The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on October 21, 2017, 03:26:22 pm
-
Judge tosses $417M award against Johnson& Johnson
LA Times, Oct 21, 2017, ROBERT JABLON/Associated Press
A judge on Friday tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder for feminine hygiene.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company's request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial that ended with the award two months ago.
Nelson also ruled that there wasn't convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice and the award for damages was excessive.
The decision will be appealed even though Eva Echeverria has died, said her attorney, Mark Robinson Jr.
More: http://www.latimes.com/sns-bc-us--talcum-powder-cancer-lawsuit-20171021-story.html
-
The award was tossed based on the propriety of the jurisdiction iin which it was brought -- nothing to do with the merits of the case. The estate's lawyers will appeal, but even if they lose, they could always file another suit in the proper forum. Barring settlement, this case could be litigated for years. And there are others pending.
I'm sorry about the woman's death, but talcum powder has never been definitively proven as a cause of ovarian cancer.
-
The award was tossed based on the propriety of the jurisdiction iin which it was brought -- nothing to do with the merits of the case. The estate's lawyers will appeal, but even if they lose, they could always file another suit in the proper forum. Barring settlement, this case could be litigated for years. And there are others pending.
I'm sorry about the woman's death, but talcum powder has never been definitively proven as a cause of ovarian cancer.
Merits of the case? Nothing would deserve giving one woman $417 million.
-
The award was tossed based on the propriety of the jurisdiction iin which it was brought -- nothing to do with the merits of the case. The estate's lawyers will appeal, but even if they lose, they could always file another suit in the proper forum. Barring settlement, this case could be litigated for years. And there are others pending.
I'm sorry about the woman's death, but talcum powder has never been definitively proven as a cause of ovarian cancer.
I have to question how the powder or any mineral contaminant therein went against the natural flow to get that far upstream, anyway.
Then it has to be the cause of the cancer.
-
Talcum Powder has been used for centuries. This was just a frivolous lawsuit by a person who is trying to score big bucks. This goes right up there with the person who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot when it spilled on her.
-
Talcum Powder has been used for centuries. This was just a frivolous lawsuit by a person who is trying to score big bucks. This goes right up there with the person who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot when it spilled on her.
That McDonald's suit may not be as frivolous as you think it is. The coffee was served at a lot higher temperature than is "normal".
-
That McDonald's suit may not be as frivolous as you think it is. The coffee was served at a lot higher temperature than is "normal".
What is the "normal" temperature for hot coffee? If you get any colder, you end up with a mocha frappichino.
-
Talcum Powder has been used for centuries. This was just a frivolous lawsuit by a person who is trying to score big bucks. This goes right up there with the person who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot when it spilled on her.
At least the person who spilled hot coffee had an injury, albeit something that was predictable (coffee is hot, after all).
In the talcum powder case, proof of the product causing injury has to be produced. Not to mention the mechanism by which the powder got from one end of the pipe all the way to the other, anatomically speaking, against the normal and natural flow of things.
-
What is the "normal" temperature for hot coffee? If you get any colder, you end up with a mocha frappichino.
It's normally served around 155. The coffee the woman received from McDonald's was up at 190.
-
At least the person who spilled hot coffee had an injury, albeit something that was predictable (coffee is hot, after all).
In the talcum powder case, proof of the product causing injury has to be produced. Not to mention the mechanism by which the powder got from one end of the pipe all the way to the other, anatomically speaking, against the normal and natural flow of th
ings.
I think that the McDonald's case "settled" out of court, These are when lawyers get greedy.
On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered a documentary about tort reform problems titled Hot Coffee.[35] A large portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered only minor superficial burns. The film also discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit and referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts.[7] It contends that corporations have spent millions promoting misconceptions of tort cases in order to promote tort reform. In reality, the majority of damages in the case were punitive due to McDonald's' reckless disregard for the number of burn victims prior to Liebec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
-
The McD's case was not thrown out.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
-
It's normally served around 155. The coffee the woman received from McDonald's was up at 190.
Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
-
The McD's case was not thrown out.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
he judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[18] Yes you are correct it was not thrown out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
-
The McD's case was not thrown out.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in England failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restauants
-
I get sick and tired of scumbag lawyers trying to extort money from others thru the legal system...in which we all windup paying for their parasitic behavior.
The civil tort system needs to be changed to the plaintiff loser pays the legal fees of a winning defendant AND the plaintiff's lawyer if they sign a contingency agreement for say 40%, then they are liable for paying 40% of the winning defendant's attorney fees. If the plaintiff has no money, then the plaintiff's lawyer is on the hook for 100%.
Let's see how these scumbags like getting soaked out of their money.
No more handing out free lottery tickets to parasitic scumbag lawyers.
-
Point being, in the McDonald's case, there was injury. It was caused by the coffee being hot (something to expect, and 185 degrees instead of 190 would probably not make much differences to her lap). If that temperature was excessive, apparently the court agreed.
However, it isn't proven the talcum powder caused ovarian cancer. Normal usage of a topically applied powder would likely not bring it into contact with the ovaries. There had to be some quirk of usage which defies ordinary conceived practice in order to get that far into the reproductive plumbing, considering the natural flow of things is toward atmosphere and not toward the ovaries. If this powder is a cause of cancer, I would expect there would be instances where Fallopian tubes, the Uterus, Cervix, Vagina and labia would have developed cancers as well. Those instances do not seem to be in evidence, even though they should be subject to increasingly greater exposure to the alleged carcinogen by virtue of their proximity to the application site.
Needless to say, babies should be covered with tumors...
-
I get sick and tired of scumbag lawyers trying to extort money from others thru the legal system...in which we all windup paying for their parasitic behavior.
The civil tort system needs to be changed to the plaintiff loser pays the legal fees of a winning defendant AND the plaintiff's lawyer if they sign a contingency agreement for say 40%, then they are liable for paying 40% of the winning defendant's attorney fees. If the plaintiff has no money, then the plaintiff's lawyer is on the hook for 100%.
Let's see how these scumbags like getting soaked out of their money.
No more handing out free lottery tickets to parasitic scumbag lawyers.
