuliani

If he gets the Democratic nomination, they'll no longer be able to ignore him. When they demonize him, as they will any candidate who threatens their profit margins, I think he'll be ready for them.

[Wiley50]

1. I'm very sick right now, but someone has to kick this excellent thread n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Done.

[mmonk]

3. OK

[Lugnut]

5. Get well soon and...

Allow me the pleasure. :kick:

[Time for change]

43. Thank you for getting this started -- Hope you feel well soon

[pauldg0]

142. Don't forget...................

.............HE IS A CHAMPION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED AND THE MIDDLE CLASS.

I was a Republican and changed Democrat/Independent and used to bad mouth lawyers a lot.

In this case John Edwards has and advantage. He represented and is still representing the disadvanged.....he didn't represent corporations like Hillary Clinton did.

DON'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!.................Settle down now!!

His experience and passion is a sight to behold. I love listening to his speeches.

I am a layed off Engineer in Detroit with no insurance or benefits. He puts a chill up my spine because he represents me and thousands like me!!

GO JOHN EDWARDS

You give me(and all of us) hope!!!

[Kurovski]

4. K&R.

One of the crappy things right-wingers have done is to convince the people who follow (or once followed them) to feel that there's something wrong with lawyers defending their rights.

It's sick.

It's also pretty obvious once you're onto the game.

[Snotcicles]

46. Just look at what they are trying to do to the ACLU. nt

[pauldg0]

141. John's the Man!!!

Don't worry all, He's gonna tak it all!!!!!


EDWARDS 08

[usregimechange]

6. Did you write all of that? Do I cite you? Copying for future reference

and k&r, damn good job!

[Time for change]

106. Thank you. Yes, I wrote it, except for

the stuff in the gray boxes, where I quote others. Please cite whatever you find useful.

[Triana]

7. K & R and bookmarking

for later reference

[usregimechange]

8. Image of burn degrees:

[Warpy]

12. And far worse in the elderly, where underlying muscle tissue

is involved. The injuries in this case were severe and required multiple surgeries and a very long recovery period.

However, the point of this case is that the award was reduced on appeal. This is how the system is supposed to work, and it worked very well in this case. Medical costs were taken care of, pain and suffering were compensated, and McPtomaine's lowered the heat under their damned coffee.

I live in the town where this occurred and kept up with every part of the case. The system worked. Trial lawyers and an appellate court made it work.

[bobbolink]

60. That is certainly a graphic image of what that poor woman suffered!

Thank you so much for posting that!

This is DU at it's best..... great information we can all use to counter the RW!

[Missy Vixen]

9. People demonize attorneys until they need one

We were lucky enough to have an excellent attorney when we went up against an local unscrupulous businessman. She put her heart and soul into our representation, and she took the case for no cash up front, or we never could have hired her. I would recommend her to anyone. The businessman in question can no longer do business in the state of Washington, thanks to our counsel and thanks to Attorney General Christine Gregoire, who's now the governor.

Unfortunately, other states are not quite as consumer-friendly; he's now doing business in a neighboring state.

Julie

[sjdnb]

10. All I want for xMas is

an Edwards nomination ...

For the reasons you cited, and more ...

[Tejanocrat]

11. I read a great blog post on this topic: "The Death of a False Right-Wing Talking Point"

The Death of a False Right-Wing Talking Point:

The right-wing talking point attacking trial lawyers is nothing more than a phony smear designed to silence one of the few voices of the people against unchecked corporate power and a sinister attempt to de-fund progressive politics:

“The drive to limit court-awarded damages in civil lawsuits, often called ‘tort reform,’ usually is framed as a contest between accident victims’ rights and corporations’ desire to be protected from unreasonably high judgments. Increasingly, however, the battle is deeply partisan, as conservative groups try to mobilize the political right and cripple a key Democratic constituency, trial lawyers. . .

....

Media Transparency Org echoes this critical point:

Our report shows that along with the ideological effort to change the public’s views about consumer litigation, the “conservatives” also employ a strong tactical component. We show how the conservative movement seeks to limit damage awards because doing so will “defund” one group of their assumed political opponents, trial lawyers, and thereby limit the litigators’ ability to contribute money and clout to anyone who opposes the Right’s agenda.

Likewise, The American Prospect also documents this false and divisive theme:

The corporate elite and the GOP have three grudges against “trial lawyers.” First, damage awards cost business money when they uncover corporate practices that swindle, maim, or kill ordinary citizens. And as champions of the little guy, trial lawyers are among the few well-heeled professionals who donate more money to Democrats than Republicans. Break their rice bowl and there will be one less source of money for the opposition party.

Lots more at the source.

[Time for change]

112. It's great to know that this right wing talking point may be in the process of dying

I don't think it's dead yet, however, otherwise they wouldn't be using it so much.

I think that whether or not we are finally able to bury it will depend very much on how well we are able to counter their talking points. I believe that having a presidential candidate who is willing and eager to take this on will be very valuable in this effort.

[Tejanocrat]

115. Read the discussion of the Iowa congressional election where the talking point backfired!

[Time for change]

125. That's very heartening. Thank you for the link.

[Mojambo]

13. At the risk of offending our many other great DU posters...

I must say that I find your posts more valuable than any others I read here.

Fantastic work, sincerely.

[Time for change]

107. Thank you so much

That's quite a compliment given the many excellent articles on DU.

[wundermaus]

14. A truly outstanding post!

Thank you very much for your noble efforts to enlighten, inform, and educate!

[The Magistrate]

15. An Excellent Piece, Sir!

Thank you for bringing these matters out in so well written a form.

[bkscribe]

16. Next Steps?

Yes, excellent post, Dad. One of your best: relevant, readable and compelling.

So, where do we go from here? Start getting these memes out NOW. Before the primary. After the primary, it may be too late. The message that John Edwards can and will stand up and defend himself needs to grow. First voters need the real information. Please let someone you know, know.

[bobbolink]

61. Welcome to DU, bkscribe!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

So, is this really your dad?

[Time for change]

109. Yes, I am

I often have her review and edit my posts before I post them.

[bobbolink]

151. What great teamwork!

All your efforts--both of you!--are much appreciated!

