The McDonald's Lawsuit You Don't Know
As a personal injury lawyer, I am so tired of people pointing to the "McDonald's case" as proof that the jury system is flawed. Before making any generalizations about our system from the McDonald's case, I encourage you to read this article.
Having lived in New Zealand for over 1 year and having been involved as a claimant in the legal system here, I can tell you with assurance that the US legal system is far better than the "no-fault" system here, where there is no right to a trial or to have your case heard by your peers. Rather, you fate is decided by some pencil-pushing bureaucrat.
posted by Brandon at 8:13 AM
6 Comments:
I tend to generally agree with the article, with one caveat. As we have become more "protected" by the legal system against the "callousness" of corporations who sell products unfit for their advertised purpose just to make a buck (and also, as we have discovered there is a buck or two to be made in our own litigiousness), we have inevitably seen a decrease in common sense and self-protective behavior. If caveat emptor were the standard, a reasonable person would have considerbly more incentive not to place hot coffee between her legs. I agree that one would not anticipate the coffee would be served at 3-degree-burn inducing temperatures, but there is an extraordinary possibility that, being as old as she was, a 10-20 second difference in burn time might not have made any difference -- many older people could not have made use of the lag time to get their clothes far enough away to avoid the burns. So I think ultimately, our culture now begs the question: Is the decline in common sense that we all have somehow observed directly due to the fact that (metaphorically-speaking) one can now place hot coffee between one's legs and hold someone else accountable for the fact that one did so prior to making any assessment of the actual hotness of the coffee and without simply cautiously allowing the coffee some period of time to cool before placing it between one's legs? I agree that McDonald's was callous, and was selling a product unfit for its advertised purpose (at the time of purchase, at least), but the humor comes, unfortunately at the expense of a lady who was very tragically burned, from the metaphor. There are more egregious examples, I am sure (someone out there has placed a running circular saw between his legs and sued someone over it), but the casualness with which a hot beverage, regardless of its precise level of heat, was placed between this lady's thighs and so close to an area where most of us would not wish to be burned, is what is at the heart of the jokes. Many people, myself including, simply cannot imagine putting a freshly hot cup of coffee between their legs in order to add cream and sugar, car or not. I wouldn't do it with coffee I personally boiled to just the temperature the plaintiff's experts would expect coffee to reasonably be served at. That aside, post more about your child. :)
8:41 AM
Kris:
I think that an elderly woman should not be placed in a position where she has to place coffee between her legs. So, I would be interested in the make of vehicle in which she was riding. It would seem that the manufacturer failed to place cup holders in safe and convenient locations, despite knowing that a large percentage of drivers eat and/or drink in their vehicles, including hot beverages. So, liability exists with the vehicle manufacturer as well. ;)
8:50 AM
Ok, ok ...
I may have been joking a little in the last comment. I will agree with you that our culture of blame has led to a death of common sense. In New Zealand, people (and corporations) seem more willing to admit when they are wrong. Of course, the "no-fault" system means that there is not a team of lawyers telling them to "deny, deny, deny."
However, in the US, we cannot go back. Attempts to do that -- workers comp., claims against homebuilders, etc. -- have been a complete failure. Claimants have suffered and bureaucracy has flourished.
The immediate answer in the US is for defendants to get some balls and quit settling questionable claims. Also, it would do well to have the penalties for frivolous lawsuits strengthened, and to have them actually enforced by judges. So long as defendants are scared of juries and judges are scared of appellate courts, we will continue to limp along.
9:03 AM
You are advocating "the Wal-Mart Method," which actually is well-proven to work...for Wal-Mart. Smaller companies cannot afford the cost of litigation versus the opportunity to settle. (I don't if you were following the "Pants Suit," but those dry cleaners offered $12,000 for a pair of lost suit pants, and the plaintiff wouldn't take it -- he was asking for $60+ mil. They finally litigated out of principle, but it probably cost them the business.) So in addition to "the Wal-Mart Method," "Loser Pays" would be nice, followed by "Jurors who can think past the end of their noses and don't give out money to every idiot who can manage two large tears in front of them." Ah, a girl can dream. Maybe you should post further about New Zealand procedure -- I'd be interested to hear the specifics of how things are done, even if you're not comfortable talking about your specific experience.
9:53 AM
WEll, I am glad to read the "rest of the story". I feel guilty for making fun of the lawsuit. I should know better. There are of course, 2 sides to every story and we should be careful to hear the whole truth.
1:20 AM
hey -- what is your new email
4:39 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home