They are scumbags. I was sued by an illegal citizen because he collided into my car. I had his butt deported when the case ended. Made damn sure from ICE that he boarded that bus and thrown out from the United States.
-
Point being, in the McDonald's case, there was injury. It was caused by the coffee being hot (something to expect, and 185 degrees instead of 190 would probably not make much differences to her lap). If that temperature was excessive, apparently the court agreed.
However, it isn't proven the talcum powder caused ovarian cancer. Normal usage of a topically applied powder would likely not bring it into contact with the ovaries. There had to be some quirk of usage which defies ordinary conceived practice in order to get that far into the reproductive plumbing, considering the natural flow of things is toward atmosphere and not toward the ovaries. If this powder is a cause of cancer, I would expect there would be instances where Fallopian tubes, the Uterus, Cervix, Vagina and labia would have developed cancers as well. Those instances do not seem to be in evidence, even though they should be subject to increasingly greater exposure to the alleged carcinogen by virtue of their proximity to the application site.
Needless to say, babies should be covered with tumors...
Its just a bunch of greedy ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a hand out. We end up paying for it as consumers
-
The McD's case was not thrown out.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
What an uppity bitch. Love you calling shit out.
-
Its just a bunch of greedy ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a hand out. We end up paying for it as consumers
I guess I'll put it this way. In the event someone's negligence causes me injury, I will want to be compensated. Not made into an overnight millionaire, but compensated justly. So, eliminating the right to bring civil suit or for the court to set compensation on a case by case basis is not something I want to do.
But the basic formula is this:
There has to be injury. No injury, no money, burden of proof on the accuser.
The use or consumption or some other attribute (usually a material, design, or workmanship flaw) of the product has to be the cause of the injury.
Ideally, the company or person whose actions caused the injury has to be aware that the product or action could be reasonably anticipated to cause injury by virtue of inherent danger, negligence, or faulty design or construction of the product. However that awareness may not have to be present.
Unfortunately, there no longer has to be an expectation that people will have enough common sense to not be injured by using a product incorrectly. (That's why there are pages of instruction manuals which say things like "Do not use this electric hair dryer while showering." and "Do not run over living things with your lawnmower, serious injury or death may result.", because such admonitions are an affirmative defense against being sued over the unfathomable ability of consumers to do stupid things with products.)
However, now the company has to have failed to anticipate the way the consumer would misuse the product no matter how stupid, and warn against doing so.
That has shifted the burden to the producer (another reason for offshoring manufacturing to subsidiary or foreign firms). So we don't just pay for it as consumers, we pay for it as producers, too, by the loss of jobs.
-
I guess I'll put it this way. In the event someone's negligence causes me injury, I will want to be compensated. Not made into an overnight millionaire, but compensated justly. So, eliminating the right to bring civil suit or for the court to set compensation on a case by case basis is not something I want to do.
But the basic formula is this:
There has to be injury. No injury, no money, burden of proof on the accuser.
The use or consumption or some other attribute (usually a material, design, or workmanship flaw) of the product has to be the cause of the injury.
Ideally, the company or person whose actions caused the injury has to be aware that the product or action could be reasonably anticipated to cause injury by virtue of inherent danger, negligence, or faulty design or construction of the product. However that awareness may not have to be present.
Unfortunately, there no longer has to be an expectation that people will have enough common sense to not be injured by using a product incorrectly. (That's why there are pages of instruction manuals which say things like "Do not use this electric hair dryer while showering." and "Do not run over living things with your lawnmower, serious injury or death may result.", because such admonitions are an affirmative defense against being sued over the unfathomable ability of consumers to do stupid things with products.)
However, now the company has to have failed to anticipate the way the consumer would misuse the product no matter how stupid, and warn against doing so.
That has shifted the burden to the producer (another reason for offshoring manufacturing to subsidiary or foreign firms). So we don't just pay for it as consumers, we pay for it as producers, too, by the loss of jobs.
They want to be millionares overnight. First they shop around, then they get bottom feeding lawyers who want a piece of that pie. The company wants to settle because of the "bad pr" it brings and its cheaper to settle it than bring it to court. The guy who sued me was represented by a bottom feeder. I took it to court and it was discovered that he was a chronically arrested and deported. He ended back in Mexico when it was all over.
-
They want to be millionares overnight. First they shop around, then they get bottom feeding lawyers who want a piece of that pie. The company wants to settle because of the "bad pr" it brings and its cheaper to settle it than bring it to court. The guy who sued me was represented by a bottom feeder. I took it to court and it was discovered that he was a chronically arrested and deported. He ended back in Mexico when it was all over.
We have 1.22 million lawyers in America. To me, that is 1.22 million bottom feeders.Over 70% of the worlds lawyers live in the U.S.
The U.S. has over 900,000 lawyers !
That�s one lawyer for every 300 Americans.
Washington D.C. boasts 1 lawyer for every 22 people!
Number of Law Students Enrolled :� 125,000
Number of New Lawyers every year : 40,000
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~verwyc/Chap4law.htm
-
They want to be millionares overnight. First they shop around, then they get bottom feeding lawyers who want a piece of that pie.
"Bottom feeding" lawyers will work the cases for a contingency fee. This enables people who are injured but have no money to hire a lawyer to seek payment for damages sustained by genuine negligence. The pedestrian who was hit by someone texting and driving for instance, who suffers long term debilitation from their injuries. Liability limits on insurance policies may not be high enough to compensate the victim, and the insurance company may just cut a check for that limit and be done with the case, leaving someone with serious and ongoing medical expenses. Those 'ambulance chasers' enable people who have been genuinely injured to be compensated for that expense and injury.
Frankly, I'm all for that, and the attorney's pay should be factored in, too. Not all liability cases are unjustified, nor are the amounts sought for compensation, although a few are ridiculously so.
The guys who bill millions for very little work on things like the tobacco lawsuit or other more egregious seriously padded bills (like some class action suits where the class members get a certificate to spend with a company they will never do business with again, and the attorneys get a large check) are the real bottom feeders.