:yourock:

[NastyRiffraff]

17. Thanks for this post

I like John Edwards for many reasons; among them is his work as an attorney.

Of course, when the right needs lawyers, they don't hesitate to hire one. It's only attorneys who defend people who are hurt by large corporations that they have a problem with.

[JohnLocke]

18. Incredibly valuable post. Pleased to K&R.

[usregimechange]

19. late night kick

[Two Americas]

20. brilliant post

The Republicans are consistent and united and determined about what they attack - every single aspect of society and government that is of benefit to the average person and the general public. We as Democrats need to match that consistency and solidarity and determination.

Access to the courts for the average person? They seek to destroy it. They can buy justice for themselves.

Representative democracy? They seek to destroy it. They don't need it. We must stand for representative democracy.

Public education? They seek to destroy it. They can afford private schools. We must stand for public education.

Public transportation? They seek to destroy it. They have private jets and limos. We must stand for public transportation.

Public libraries, public parks, public medicine, safety inspection, regulation of the public utilities, food inspection, public access to the public airwaves, equal justice, civil liberties, labor rights - the list goes on and on of the targets the right wingers have mercilessly tried to destroy, but they all have this in common: rich people don't need them, while for the rest of us - 99% of the population - our very survival depends upon them.

We must stand for all of those things, or we will lose them all.



edited for a typo

[Time for change]

123. You've got it down pretty good

If it benefits the public, right wing ideology says it must go, in order to save enough money to make the wealthy wealthier.

Welcome to DU Two Americas :toast:

[Two Americas]

134. thanks Time for change

Glad to be here.

:toast:

[TankLV]

21. That lady was an IDIOT for putting the coffee in her LAP and then OPENING it and DRIVING...

The story very conveniently doesn't mention that "little" point.

She should have gotten NOTHING.

Every child KNOWS that COFFEE IS HOT and YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL when taking a sip.

PERIOD.

This is a prime example of a FRIVILOUS lawsuit that should have NEVER been decided in the idiot lady's favor.

She should have received a DARWIN award...

In this one case, McDonalds was in the RIGHT...

Goddamn stupid people...

And SOME tort reform is actually GOOD.

Did you know that - UNLIKE ANY OTHER PROFESSION - Architets are PERMANENTLY liable for their work - INCLUDING THEIR FAMILY/HEIRS - even for something that is NOT THE FAULT OF THEIR DESIGN/DILLIGENCE?

That's a FACT.

Every other profession has a Statute of Limitations that limit responsibility to SEVEN YEARS at most, and then LIMIT it to the CORPORATION or at least to the INDIVIDUAL that did the work.

There is NO statute of limitations for Architects...

There is NO blanket simple answer to such a complicated issue as Tort Reform and Liability issues...

[Two Americas]

22. courts can decide

Many people had been seriously burned, the company was serving coffee at a much higher temperature than their competitors, they were passing it through one of those little windows in a dangerous way, had not properly trained employees, and the jury saw internal memos from execs proving they knew about the problem and decided that it was an "acceptable risk." They took the risk, people were seriously hurt, they were found negligent by a jury that carefully considered all of the evidence, they paid the price. The victim had medical bills that ran to 6 figures.

Right wing talk radio made a huge to-do about this - it was an orchestrated campaign, and it happened to coincide with Republican efforts to pass "tort reform" measures around the country. I am relying on my memory here, but you are repeating the misleading information that was put out on the radio at the time.

Even if a horribly burned victim is, as you say "an idiot" and "stupid," your lack of compassion and your anger toward the victim is a little disturbing.

Even if your fellow citizens are all "idiots," that is no cause to turn the keys to the henhouse over to the fox.

[NewJeffCT]

24. You should also have the expectation that when they hand you the coffee

that you should be able to handle it without injury. It very easy for me to see a person at a drive-thru handing a coffee to a person and that person being startled the coffee cup is too hot to handle and dropping it in their lap. The person working at the drive-thru is likely used to handling hot coffee, so a person receiving the coffee is likely unaware that it could be too hot to handle.

[usregimechange]

32. I agree, the kid who got killed by a lion at the zoo should have watched

the #@#%$ out! If a lion starts chacing you at the zoo, wouldn't you run or something?

[bkscribe]

33. First of all, you have the facts wrong

The coffee didn't spill when she drove. It spilled when she opened the lid and the car was stationary.

There is no good reason for coffee to be that hot, and people should expect that they will be able to handle a product without having to be hospitalized by it. McDonald's already had several hundred reports of serious injuries -- why shouldn't they pay for causing it one more time, when they had refused all the time to do anything to lower the risk?

Yes, we should have some tort reform. Mainly, it should be much easier for ordinary people to sue corporations that cause them grave harm. As it is now, the odds are greatly stacked against ordinary people because of the huge money difference.

[colinmom71]

36. Umm, she wasn't driving....

She was the passenger in the car that her son was driving. You seem to be ill informed of that "little point".

That and the fact that there's a difference between hot and scalding. A person can enjoy a *hot* bath but be severely or even mortally wounded by a *scalding* bath... McDonald's had known at the highest corporate levels that their policy of keeping coffee in the 170-180 degree range was quite capable of causing scalding and severe injury (and a history of such injuries were well documented across the USA), and yet they refused to adapt the policy until the lawsuit forced them to reconsider.

As for your statute of limitations issues mentioned when it comes to civil tort suits, the vast majority are actually limited to two to three years from the date of injury (depends on state laws). There are some exceptions for discovery of gross negligence after the two year mark but they also only allow a certain time frame of exception from the limitation. Also, "every other profession" is not automatically protected by a limitation. OB/GYN's for example can be held liable for as much as 21 years should a minor's injury be found to be caused by a doctor's gross negligence as birth...

I do agree with your statement here, albeit likely in a different manner - "There is NO blanket simple answer to such a complicated issue as Tort Reform and Liability issues..."

[Missy Vixen]

45. You can type in CAPS all you want

It does not make your assertions true. The OP clearly stated that Ms. Liebeck was not driving the vehicle, that McDonald's had been previously warned that the coffee was served at a temperature that would cause injury, and that the final determination stated the accident was deemed to be 20% her fault. Despite the bleatings of Rush Limbaugh and so many other RW wackos, the jury awarded Ms. Liebeck money and her medical bills were paid.