-
"Bottom feeding" lawyers will work the cases for a contingency fee. This enables people who are injured but have no money to hire a lawyer to seek payment for damages sustained by genuine negligence. The pedestrian who was hit by someone texting and driving for instance, who suffers long term debilitation from their injuries. Liability limits on insurance policies may not be high enough to compensate the victim, and the insurance company may just cut a check for that limit and be done with the case, leaving someone with serious and ongoing medical expenses. Those 'ambulance chasers' enable people who have been genuinely injured to be compensated for that expense and injury.
Frankly, I'm all for that, and the attorney's pay should be factored in, too. Not all liability cases are unjustified, nor are the amounts sought for compensation, although a few are ridiculously so.
The guys who bill millions for very little work on things like the tobacco lawsuit or other more egregious seriously padded bills (like some class action suits where the class members get a certificate to spend with a company they will never do business with again, and the attorneys get a large check) are the real bottom feeders.
.Over 70% of the worlds lawyers live in the U.S.
The U.S. has over 900,000 lawyers !
That�s one lawyer for every 300 Americans.
Washington D.C. boasts 1 lawyer for every 22 people!
Number of Law Students Enrolled :� 125,000
Number of New Lawyers every year : 40,000
They have no morals exept to the Almighty Buck!! I thank God every day by showing that guy by having his butt thrown out of the country.
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~verwyc/Chap4law.htm
-
We have 1.22 million lawyers in America. To me, that is 1.22 million bottom feeders.Over 70% of the worlds lawyers live in the U.S.
The U.S. has over 900,000 lawyers !
That�s one lawyer for every 300 Americans.
Washington D.C. boasts 1 lawyer for every 22 people!
Number of Law Students Enrolled :� 125,000
Number of New Lawyers every year : 40,000
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~verwyc/Chap4law.htm
Yep, but some of them handle wills and probate, others title searches for real estate and mineral rights, some handle criminal cases and have nothing to do with torts. Some, like Barack and Michelle Obama don't practice law at all.
-
Yep, but some of them handle wills and probate, others title searches for real estate and mineral rights, some handle criminal cases and have nothing to do with torts. Some, like Barack and Michelle Obama don't practice law at all.
Very few. The majority I have encountered have been criminal. And William Shakespeare was right about the lawyers.(Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2)
-
Very few. The majority I have encountered have been criminal. And William Shakespeare was right about the lawyers.
:beer: (Just think of how much we would have saved in legal fees!)
-
:beer: (Just think of how much we would have saved in legal fees!)
The legal system is bleeding us dry.I am willing to bet some of their cronies have targeted this site(and others) from time to time for copyright. I wonder how much the owners have to pay in legal fees.
-
Very few. The majority I have encountered have been criminal. And William Shakespeare was right about the lawyers.(Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2)
888high58888 888high58888 888high58888
-
They want to be millionares overnight. First they shop around, then they get bottom feeding lawyers who want a piece of that pie. The company wants to settle because of the "bad pr" it brings and its cheaper to settle it than bring it to court. The guy who sued me was represented by a bottom feeder. I took it to court and it was discovered that he was a chronically arrested and deported. He ended back in Mexico when it was all over.
And unfortunately was probably back in this country before the bus that drove him to Mexico made the return trip.....
-
What an uppity bitch. Love you calling shit out.
I like for information to be accurate. If I'm going to have an opinion that's not even worth the price of a too hot cup of coffee it can at least be based on correct information.
-
And unfortunately was probably back in this country before the bus that drove him to Mexico made the return trip.....
Yes. He probably was back the next day. But now he has a record. He wrecked my car that I had bought two weeks earlier. He had the gall that it was my fault. I had to spend $10,000 in legal fees.
-
888high58888 888high58888 888high58888
Thank you.
-
Yes. He probably was back the next day. But now he has a record. He wrecked my car that I had baught two weeks earlier. He had the gall that it was my fault. I had to spend $10,000 in legal fees.
That really stinks. I'm sorry. Sometimes it feels like there is no justice.
-
That really stinks. I'm sorry. Sometimes it feels like there is no justice.
My justice was knowing that ICE picked him up and threw him out of this country.
-
My justice was knowing that ICE picked him up and threw him out of this country.
What also irks me, is that when we was exchanging information he was speaking perfect English. At the hearings, he suddenly needed the aid of a Spanish interpreter.
-
.Over 70% of the worlds lawyers live in the U.S.
The U.S. has over 900,000 lawyers !
That�s one lawyer for every 300 Americans.
Washington D.C. boasts 1 lawyer for every 22 people!
Number of Law Students Enrolled :� 125,000
Number of New Lawyers every year : 40,000
They have no morals exept to the Almighty Buck!! I thank God every day by showing that guy by having his butt thrown out of the country.
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~verwyc/Chap4law.htm
I worked for attorneys for 35 years. Yes, there are quite a few of them who are what you call "bottom feeders." But the vast majority of those I've encountered are decent, hard working guys and gals who only want what's best for their client and are representing them to the best of their ability under the law. Unfortunately, the shysters are the ones who give the rest of the attorneys a bad name. They are the ones we hear about, while the decent attorneys do their job quietly.
Yes, we do have plenty of lawyers, but believe it or not, there are actually fewer than there were many years ago when I was a young pup. At one time, the legal profession was considered recession proof. Large corporations employed huge legal staffs plus numerous outside firms to do their legal work. Not anymore. Many of those corporations folded and the ones which remain have trimmed their legal staffs considerably. If they do hire an outside firm, it's usually one of those mega-firms with offices all over the world, as opposed to hiring numerous firms in each city, state or country. Meanwhile, law schools were still recruiting more and more students, even though the market for lawyers has faded away considerably. Many of today's graduates either practice solo (not easy to do) or they end up working in another field.
-
I worked for attorneys for 35 years. Yes, there are quite a few of them who are what you call "bottom feeders." But the vast majority of those I've encountered are decent, hard working guys and gals who only want what's best for their client and are representing them to the best of their ability under the law. Unfortunately, the shysters are the ones who give the rest of the attorneys a bad name. They are the ones we hear about, while the decent attorneys do their job quietly.
Yes, we do have plenty of lawyers, but believe it or not, there are actually fewer than there were many years ago when I was a young pup. At one time, the legal profession was considered recession proof. Large corporations employed huge legal staffs plus numerous outside firms to do their legal work. Not anymore. Many of those corporations folded and the ones which remain have trimmed their legal staffs considerably. If they do hire an outside firm, it's usually one of those mega-firms with offices all over the world, as opposed to hiring numerous firms in each city, state or country. Meanwhile, law schools were still recruiting more and more students, even though the market for lawyers has faded away considerably. Many of today's graduates either practice solo (not easy to do) or they end up working in another field.
Every attorney I have encountered wanted one thing: $$$$$$$ They work for a firm for a while get their experience and open their own fiirms. They are a cancer on American society. Then they look on how to get more money. That is why no one trusts lawyers.
-
My justice was knowing that ICE picked him up and threw him out of this country.
888high58888
-
888high58888
The day they threw his butt out, I bought the entire bar two rounds of drinks.
-
The day they threw his butt out, I bought the entire bar two rounds of drinks.
LOL. Love it.
-
Yes its good to have a lawyer but when we have most the lawyers in the industrialized world there is a problem. I went to the local courthouse to get a ticket fixed, I had tons of lawyers handing out their cards. I walked out with 20 cards from lawyers from the courthouse. If you need a lawyer, you can't get a decent one because of the prices.
-
Every attorney I have encountered wanted one thing: $$$$$$$ They work for a firm for a while get their experience and open their own fiirms. They are a cancer on American society. Then they look on how to get more money. That is why no one trusts lawyers.
A lot of attorneys end up leaving because they can't cut it at a large firm. I once was assigned to an attorney who got the job only because he was married to the daughter of the CEO of the firm's biggest client. He had graduated in the bottom third of his class at some no-name law school and couldn't find a job otherwise. Of course, he was an awful attorney -- lazy and incompetent. At one point, he even asked me to do something that could conceivably had gotten me into trouble for practicing law without a license. Of course, I told him no. Eventually, even the big bosses who hired him had to let him go. Last I heard, he was practicing criminal law solo in a crumbling building in the bad part of town. I also believe he is no longer married to the CEO's daughter.
-
LOL. Love it.
You need to remember the people who write the laws are lawyers. They are not ordinary citizens. They are the firms who write the laws.
-
A lot of attorneys end up leaving because they can't cut it at a large firm. I once was assigned to an attorney who got the job only because he was married to the daughter of the CEO of the firm's biggest client. He had graduated in the bottom third of his class at some no-name law school and couldn't find a job otherwise. Of course, he was an awful attorney -- lazy and incompetent. At one point, he even asked me to do something that could conceivably had gotten me into trouble for practicing law without a license. Of course, I told him no. Eventually, even the big bosses who hired him had to let him go. Last I heard, he was practicing criminal law solo in a crumbling building in the bad part of town. I also believe he is no longer married to the CEO's daughter.
Excellent Point. When you graduate from the bottom third thats a huge red flag. Thank God we have laws that we can fire a incompetent lawyer.
-
I have to question how the powder or any mineral contaminant therein went against the natural flow to get that far upstream, anyway.
Then it has to be the cause of the cancer.
@Smokin Joe
Obviously, the mind goes to the way tremolite is causing mesothelioma as a direct irritant. But don't assume that's the mechanism. Many cancers can develop in quite weird ways, with some inhalation carcinogens not causing lung cancer, but oddly causing bladder cancer, for example.
There's a possibility talcum powder, whether tremolite-containing or not, on external genitalia could trigger some hormonal changes, for example (perhaps by artificially irritating or drying tissues). This is purely hypothetical -- my point is that biochemical effects aren't necessarily direct.
All that being said, I'm glad this was tossed. There wasn't nearly enough evidence available to demonstrate the alleged link.
-
@Smokin Joe
Obviously, the mind goes to the way tremolite is causing mesothelioma as a direct irritant. But don't assume that's the mechanism. Many cancers can develop in quite weird ways, with some inhalation carcinogens not causing lung cancer, but oddly causing bladder cancer, for example.
There's a possibility talcum powder, whether tremolite-containing or not, on external genitalia could trigger some hormonal changes, for example (perhaps by artificially irritating or drying tissues). This is purely hypothetical -- my point is that biochemical effects aren't necessarily direct.
All that being said, I'm glad this was tossed. There wasn't nearly enough evidence available to demonstrate the alleged link.
I can see metabolites or pass-through carcinogens causing the requisite biochemical changes, but have difficulty with inert (unabsorbed, nonmetabolized) substances causing biochemical effects without direct contact. In this instance, direct contact would require a level of insertion that is beyond what I would think would be 'normal' use.
If you run across anything to the contrary, though, please ping me and link it. I'm willing to read it.
-
We have 1.22 million lawyers in America. To me, that is 1.22 million bottom feeders.Over 70% of the worlds lawyers live in the U.S.
The U.S. has over 900,000 lawyers !
That�s one lawyer for every 300 Americans.
Washington D.C. boasts 1 lawyer for every 22 people!
Number of Law Students Enrolled :� 125,000
Number of New Lawyers every year : 40,000
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~verwyc/Chap4law.htm
Look in any Yellow Pages phone book. The category by far with the most big ads, page after page of them, is lawyers.
Daytime TV...perhaps around 1 out of 4 ads is for lawyers wishing to attract clients so they can extort more money from the legal system from defendants with deep pockets.
Doesn't our society see something inherently wrong with all this? Society is rewarding parasites rather than producers.
-
I guess I'll put it this way. In the event someone's negligence causes me injury, I will want to be compensated. Not made into an overnight millionaire, but compensated justly. So, eliminating the right to bring civil suit or for the court to set compensation on a case by case basis is not something I want to do.
But the basic formula is this:
There has to be injury. No injury, no money, burden of proof on the accuser.
The use or consumption or some other attribute (usually a material, design, or workmanship flaw) of the product has to be the cause of the injury.
Ideally, the company or person whose actions caused the injury has to be aware that the product or action could be reasonably anticipated to cause injury by virtue of inherent danger, negligence, or faulty design or construction of the product. However that awareness may not have to be present.