I'm wondering if those who are so supercilious about "Goddamn STUPID people" would be quite so smug if they found themselves the victim of third degree burns on upper legs, genitals, and buttocks, requiring extensive skin grafting and debridement? I might also mention that if you had read the OP's original comments, you'd know that Ms. Liebeck didn't ask for a cent initially. She wrote to McDonald's to urge them to lower the temperature their coffee was served at, they wrote back with an insulting financial offer ($800 wouldn't have even covered her initial hospital visit,) and they didn't do a thing about it until it actually cost them money and did public relations damage.

McDonald's was at fault. Period.

Julie

[treestar]

52. But the jury decided it

After they heard all of the evidence.

The label "frivolous" gives judges the power to lock the courtroom from people who would have gotten a favorable jury verdict.

Judges are powerful enough as it is. Most of them think they have been appointed royalty in "their courtroom." They generally make it hard enough to get into court with a good case.

The McDonald's case wasn't "frivolous" by definition - the plaintiff won. For all we know, we only know of it because of frivolous defenses (which take place every day too, but always seem swept under the rug by tort deformers).

[bobbolink]

63. I *knew* there would be someone who would DEFEND the right wing

I guess you missed the point where McDonald's KNEW they were serving coffee that could inflict severe burns?

I guess you missed the point where the jury considered her to be 20% responsible?

I guess you missed the point where... THE JURY WAS THERE AND YOU WEREN'T.

Just how much of our legal system would *you* dismantle for the benefit of corporations?

[AZ Criminal JD]

72. I *knew* there would be someone who would DEFEND stupidity

I guess you missed the point where McDonald's KNEW their customers wanted the coffee that hot because most of them don't open the cups until they get to work. Now these people have to have cold coffee because of one stupid customer.

[annabanana]

75. (the hit & run guy finds his low account echo). . . .n/t

[flyarm]

91. yep :)...you called annabananait !! eom

[JAbuchan08]

79. Oh, the poor put-upon coffee drinkers

how dare they have to drink their coffee, sooner, quicker or reheated - all because some idiot suffered third degree burns on their genitals :sarcasm:

I suppose anyone who has ever spilled something on themselves is now by definition an "idiot," especially those who "should have known" the coffee was hot? Well yeah, I expect to have hot coffee, but not so hot that I risk a hospital visit if I spill some.

Frankly, back when McDonalds was still brewing their coffee at this temperature I never considered that they were doing it for the benefit of people who wanted to wait until they were back at the office to drink their coffe. What about the convenience of people who want to drink their coffee right away?

Once again "convenience" for some rules out what's best for everyone else.

[AZ Criminal JD]

80. You didn't read the OP

It states that McDonalds knew that Most, not some, of their customers wanted coffee that hot. McDonald's sells hundreds of millions of coffee cups every day. Where are all the hospital or medical cases if this was such as problem? One idiot. And the world has to change for her "convenience." I doubt she is still around, I'm sure Darwin took care of her.

[Time for change]

87. "Where are all the hospital or medical cases if this was such as problem? One idiot"

Maybe you missed this part of the OP: "Over a ten year period, more than 700 instances of burns from scalding coffee, including burns of infants and children, had been reported to McDonald’s".

Those are just the cases that were reported to McDonalds. Nobody knows how many actual cases there were.

[flyarm]

94. thank you Time for change..for this thread ..alot of the bullshit needs to be cleared up

seems even dems who call themselves libs get the repig talking points and can't get beyond them.


Tort reform is bullshit..it ought to be called corporation protection!

and the Idiots were McDonalds that ignored the danger their coffee posed to their customers.

their coffee used to be so damn hot one could not get their cream or sugar in without risking burns.

and i laugh at those who say they want tort reform..there already exists that..i tried to sue dr's and a hosptial for killing my mother of mal practice ..but if a woman is over a certain age..and on social security and not a wage earner..just try to find a lawyer who will take your case!!

i tried 40 lawyers..they said it would cost so much to bring a mal practice case.. and my mother was virtually worth nothing ..because she had no wages that were lost with her death,.and she was too old to count in our society.

the lawyers all said the same thing..unless it is such a cut and dried case..( removing the wrong arm in a surgery..) no one wants to invest the time or effort for a senior citizen woman..

fly

[AZ Criminal JD]

95. Let's see. 700 cases in 10 years. That's 70 a year

Compared with the billions of cups of coffee a place like McDonalds sells in a year. So the billions of people have to give up coffee that is hot (as they like it) so 70 people who aren't paying attention don't dump coffee on themselves. And what are "infants and children" doing with the coffee anyway?

[Time for change]

103. Those are cases that are reported -- which is generally only a small fraction of the total cases

So you don't believe in the jury system? You don't think that juries have the right to decide when compensation is indicated?

[AZ Criminal JD]

104. Any case that resulted in injury would be reported

That is the real world. Yes, as a criminal defense attorney, I believe in the jury system. That doesn't mean I think they come to the correct verdict in all cases. I am entitled to have a brain.

[Missy Vixen]

108. If you were a criminal defense attorney

you'd know the facts of Stella Liebeck's case, (instead of the RW talking points,) wouldn't you?

Julie

[AZ Criminal JD]

110. Sweety, I am a criminal defense attorney

Not a tort lawyer.

[depakid]

122. I find that VERY difficult to believe

because nothing that you've written in this thread evinces the slightest understanding of the law.

Now, I know law schools have dumbed down these past 15 years or so- but still, one would expect to find at least some kernal of comprehension about the nature of the case....

[AZ Criminal JD]

155. I am sorry I don't meet your standards for "understanding the law"

Because I don't agree with your take on the case means I have no "understanding of the law." BTW I was in law school more than 15 years ago so I escaped what you called the "dumbing down" of the law schools. Lucky me. What evidence do you have for that statement? Did you go to a dumb law school? Maybe that contributes to your "understanding" of the law.