Unfortunately, there no longer has to be an expectation that people will have enough common sense to not be injured by using a product incorrectly. (That's why there are pages of instruction manuals which say things like "Do not use this electric hair dryer while showering." and "Do not run over living things with your lawnmower, serious injury or death may result.", because such admonitions are an affirmative defense against being sued over the unfathomable ability of consumers to do stupid things with products.)
However, now the company has to have failed to anticipate the way the consumer would misuse the product no matter how stupid, and warn against doing so.
That has shifted the burden to the producer (another reason for offshoring manufacturing to subsidiary or foreign firms). So we don't just pay for it as consumers, we pay for it as producers, too, by the loss of jobs.
<<< In the event someone's negligence causes me injury, I will want to be compensated. >>>
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'm not a lawyer, certainly I don't wish to be one, but my understanding is that unless the lawsuit is considered to be frivolous, then a winning defendant rarely if ever can collect attorney fees from the losing plaintiff. And it is very hard to get a lawsuit to be considered frivolous.
Everyone should and is entitled to their day in court if need be. Nobody is disputing that if they have a legitimate case. But if they don't, both plaintiff AND the plaintiff's lawyer need to be held financially liable for wasting the defendant's time and money.
I think this simple rule would eliminate most actually frivolous lawsuits, and rein in lawyers which in today's litigious society, lawyers are rampantly out of control.
-
Talcum Powder has been used for centuries. This was just a frivolous lawsuit by a person who is trying to score big bucks. This goes right up there with the person who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot when it spilled on her.
Google the images of her burns. The jury decided the sum, and it was based on two days' savings that McDonalds had by keeping their coffee at 190 or above. The woman burned just wanted her medical bills taken care of.
-
@stephen50right
There was an attorney in Pittsburgh whose only client apparently was himself. He would sue anyone he thought wronged him. If a judge would throw out his lawsuit, this attorney would then sue the judge. Judges were afraid of him. He could tie them up in lawsuits for years, costing them huge amounts of money. Once he sued a dentist (a client of the firm I was working for at the time) because the root canal performed on him was painful. Well, I've never had a root canal, but even I know from those who have had it done that is not a pleasant experience. The case was obviously frivolous, but no judge would dare toss it out. Haven't heard anything about him lately. If he is still alive, he has to be far up in years.
This attorney is the extreme. Most litigators won't take a case unless it has merit, and even then, they will try to settle rather than go to trial. If a client has been injured, the attorney will try to get only what is needed for the client's living expenses and in cases where a client may never be able to work again, financial security. A reputable attorney will explain that a legal action is not intended to make the client wealthy.
By the way, those attorneys whose ads you see are plaintiffs' attorneys. They advertise heavily because unless they have a winning track record and a high volume of cases, they don't make any money. Usually, they take cases on a contingent fee -- that is, whether or not they get paid depends on whether or not they are successful in getting money for their clients. If the clients lose, the firm gets nothing. The fee is a percentage of whatever the amount of money received and the maximum is dictated by state law. In Pennsylvania, the max is 40%, but most firms will take 33-1/3% or less. In negotiating a settlement or deciding on a dollar figure to sue for, the lawyer's fee is included. Contingent fee arrangements allow the plaintiffs to retain counsel without going broke. if they had to pay an attorney a straight hourly fee, they would be ruined.
As I admitted earlier, there are plenty of bad apples in the legal profession, but most attorneys are reputable. They perform a valuable service. Sure, you can file suit pro se -- that is, without an attorney. But the law is complicated and procedures in various jurisdictions are daunting. If you want to sue or if you are sued, you need a lawyer to navigate through the rough seas. Otherwise, you are likely to go down in flames. And as was pointed out earlier, not all lawyers are litigators. They work in other aspects of the law -- corporations and businesses (set up, dissolution, compliance with regulations, mergers and acquisitions, etc.), real estate, estates and trusts, intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights) and so forth. You might be able to go through life without needing an attorney, but chances are if you don't want to muck things up, you will be better off having one. Would you refrain from going to a doctor just because there are some bad doctors out there? Same with a lawyer.
-
Honestly, I've heard for years that there *may* be a link between talc and ovarian cancer. I sympathize with the woman; it's a terrible illness to have. But the possible danger of using talc in that area of the body is why Summer's Eve has long advertised their talc-free powder.
-
Google the images of her burns. The jury decided the sum, and it was based on two days' savings that McDonalds had by keeping their coffee at 190 or above. The woman burned just wanted her medical bills taken care of.
It would have been more productive if she had used the money to enter a mental institution on how to handle hot liquids. After all, she could very well be burned once again with her mental capacity on spilling hot coffee on her. Next time, it could very well be grease which causes much more severe injury as it sticks around cooking the flesh instead of a flash burn.
-
It would have been more productive if she had used the money to enter a mental institution on how to handle hot liquids. After all, she could very well be burned once again with her mental capacity on spilling hot coffee on her. Next time, it could very well be grease which causes much more severe injury as it sticks around cooking the flesh instead of a flash burn.
Why would she try drinking grease? She had no history of mental illness and in fact, based on her interviews, sounds very well educated and well read. All she wanted was MD to cover her hospital costs, which were high due to all of the skin grafts that she had to have.
-
@stephen50right
There was an attorney in Pittsburgh whose only client apparently was himself. He would sue anyone he thought wronged him. If a judge would throw out his lawsuit, this attorney would then sue the judge. Judges were afraid of him. He could tie them up in lawsuits for years, costing them huge amounts of money. Once he sued a dentist (a client of the firm I was working for at the time) because the root canal performed on him was painful. Well, I've never had a root canal, but even I know from those who have had it done that is not a pleasant experience. The case was obviously frivolous, but no judge would dare toss it out. Haven't heard anything about him lately. If he is still alive, he has to be far up in years.
This attorney is the extreme. Most litigators won't take a case unless it has merit, and even then, they will try to settle rather than go to trial. If a client has been injured, the attorney will try to get only what is needed for the client's living expenses and in cases where a client may never be able to work again, financial security. A reputable attorney will explain that a legal action is not intended to make the client wealthy.