[Two Americas]

124. process versus outcome

As an attorney I am sure you know that all parties are not always happy with every outcome of every trial. As an attorney, you could share with us the errors that you believe were made in this case, if there were any. As a citizen, personally angry about the outcome for some reason, the fact that you are an attorney carries no special weight. I certainly hope that your anger and your focus on outcome over process is not something that you take to work with you.

[AZ Criminal JD]

156. If you read the thread you will see the only reason that I

brought up that I was an attorney was that a poster asked me if I believe in the jury system. So, since I occasionally work with juries, I thought I should add that I was an attorney in my response to the question. As I stated I have not studied this case as I am not a tort lawyer. Any attorney reading these posts would chuckle because they seem to imply all attorneys are familiar with all types of cases. Nothing can be more further from the truth. I think juries are a problem with civil cases in general. Modern juries are not prepared to take in evidence given by expert testimony and they are susceptible to emotional appeals on both sides.

[Time for change]

135. And you know that how?

[AZ Criminal JD]

157. Common sense. I have some.

If someone receives a third degree burn, as a result of an experience in a fast food place, they are going to report and attempt to get some money from it. Third degree burns have to be medically treated so they would be reported to doctors, insurance companies, all sorts of places. Please get out of the house once in awhile.

[Time for change]

163. That's bullshit

I'm a physician who's worked extensivel with injury reporting systems. Only a very small fraction of them are reported to where they're supposed to be reported, even though that's required by law. Physicians rarely report injuries or diseases that are required to be reported by law. Numerous studies have documented that.

But you have so much "common sense" that you're able to divine that they're ALL reported. Wow, I wish I had your talents.

[AZ Criminal JD]

164. Of course you wish I had my talents. If you did you would have

gone to law school instead of medical school.

[JAbuchan08]

88. I did read the OP

and it is a logical fallacy at best. The fact that most McDonalds customers (according to McDonalds) want their coffee dangerously hot, only proves that people who prefer dangerously hot coffee bought it at McDonalds. In other words it doesn't demonstrate that McDonalds was losing any market by shifting away from dangerously hot coffee only that they had already succeeded in cornering the market on dangerously hot coffee, while (presumably) alienating anyone who did not want their coffee to be dangerously hot.

Have you ever spilled coffee? Have you ever spilled incredibly hot coffee? Have you ever spilled skin-grafts-on-your-genitals hot coffee?

Really is it a fair assumption to think that anyone who has ever spilled coffee is deserving of the "too dumb to live" award?

Maybe someone who plays chicken with a train, or someone who fishes with dynamite, but I don't think its reasonable to call people idiots because they don't expect their coffee to be heated to hospital-visit temperatures.

It's like the guy who is on his cell-phone at a cross-walk and gets nailed by a car, you can say he's an idiot for being on his cell-phone and not paying attention, but if he had the light then whatever inattention he displayed is secondary to the fact that the driver who hit him ran a red light.
Granted it is not a perfect analogy but it is within the bounds of reason to expect that the food or drink you order is not going to be extremely dangerous in the normal process of handling it. Face it, most people will spill coffee on themselves once or twice in their life-time. Do you really think that a fumble of that underwhelming magnitude is deservant of third-degree burns? If so, you're much less charitable than I.

[AZ Criminal JD]

96. The woman had a much greater risk of injury traveling in the car

Than spilling her "dangerously" hot coffee. By your logic we should ban drive-thrus at fast food places so that people don't risk the injury of an auto accident. Far greater chance of that than spilling coffee. I don't accept your assumption the coffee is "dangerously hot." No one appointed you the coffe king. It is at the temperature most people like it.

[EOTE]

118. By your logic...

we shouldn't have speed limits because anyone who is stupid enough to get in a car accident deserves their demise. No one is suggesting banning coffee, just serving it at a reasonable temperature. Of course, no one is accusing you of being anything close to honest either.

[AZ Criminal JD]

158. Reasonable temperature to who? To you?

What makes you the judge of coffee temperature?

[Time for change]

126. Right -- and if she sustained an injury because of a defective car she would have the same right

to sue as she would over the scalding coffee.

[AZ Criminal JD]

160. Not right

Very few car accidents are the result of defective cars. Almost all are the result of human error. Unless you feel cars are inherently defective. Then you must call for the complete banning of cars.

[Cookie_In_PA]

147. Their coffee was always way too hot

If, heaven forbid, a person actually wanted to drink their coffee and eat their breakfast at the same time while at McDonald's, you were SOL. I could never drink my coffee at a McDonald's until I was done eating and ready to leave, because it was too damned hot! On top of that, they fill the cups so high that it's really easy to spill some when you pull the lid off to add sugar and cream. The act of drinking a cup of coffee should not present a scalding hazard, for God's sake.

And I'd love to know where McDonald's got its original defense of claiming that most of its customers wanted their coffee that hot. Did they do a survey or poll, did they ask every single customer, do a focus group? What? Saying they "knew" this could have been just a way to cover their butts. Just because somebody can't be bothered to reheat their coffee once they get to work doesn't mean the rest of the population should be at risk of physical injury. Your arguments are beyond ridiculous.:grr:

[AZ Criminal JD]

161. What make you the judge of how hot coffee should be?

If you didn't like the way McDonalds makes their coffee, don't go there. Why should the rest of the customers be penalized because of the way you like your coffee? BTW McDonalds' defense came in as the result of survey evidence at the trial. The woman's lawyer would have had the right to keep it out if it was not accurate, to the court's satisfaction, but that attempt failed. So you are wrong about that as well as everything else. Congratulations.

[hfojvt]

153. since she already lived to the age of 81 and had children

Darwin was a miserable failure. Super-heated coffee is a convenience. Avoiding third degree burns ranks a little higher than that.

[AZ Criminal JD]

162. Darwin wasn't just about reproduction

It is also about wasting the planet's resources after reproduction. One can always hope. Billions of cups of coffee every year and a few challenged people get third degree burns. If we are going to set standards according to those odds then almost all consumer and retail items would be banned.

[flyarm]

93. oh please..you are killing me with common sense!!

but thank you anyway!!:hi: :thumbsup: :applause: :applause: :rofl:

fly

[Missy Vixen]

105. The reason why the coffee was kept at such a hot temperature

in the first place was because it masked the fact that the coffee wasn't FRESH. The temp of the coffee had nothing to do with whether or not their customers were consuming it immediately or not. McDonald's could continue serving coffee at these temperatures and would not have to toss and remake the pot when it didn't sell as quickly as they'd hoped it would, thereby saving something like thirty cents a pot. This came out in Stella Liebeck's suit.

Julie

[flyarm]

90. nonsense..your statement is nonsense..many of us put cream and sugar in our coffee

meaning we need to open the cups..

obviously you drink yours black!!

fly

[AZ Criminal JD]

98. I do drink mine black

But that wasn't the point. Most people don't actually drink the coffee, especially at the drive-up window, until they get someplace at the end of their car ride. They might open the cup to put in sugar and cream but they don't drink until they get to work or wherever.

[flyarm]

114. oh bullshit..i drink my coffee right away..otherwise i would wait till i got where i was going

and get coffee there..and it isn't only working people who get their coffee at MCD's..i get mine on my way to work out..and drink it till i get there!

before i retired i drank my coffee on the way to work. I wasn't able to take coffee into work.

don't project what you do..you do not know what others do.

fly

[AZ Criminal JD]

117. And I don't care what you do

Just don't impose your standards on the rest of us.

[flyarm]

119. ahhh but you have projected what all others do..so you obviously think you know what i do!

and you don't nor do you care..nor do i care what you do ..but you can not speak for others and what their practices are.
You like myself, can only speak for yourself, unless you have data showing otherwise.

fly

[AZ Criminal JD]

121. Of course there is data

In the case at hand McDonalds was selling billions of cups of coffee at a certain temperature that people liked. If they didn't like it they would go to another place. McDonalds rarely has a monopoly on fast food anywhere.

[bobbolink]

150. We can all only hope that you end up on the wrong end of corporate stupidity.

It's the only way some of you learn empathy.

So long now.

I"ve given up on this brand of hostility.

[AZ Criminal JD]

159. I don't think you have given up the hostility. I feel sure about that.

[mmonk]

67. So the McDonald's situation is the norm and thus class action lawsuits

are reduced on their merits as a consequence as thus all are frivolous? The rightwing needs you on their radio and talk shows. You've accepted their premise. Legal protections for the people against powerful corporations and their high powered attorneys on retainer needs to take a back seat I guess.

[Jim Lane]

70. Concerning your assertions about architects

You write:

"Did you know that - UNLIKE ANY OTHER PROFESSION - Architets are PERMANENTLY liable for their work - INCLUDING THEIR FAMILY/HEIRS - even for something that is NOT THE FAULT OF THEIR DESIGN/DILLIGENCE?

"That's a FACT.

"Every other profession has a Statute of Limitations that limit responsibility to SEVEN YEARS at most, and then LIMIT it to the CORPORATION or at least to the INDIVIDUAL that did the work.

"There is NO statute of limitations for Architects..."

Sorry, but this smells fishy to me.

First, statutes of limitations (the rules that set time limits for suits) shouldn't bar a cause of action before it accrues. If an architect designs a building negligently, with the result that ten years after it's built it collapses and injures someone, then, yes, the victim can and should be able to recover against the architect. How otherwise? If you set a seven-year limit (or three years, which, as another contributor pointed out, is more common as the actual limitations period), then the victim would be without recourse. The time limit begins to run when the cause of action accrues, so the architect would be liable until three years after the building's collapse. That's as it should be.

Second, are you telling us that if the architect dies before the lawsuit ends, then the injured victim can recover against the architect's family members? What state's law has that provision, and can you give a citation? (Obviously the plaintiff would have a claim against the deceased architect's estate, which might reduce the amount available for the architect's heirs, but that's true of any defendant in a civil suit, not just an architect -- and, again, is as it should be. Your wording suggests, quite implausibly to my mind, that the plaintiff could go after the other assets of family members or heirs.)

Third, are you telling us that an architect can be held liable if someone is injured in a building, even if the architect wasn't at fault? That also sounds dubious. Again, what state's law has that provision, and can you give a citation? (There are some areas of law where "strict liability" applies, and a defendant can be held liable without a showing of negligence -- but those cases are limited and I doubt that this is one of them.)

I'm guessing that your post is a garbled version of the doctrines I've mentioned above. An architect's malpractice might have consequences years after it occurs, and any successful suit would reduce the amount the architect's heirs get; but you've skewed those facts in a potentially misleading way. I'd appreciate any clarification you can give.

[JohnLocke]

73. Thank you for that.

I doubt a reply is forthcoming, though. :)

[last1standing]

92. Why are you spreading corporate lies?

The woman in the lawsuit was not driving when she spilled that coffee and no amount of ALL CAPS will change that fact. She had parked her car in the parking lot of the McDonald's in question. McDonald's policy was to give their customers cups of coffee that were 40-60 degrees hotter than most competitors and then give them packets of cream and sugar that could be added only by removing the lid. They did this through a drive-thru window which ensured that all of the customers would be in cars. In addition, McDonalds had already been informed by over 700 previous complaints that this was a bad policy.

So why didn't you mention any of this in your rant? Why did you tell lies to the rest of DU? Was it ignorance or malice? It had to be one or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

(And before you attack my link as a dreaded "wiki-link", all the information is cited and reliable. Take some time to actually learn the facts before spreading lies.

[lildreamer316]

116. So. I have a car that does not have any useable cupholders..

..because I cannot afford another car and car payments. Therefore, the ONLY place I have to put a cup is IN MY LAP.
And as I am sure many people can attest, sometimes the lids on these cups are not put on properly. Sure, I check them, if I have time before the angry person behind me starts honking the horn for me to get the puck out of the way.
IF the cup spills at this point, usually I just curse and bitch. I don't mind taking responsibility for somethig stupid like that However:
I should have a reasonable expectation that if the cup spills, I shouldn't have to have a SKIN GRAFT.

[colsohlibgal]

23. Excellent Post Indeed

It's very nice knowing, and entirely believable considering what I know about him, that Edwards would aggressively respond to attempts to smear him for being a trial lawyer.