By the way, those attorneys whose ads you see are plaintiffs' attorneys. They advertise heavily because unless they have a winning track record and a high volume of cases, they don't make any money. Usually, they take cases on a contingent fee -- that is, whether or not they get paid depends on whether or not they are successful in getting money for their clients. If the clients lose, the firm gets nothing. The fee is a percentage of whatever the amount of money received and the maximum is dictated by state law. In Pennsylvania, the max is 40%, but most firms will take 33-1/3% or less. In negotiating a settlement or deciding on a dollar figure to sue for, the lawyer's fee is included. Contingent fee arrangements allow the plaintiffs to retain counsel without going broke. if they had to pay an attorney a straight hourly fee, they would be ruined.
As I admitted earlier, there are plenty of bad apples in the legal profession, but most attorneys are reputable. They perform a valuable service. Sure, you can file suit pro se -- that is, without an attorney. But the law is complicated and procedures in various jurisdictions are daunting. If you want to sue or if you are sued, you need a lawyer to navigate through the rough seas. Otherwise, you are likely to go down in flames. And as was pointed out earlier, not all lawyers are litigators. They work in other aspects of the law -- corporations and businesses (set up, dissolution, compliance with regulations, mergers and acquisitions, etc.), real estate, estates and trusts, intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights) and so forth. You might be able to go through life without needing an attorney, but chances are if you don't want to muck things up, you will be better off having one. Would you refrain from going to a doctor just because there are some bad doctors out there? Same with a lawyer.
Thanks for the reply.
I am not anti-lawyer...just anti-scumbag lawyer. And in my view the vast majority if not all of those attorneys seen in those large ads in the phone book and with the constant ads on TV are scumbags.
Business corporate type lawyers are no problem with me. The world of business can be complex with different government rules and regulations, etc, etc, and a good lawyer is helpful in that regard. Basically they save you the time of trying to learn all that stuff yourself. I've got no problem either with most criminal lawyers, whose goal is to help their clients stay out of prison. It is judges who are the dopes who don't hand out proper sentences to obviously dangerous criminals, it is not the lawyers fault in that regard.
I understand your points, and I like your lucid explanations...but sorry to say I think you are being a bit simplistic. This isn't like twenty years ago. Generating a plaintiff's case is easy these days with computer software generating the paperwork, that can be done relatively quickly...and for the court filing fees, bingo, a trial lawyer has very little expense, and created himself a live lottery ticket that can cause the defendant a seemingly never ending nightmare of legal expenses to defend the case. This whole scenario just isn't logically right to do in a healthy society.
What you may not realize that would change under my plan, is that defense lawyers who hardly ever take a civil case on a contingency basis, but now they would know the opposing lawyer with deep pockets would be liable and there is possibly good money to be made, it would form a new process in the legal system whereby many civil defense lawyers, would now take cases on a contingency basis. So now many defendants in civil cases wouldn't automatically get soaked every time they are sued. Basically for the most part, the two lawyers would be fighting it out with their time and expense to see who wins. Makes perfect sense for a fair and balanced legal system.
-
Look in any Yellow Pages phone book. The category by far with the most big ads, page after page of them, is lawyers.
Daytime TV...perhaps around 1 out of 4 ads is for lawyers wishing to attract clients so they can extort more money from the legal system from defendants with deep pockets.
Doesn't our society see something inherently wrong with all this? Society is rewarding parasites rather than producers.
:thumbsup3:
-
Honestly, I've heard for years that there *may* be a link between talc and ovarian cancer. I sympathize with the woman; it's a terrible illness to have. But the possible danger of using talc in that area of the body is why Summer's Eve has long advertised their talc-free powder.
Excellent Point. Do people read labels anymore or take their physicians advice?
-
It would have been more productive if she had used the money to enter a mental institution on how to handle hot liquids. After all, she could very well be burned once again with her mental capacity on spilling hot coffee on her. Next time, it could very well be grease which causes much more severe injury as it sticks around cooking the flesh instead of a flash burn.
Then people should stop going to Starbucks because that is close to the temperature they brew their coffee.
-
Excellent Point. Do people read labels anymore or take their physicians advice?
Do women still use douches?i don't see them in drug stores anymore.
I don't think people read drug labels. I think we are getting dumber, personally.
-
Do women still use douches?i don't see them in drug stores anymore.
Before I do anything such as taking a medication I always consult the pharmacist or a physician about the product in the health department. Or ask how hot the coffee is at a restaurant.
-
Before I do anything such as taking a medication I always consult the pharmacist or a physician about the product in the health department. Or ask how hot the coffee is at a restaurant.
I will make it the mission today to ask Starbucks how hot their coffee is brewed.
-
I will make it the mission today to ask Starbucks how hot their coffee is brewed.
I like Dunkin Donuts coffee better. :)
-
I like Dunkin Donuts coffee better. :)
I will ask one of their branches how hot they brew their coffee. I like Dunkin Donuts too.
-
Why would she try drinking grease? She had no history of mental illness and in fact, based on her interviews, sounds very well educated and well read. All she wanted was MD to cover her hospital costs, which were high due to all of the skin grafts that she had to have.
Who said she would be drinking grease? She obviously does not know how to handle hot liquids, unlike the vast majority of people, which is why she needs the money to be well spent on psychological help.
-
I will ask one of their branches how hot they brew their coffee. I like Dunkin Donuts too.
I drove to three Starbucks and a Dunkin Donuts in a 20 mile radius.Two Starbucks coffee stores brew at 190 degrees. One Starbucks store had their coffee brew at 195 degrees and Dunkin Donuts had their coffee brew at 185 degrees. The average was 190 degrees.
I am not saying that all lawyers are bad. It is the bad ones that are giving the good attorneys a bad reputation.
-
Who said she would be drinking grease? She obviously does not know how to handle hot liquids, unlike the vast majority of people, which is why she needs the money to be well spent on psychological help.
Rea search the case a little bit and you might have a change of mind.
-
Before I do anything such as taking a medication I always consult the pharmacist or a physician about the product in the health department. Or ask how hot the coffee is at a restaurant.