We need a candidate who would not meekly allow himself to be "swift boated" as Kerry did in 2004, and Edwards is our best bet to actually turn being attacked like that into an advantage

I'm hoping so much for an Edwards victory on January 3rd. He's already beginning to get a little more attention from the MSM, hopefully that will pick up after the Iowa, painful as that might be for them.

[IndyOp]

54. Welcome to DU, colsohlibgal!

:hi:

[Time for change]

127. Thank you -- I think you're right, if he wins Iowa they won't have any choice but to cover him

Welcome to DU :toast:

[NewJeffCT]

25. great post, but...

I've been an active member of DU since 2003 and don't remember Edwards fighting back in 2004 vs the trial lawyer smears. I know a guy that voted Bush solely because of those smears - said he disagrees with Bush on almost everything, but hates trial lawyers so much that he voted Bush.

[bkscribe]

34. I recall Edwards responding in a straight forward manner to questions about his trial lawyer work

when challenged during the 2004 campaign.

Also, keep in mind that Edwards was not ready to concede the election when Kerry conceded it, though he had to go along with it of course because it wasn't his decision. As the presidential nominee, rather than the nominee for the # 2 spot, he'll have a lot more leeway to decide the directions of the campaign.

[NewJeffCT]

35. welcome to DU

But, there is a difference between responding to questions when asked, but aggressively going out & challenging smears. If nobody asks the questions or nobody is there to hear the answers, it's not good enough.

Kerry didn't aggressively respond to the Swift Boat smears for a month and lost 10 points in the polls during that month. Dukakis was up 18 points in the polls when the Willie Horton ad came out. He never adequately responded, let alone aggressively responded, and ended up losing in a near landslide.

And, I heard little from Edwards from when Kerry put him forth as his VP nominee until he debated Cheney. That may not have been entirely Edwards' fault - but he should have been able to have gotten onto those Sunday talking heads shows just about every week if he had been really aggressive.

I recommended the thread because I thought it was an excellent post and I hope it is true.

[B Calm]

26. It is hypocritical of republicans when about 75% of the republicans in congress

are rich connected lawyers!

[treestar]

53. As such they represent Big Business

They wouldn't know what to do with an ordinary plaintiff. The great unwashed, whom they never have to talk to!

[Kansas Wyatt]

62. That represent Corporate America

Yet they try to claim they are for 'average folks.'

[B Calm]

65. It amazes me why any working man would vote republican. They

must enjoy masochism..

[mac2]

100. Any working or otherwise woman shouldn't vote

Republican either. They don't serve our best interest. Fact is they want us poor and home. Silent mostly!!

[bvar22]

101. It amazes me that any working man (or woman)....

...would support a DLC Democrat.





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[The Wizard]

27. The right to be fairly compensated

for damages in a Court of Law is but one of many the corporate fascists and their Republican front men are trying to eliminate. Their goal is eliminating a middle class that has the resources to fight back when wrongfully damaged by corporate greed and concern for the bottom line as opposed to the inalienable rights and well being of the citizenry.
Anyone offended by the concept of trials by juries of peers is offensive to the democratic principles as prescribed by the founding fathers and therefore must be seen as reactionary zealots opposed to the conservative image they effectively use as a cover for their radical proclivities.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Trial lawyers are necessary, yes. But they would have done better

for themselves in the PR department if they hadn't been so calculatingly cold about the cases they picked up. I don't mean about determining if they could win a case or lose it. I mean about not taking on a case because they thought they would not make enough money in the settlement. i.e. not enough damage or disfigurance.

[KittyWampus]

29. The GOP won't need Edwards' lawyer past. They only need his record as Senator and POTUS candidate

last time around to contrast with his current rhetoric.

And the fact he invested in Hedge funds knowing full well how and where much of that money is invested.

[Doctor_J]

30. Let's not forget that Smirk sued a rental car company after his

daughter got drunk and crashed one of the company's cars. Or how uber-winger Larry Clayman is probably the most prodigious suer in US history.

More hypocrisy from the Family Values Party.

[bobbolink]

64. More information, pleeeez. This is the kind of thing we need to know to counter

the crap we will be hearing.

You KNOW the our beloved media won't bring out the whole truth!


Thanks!

[Doctor_J]

84. Here you go

http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/020126.htm

Scroll down to "ultimate hypocrites"

[bobbolink]

149. Great information! Thanks so much. I now have it saved for future reference.

:yourock:

I really appreciate you bringing this up... great ammunition. :evilgrin:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. K & R, this well written, superbly sourced post. Thank you.

:kick: MKJ

[H2O Man]

37. Very good!

Years ago, I was seriously injured in an automobile accident while on the job. The accident was 100% the other fellow's fault; he was chatting on a cell phone, and ran two stop signs and one red light, hitting my vehicle at 55 mph, and knocking me into a third vehicle.

There was a period of time when I was out of work, with only a tiny income. It wasn't allowing me to make ends meet. There wasn't enough food for everyone in the house, and I couldn't cut & split wood to heat the house. Grocery stores, oil companies, and the bank holding my mortgage did not respond to my situation by say, "Sir, you appear to be a decent man, who is a victim of circumstances. Let us help you."

My employer did not exercise any human compassion. My years of service no longer meant a thing to them. Besides having to deal with extensive surgery, physical therapy, and chronic pain, the treatment I was subjected to caused it to be a dark and depressing time in my life.

Very few people went out of their way to assist me in my time of need. Among the few who did was the trial lawyer who helped me at a time when I was at risk of losing the house I had worked for. I've been dirt poor at different times in my life, and did not want to have my children experience the things I did. I'm happy to say that a trial lawyer helped me with that. I think about that when I listen to John Edwards.

[Time for change]

133. That's so sad

I take it that you're doing a lot better now.

I too had a good experience with a lawyer in my only lawsuit that I've ever brought. I sued the US Air Force to let me out. They claimed that I had signed on for an extension of my tour, and I told them if they could find the document with my signature on it I'd agree to stay. They said that they couldn't find it but they knew I had signed it. My lawyer told me we had a 50% chance of winning, so I went for it because I was wasting my life in the USAF. They conceded the case before it ever went to trial.