So? Every drug that's been pulled from the market has first been approved by the FDA. Google how many people die each year from Tylenol. Just sayin'.
-
Who said she would be drinking grease? She obviously does not know how to handle hot liquids, unlike the vast majority of people, which is why she needs the money to be well spent on psychological help.
You compare her to drinking grease, not me.
-
Rea search the case a little bit and you might have a change of mind.
Usually these days they have cup holders in cars or had requested one from the restaurant.
-
So? Every drug that's been pulled from the market has first been approved by the FDA. Google how many people die each year from Tylenol. Just sayin'.
Every bottle has a piece of paper telling the customer how to take the pill. If you do not sure how to use the drug ask the pharmacist or a physician.
-
Usually these days they have cup holders in cars or had requested one from the restaurant.
Well this was in the early 90s and she was in a late 80s Probe. There were no such things a cup holders at the time.
-
Well this was in the early 90s and she was in a late 80s Probe. There were no such things a cup holders at the time.
They had cup holders back then. The cup holder as we know it today came to us in 1983 alongside another innovation: the mini van. The first cup holders “sunk into the plastic of the dashboard” were installed in the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager.''The later development of the drive-through restaurant encouraged the development of better holders for drinks, and a more fast-paced life and longer commute times made many drivers desire to drink their morning coffee in the car on the way to work. The 1960s saw coffee cups with wide, flat, rubberised bases being sold, which would keep them steady on the dash or console. A little later, aftermarket cup holders began to be sold. These often clipped onto the door windows, although other designs wedge in between the front seats and the center console.Built-in cup holders began to be available in the 1920s.[citation needed] Minivans were pioneers in their availability, and they still offer the greatest number of them. Over time, automotive cup holders have become larger and more sophisticated, so that they can hold a variety of different cup sizes securely. Many offer spring-loaded holders that clasp the cup securely, no matter how large or small. The development of ever-larger cups by fast-food chains and convenience stores in the United States has proven a challenge to automotive designers; many fast-food chains now offer 44 fl.oz. (1.3 L) drinks. The automobile cup-holder has also driven the development of "car cups" designed to fit within most cars' cup holders; these have a narrower base but flare outward after a short cylindrical distance.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/03/08/when-did-cars-get-cup-holders/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_holder
-
Every bottle has a piece of paper telling the customer how to take the pill. If you do not sure how to use the drug ask the pharmacist or a physician.
Yep. Again, Google how many people die from Tylenol. My new favorite drug commercial is for new insomnia drug. It's most common side effect is daytime tiredness or sleepiness. Lol! In addition to the other horrific things the drug causes, the patient still feels the same the next day! This med is right up there with the depression drugs that can cause worsening depression or thoughts of suicide. Really?
-
They had cup holders back then. The cup holder as we know it today came to us in 1983 alongside another innovation: the mini van. The first cup holders “sunk into the plastic of the dashboard” were installed in the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager.''The later development of the drive-through restaurant encouraged the development of better holders for drinks, and a more fast-paced life and longer commute times made many drivers desire to drink their morning coffee in the car on the way to work. The 1960s saw coffee cups with wide, flat, rubberised bases being sold, which would keep them steady on the dash or console. A little later, aftermarket cup holders began to be sold. These often clipped onto the door windows, although other designs wedge in between the front seats and the center console.Built-in cup holders began to be available in the 1920s.[citation needed] Minivans were pioneers in their availability, and they still offer the greatest number of them. Over time, automotive cup holders have become larger and more sophisticated, so that they can hold a variety of different cup sizes securely. Many offer spring-loaded holders that clasp the cup securely, no matter how large or small. The development of ever-larger cups by fast-food chains and convenience stores in the United States has proven a challenge to automotive designers; many fast-food chains now offer 44 fl.oz. (1.3 L) drinks. The automobile cup-holder has also driven the development of "car cups" designed to fit within most cars' cup holders; these have a narrower base but flare outward after a short cylindrical distance.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/03/08/when-did-cars-get-cup-holders/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_holder
Very few moms drove minivans in this period, and I was entering high school when this happened.
-
Yep. Again, Google how many people die from Tylenol. My new favorite drug commercial is for new insomnia drug. It's most common side effect is daytime tiredness or sleepiness. Lol! In addition to the other horrific things the drug causes, the patient still feels the same the next day! This med is right up there with the depression drugs that can cause worsening depression or thoughts of suicide. Really?
If you have suicidal thoughts or have a reaction stop. When I have a reaction to a medication I stop or call 911 or visit your local hospital. Its common sense.
-
Very few moms drove minivans in this period, and I was entering high school when this happened.
They still had the restaurant cupholders and the built in ones when you were in school. Those were developed in the 1920s. Or did you forget to read the wikipedia thread that was attached at the bottom?
-
They still had the restaurant cupholders when you were in school. Those were developed in the 1920s
I literally have never seen to what you are referring, but back on topic: What does any of that have to do with the health departments' warnings about the temperatures?
-
They still had the restaurant cupholders and the built in ones when you were in school. Those were developed in the 1920s. Or did you forget to read the wikipedia thread that was attached at the bottom?
Built-in cup holders began to be available in the 1920s.[citation needed] Minivans were pioneers in their availability, and they still offer the greatest number of them. Over time, automotive cup holders have become larger and more sophisticated, so that they can hold a variety of different cup sizes securely. Many offer spring-loaded holders that clasp the cup securely, no matter how large or small. The development of ever-larger cups by fast-food chains and convenience stores in the United States has proven a challenge to automotive designers; many fast-food chains now offer 44 fl.oz. (1.3 L) drinks. The automobile cup-holder has also driven the development of "car cups" designed to fit within most cars' cup holders; these have a narrower base but flare outward after a short cylindrical distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_holder
-
Why would one take a drug for depression that is known to cause suicidal thoughts? Why would one take a drug for insomnia that causes sleeplessness during the day? The schmucks taking these things are being played.
-
Why would one take a drug for depression that is known to cause suicidal thoughts? Why would one take a drug for insomnia that causes sleeplessness during the day? The schmucks taking these things are being played.
Medications affect different people. That is why you should ask your doctor before taking the drug.
-
Medications affect different people.