[Froward69]

38. Wheres Joe Biden?

"Edwards: +16 over Romney, +7 over McCain, +9 over Thompson, +12 over Huckabee, even with Giuliani
Obama: +4 over Romney, -2 against McCain, +7 over Thompson, +4 over Huckabee, even with Giuliani
Clinton: -1 against Romney, -6 against McCain, +2 over Thompson, +4 over Huckabee, -1 against Giuliani"
Wheres Joe Biden?
whereas Biden beats them all in the GE...

Place a safe bet. BIDEN for PRESIDENT '08

[Time for change]

42. Biden

Against Giuliani: -2
Against McCain: -13
Against Romney: Even
Against Thompson: Even

[Froward69]

47. where are those numbers from?

The ones I read in the Rocky mountain news about a month ago were different. then again poll numbers are meaningless at this stage.
I find most Ind.'s, Republicans and Liber.'s are overwhelming for Biden.

Just what i see and experience. I could be wrong.

[Time for change]

56. they are from the Rasmussen poll that I referenced in the OP

I agree that polls are of limited value at this stage, but certainly not meaningless. I think that the fact that Edwards consistently does better in poll matchups against Republicans than either of the two front runners is something that should be taken VERY seriously. I think that it strongly suggests that he will be more electable than either of those two, especially since they have had way more media exposure than him, and have spent far more money, and yet they still do far worse in polls against Republicans.

The polls on Biden mean less, since he his campaign has received very little media exposure as yet. He's actually doing quite well in those polls, considering how little exposure his campaign has received IMO.

[Catchawave]

39. Four Trials is an excellent book !

It's the reason I climbed aboard the Edwards Train in 2004 :D

[bobbolink]

66. I'm reading FOUR TRIALS now, and am engrossed in it!

It's a side of our legal system we need to know more about!

Erin Brockovitch did much to increase our awareness.... Edwards can now implement it!

[asdjrocky]

40. Wonderful work.

Happy to K&R.

[mdmc]

41. Edwards has made a fortune protecting folks from evil corporations

It is a good gig for him. I want him to stop the corporations from being legally evil.

Anyway, best of luck to Edwards.

[Plucketeer]

44. Great read!

I have a better understanding now. I've presumed that John would/will be hammered with such inflated information all along.
I really got my hackles up the other day when they asked me how on earth I could promote an ambulance-chaser to lead our country! I realized tho, that his comment was an ill-informed portent of things to come. :grr:

[blueDachi]

48. I like Edwards too.

Even though I don't think Edwards is one, I'd still consider an "ambulance chaser" to be a big step up from the psychopathic moron we have right now.

[mac2]

102. The President we have now doesn't know the law

like Edwards and feel obligated\picked by God not the voters to makes his own. What Constitution or laws of the United States?

[treestar]

49. People don't hate lawyers as much as they hate the Railroads

Or to modernize that, Insurance Companies and Big Business

This is one area where the right wing should not be allowed to sit back and do the framing. They just assume agreement with their "greedy trial lawyers" meme.

Another thing wrong with it is it goes as if lawyers can function without clients. They are in effect calling the plaintiffs
"greedy."

They have always wanted to stop "frivolous lawsuits" as if the system wouldn't make such lawsuits losers. Contingency fee attorneys would not take cases that wouldn't make them any money. For once the right wing's precious "market" works. Frivolous defense goes on, however, as the hourly-paid Big Firm lawyers have a motive to drag out a good case.

No, they just want good cases to be barred from the system, too.

[go west young man]

50. Great piece as always Time For Change.

[balantz]

51. Great info.

K & R

[lisainmilo]

55. Morning Kick!

Great piece! :kick:

[BlueJac]

57. There is hardly a person in this country that will not need........

A trial lawyer at one time or another. The company that caused the wrongful death of my father found that out!


The congress is made up of plenty of lawyers. Fighting for people that have been mistreated by hugh corporations is a necessary occupation.

[bobbolink]

58. Trial Lawyers == "Last line of defense" for consumers!

Thank you so much for this fine and informative piece!

We can all learn how to explain and defend our democracy, and speak up for the common folk against the corporations.

In fact, we MUST learn to speak up, because the disinformation campaign against us is huge and strong.

I didn't know all the facts of the McDonald's coffee case, either, and I very much appreciate your efforts in this!

Hearty thanks!

:applause:

[Time for change]

138. You're quite welcome

Their lies make my blood boil :mad:

[bobbolink]

152. Your boil is very productive. Now if we can just raise the temperature

so that the froggie comes to an immediate boil, and wakes people from their apathy.

[Kansas Wyatt]

59. All Edwards has to say when they demonize him....

'I represent you when Greedy Corporations harm you.'

Everyone in America knows who deserves to be trashed after that.

[sandyd921]

68. Our courts and trial lawyers are one of the checks and balances

on unrestrained capitalism and especially important in these times of laissez-faire capitalism. As a gifted trial lawyer, John Edwards will be especially well equipped to do battle with the corporate and money interests that have created the current mess we're in.

Go John go! :applause:

[sandyd921]

69. Excellent post!

Well written and well reasoned! Thank you!

[slackmaster]

71. Republicans LOVE trial lawyers when they need their services

Just like everyone else does.

[annabanana]

74. Short Version: "CORPORATIONS HATE TRIAL LAWYERS"

People are thankful beyond belief when they can get justice from a thieving, murderous corporation.

When your air has been poisoned, your water, your soil, your food, the toys you get for your children to play with... HOW CAN YOU GET JUSTICE?.. Your need a lawyer that will fight for you.

When you have a terrible accident, and your insurance company won't pay, or makes you go through months and months of paperwork then denies your claim because your paperwork was late, (or on the wrong color paper). . . You need a lawyer that will fight for you.

When your medicine, that was supposed to be safe and effective, kills you... Your family will need a lawyer to make that pill-pushing corporate killer PAY..(and pay so much that they can't afford to do it again)...

Any official framers out there? Help yourself. .

[mac2]

99. Yes...bring on the lawyers

Bush and Cheney used them to win an election in 2000. They use them when it serves their best interest. So should we.

When do those impeachment and RICO trails begin?

[Ninga]

76. The more we learn, the more we understand and the more we then make good decisions when we vote

This is a compelling and outstanding OP.

Thanks once again to the tremendous effort to keep us educated.

:hi:

[ChiciB1]

77. I've Always Tried To Tell Many People The Difference Between

Edwards and the so-called "ambulance chasers" I have found that some people just don't get it. Especially those who DON'T want to get it. I have even seen it posted here at DU as an ATTACK on Edwards, and these people SHOULD know better!

Most of you here at DU SHOULD know, but I do see it come up and scratch my head. And to ALL of the "newbies" I see here just in the thread WELCOME! Many of us who support Edwards see him as very genuine and we ARE a LOYAL bunch!

Thanks for the post, and thanks for joining us! And as usual, I say please DONATE to Edwards if you can.

Go, Johnny, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[usregimechange]

78. kick

[alfredo]

81. Fuck corporate lawyers.

[hvn_nbr_2]

83. Trial lawyers vs. corporate lawyers

Every time they say "trial lawyer", we should respond with "corporate lawyer." And point out that Pukes gave us a chief justice who was cover boy model for "Corporate Lawyer" magazine.

[alfredo]

86. They hate Edwards because he whupped their butts.

If he doesn't get the nod, I want him as Attorney General.

[Uncle Joe]

82. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[EVDebs]

85. The old 'Stella Awards' thing is being sent around again

so be on the lookout for emails or mailings with this stuff in it:

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

I got sent an email the other day with this Stella Awards crap (a hoax from 2001 no less) the other day and I went ballistic. I emailed the sender back with this from snopes and gave all a warning not to try this again. If Stella had single payer she may not even have tried to sue Micky D's in the first place come to think of it.

I'm now vote #80 for 'greatest page'. Kick this !

[Time for change]

139. These people wouldn't know the truth if it smacked them in their lying faces

That's a very useful link.

[LSK]

89. K&R

[JohnLocke]

97. Another kick - we'll see if we can get 100 recs.

[rgbecker]

111. Great Post! How about some truth about MD's liability insurance while...

You're at it? How much goes where? and why? Thanks.

[Time for change]

113. That's greatly overblown too -- as a cause of rising health care costs

One of the biggest targets for “tort reform” is medical malpractice. The claim is frequently made that medical malpractice claims are the major cause of rising health care costs in our country. Yet, a study showed that in states that had limited jury awards for malpractice, doctors’ insurance premiums rose 48% more than in states that hadn’t done that. And it is well documented that both medical malpractice payouts and premiums account for less than 1% of health care costs in the U.S. And in any event, if the medical profession adequately policed its own, malpractice premiums and payouts would be considerably less than they are.

[MissDeeds]

120. Very pleased to K & R n/t

:kick:

[IowaGuy]

128. How is he going to fight back with no money?

Edwards opted to take public financing dollars for his campaign. This makes him obligated to follow certain rules that other candidates don't have to.
As of Jan 1st, Edwards will be capped to spending a maximum of 50 million dollars between Jan. 1st and August 28th. He's going to blow through most of that just trying to get to Super Tuesday. After that, he'll be lucky to cover Joe Trippis's bar bill for the next 6 months. The repugs will have unfettered access to the media and air waves to frame and slime him any way they can for 6 solid months.

This isn't a criticism of John directly...I get why people want to support him. I wanted to also, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go trudging around in the cold, snow and ice standing up for and next to, and trying to get a guy elected that chooses to go to a shoot-out at the OK corral with no bullets in his gun.

[Time for change]

132. Money isn't the only way to fight back

What you say and how you conduct your campaign can be just as or more important as how much money you use.

Despite his lack of spending he has still managed to beat every Republican in head to head poll match-ups. I also believe he will win Iowa because in that caucas state the intensity of voter commitment is more important that mere preference.

Many Democrats were very upset with Russ Feingold in 1998 when he severely limited his spending on principle (he was trying to get his Mc-Cain Feingold campaign finance bill through Congress), and he was greatly outspent and yet he won.

[waiting for hope]

129. Kick and Rec -

For truth and Edwards! Thank you, well done!

[ms liberty]

130. I'm in NC, and I remember the Lakey case because of the pool drain...

I worked in hotel management at this case was going on. When that detail came out every pool was ordered shut down by the health department until they were inspected, and if the faulty drain found, replaced and made safe. I don't remember if this was just state-wide or if it was nationwide. I can remember talking about it, and the case, with my GM and Chief Engineer...it seems like this happened either during the pool season or just before, because that would have made it a big deal in our business. When he ran for President in 2004 is the first time I connected him to that case.
I have a lot of respect for lawyers; I'll stand with them before I'd stand with the corporations and their slavish minions the Replicans.

[ileus]

131. Everyone want's to win the lawsuit lottery, why not support John???

[Two Americas]

137. really?

So would you say that the legal system is skewed to favor the poor over the wealthy? Consumers over corporations? Employees over employers? Would you say that corporations are at a disadvantage when they are up against citizens? Would you grant corporations more power, more immunity, more influence over government?

Upon what basis would you restrict a citizen's access to courts? Access to counsel? What restrictions would you place on juries?

[jgraz]

144. good luck with that

I'm sure I join everyone here in wishing you the good fortune of having your intestines sucked out through your anus so you can score some of that corporate cash.

[JohnLocke]

136. Final kick for more recs!

[AzDar]

140. K & R....

:kick:

[jgraz]

143. Dammit! I was celebrating Christmas when I could have been rec'ing this thread!!

:cry:

[penguin7]

145. The interests of lawyers and the People are not the same

Shame on this post for claiming that they are.

[saracat]

146. Your interests and those of the people are not the same.

[Time for change]

148. I never claimed that

Sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. Some laywers when they represnt victimized persons in court really do care. Others don't. I think that most people who read John Edwards' book will believe that he really does care.

[mmm413]

154. I've worked for lawyers for 30 years

in all fields of the law. Trial lawyers aren't the problem. Corporate lawyers are. This BS about trials raising costs and putting doctors out of business is also BS. The problem is the insurance companies. Tort "reform" was enacted in Texas a number of years ago and now, before taking a case, a lawyer has to determine, not whether he'll win or lose, but can he break even. Edwards being a trial lawyer, to me, is one of his greatest assets.