The most common side effects? Ok.
-
Medications affect different people. That is why you should ask your doctor before taking the drug.
That is why they are getting paid for.
-
The most common side effects? Ok.
I had a side effect of taking a steroid for a injury. I called my doctor in the middle of the night and he told me to stop using it. I was told to go to hospital and they would give me an alternate drug with the same effect. The hospital drug was better than prescribed steroid. I wil include a common side effect of Sominex(sleeping aid) in a link
https://www.drugs.com/sfx/sominex-side-effects.html
-
Google the images of her burns. The jury decided the sum, and it was based on two days' savings that McDonalds had by keeping their coffee at 190 or above. The woman burned just wanted her medical bills taken care of.
Ahem, first off the woman put the cup between her thighs,and loosened the lid to put cream and sugar in, while she did this the driver took off. Silly McDonald's for keeping hot coffee hot, silly McDonald's for putting "Warning Hot Coffee" on their cups. All she wanted were her bills paid? Silly Rabbit it was about a big payday from the minute she received payment. Americans have been taught to look for big dollars in lawsuits for a lot of decades.
-
Ahem, first off the woman put the cup between her thighs,and loosened the lid to put cream and sugar in, while she did this the driver took off. Silly McDonald's for keeping hot coffee hot, silly McDonald's for putting "Warning Hot Coffee" on their cups. All she wanted were her bills paid? Silly Rabbit it was about a big payday from the minute she received payment. Americans have been taught to look for big dollars in lawsuits for a lot of decades.
They(both consumers and ambulance chasing lawyers) are always looking to ripping off restaurants or other esablishments. Then we pay for high food costs. Starbucks coffee does not a warning label on their coffee. What they have is air tight lids. McDonalds still does not have a warning label.
-
Ahem, first off the woman put the cup between her thighs,and loosened the lid to put cream and sugar in, while she did this the driver took off. Silly McDonald's for keeping hot coffee hot, silly McDonald's for putting "Warning Hot Coffee" on their cups. All she wanted were her bills paid? Silly Rabbit it was about a big payday from the minute she received payment. Americans have been taught to look for big dollars in lawsuits for a lot of decades.
You are wrong. You should look up the actual facts of the case.
-
You are wrong. You should look up the actual facts of the case.
Second it for GtHawk
-
You are wrong. You should look up the actual facts of the case.
If I'm wrong it will because the man I worked for at the time a multiple unit Owner Operator of Mcdonald's lied to me about it after it happened, I see no reason why he would have done that since it wasn't one of our stores.
-
If I'm wrong it will because the man I worked for at the time a multiple unit Owner Operator of Mcdonald's lied to me about it after it happened, I see no reason why he would have done that since it wasn't one of our stores.
Okay, don't bother to go look it up, rely on what some dumbass McD's owner told you. He didn't even necessarily lie to you; he was just wrong.
I mean, it's not like there are multiple links to the real story of what happened in this very thread.
Come on, be curious!
-
Okay, don't bother to go look it up, rely on what some dumbass McD's owner told you. He didn't even necessarily lie to you; he was just wrong.
I mean, it's not like there are multiple links to the real story of what happened in this very thread.
Come on, be curious!
You make a valid point there, but calling the poster out on their sexual preference is a bit much, don't you think?
-
You make a valid point there, but calling the poster out on their sexual preference is a bit much, don't you think?
If I thought so I wouldn't have said it.
-
Okay, don't bother to go look it up, rely on what some dumbass McD's owner told you. He didn't even necessarily lie to you; he was just wrong.
I mean, it's not like there are multiple links to the real story of what happened in this very thread.
Come on, be curious!
More than 80% of McDonald's restaurants worldwide are owned and operated by independent local business men and women.Corporate sets the tone, the rest is up to the owner.Gthawk is right.
http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/company-overview/company-overview-segment-information.html
-
More than 80% of McDonald's restaurants worldwide are owned and operated by independent local business men and women.Ghawk is right.
http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/company-overview/company-overview-segment-information.html
I think something got lost in translation.
-
I think something got lost in translation.
GtHawk was right.
-
I think something got lost in translation.
Google has an awesome English to Russian translator.
-
Google has an awesome English to Russian translator.
GtHawk was correct in his assesment. What ever the owner told him was correct.
-
GtHawk was correct in his assesment.
No. GT is correct in the information he relayed about a conversation with a store owner. Roos is correct about the lawsuit. It is public information and a few keystrokes away from finding it on Google.
-
No. GT is correct in the information he relayed about a conversation with a store owner. Roos is correct about the lawsuit. It is public information and a few keystrokes away from finding it on Google.
GT was correct about his conversation. He was there, you were not.
-
No. GT is correct in the information he relayed about a conversation with a store owner. Roos is correct about the lawsuit. It is public information and a few keystrokes away from finding it on Google.
Thank you. I didn't have the energy for that nonsense.
-
GT was correct about his conversation. He was there, you were not.
Are you sure he was there? Were you there to witness him being there?
-
Are you sure he was there? Were you there to witness him being there?
I believe him over you.
-
I believe him over you.
One thing you never do. Never Question the franchise owner or you will lose your job. If he says the walls are white you betten not contradict him.
-
GT was correct about his conversation. He was there, you were not.
Where did I say he wasn't there. I didn't even say that the information he said about his conversation was wrong. I am saying that it is diametrically opposed to the actual lawsuit. I don't know if this is true of where you live, but we have public records that are accessible in the United States.
-
Where did I say he wasn't there. I didn't even say that the information he said about his conversation was wrong. I am saying that it is diametrically opposed to the actual lawsuit. I don't know if this is true of where you live, but we have public records that are accessible in the United States.
So we have someone who worked at that store.
-
Where did I say he wasn't there. I didn't even say that the information he said about his conversation was wrong. I am saying that it is diametrically opposed to the actual lawsuit. I don't know if this is true of where you live, but we have public records that are accessible in the United States.
Never Question the franchise owner or you will lose your job.
-
Oh just bleep me. I mean, come on! It's bleep clear as day that we were not talking about .... You know what, never mind. You're right and I'm wrong.
-
Oh just bleep me. I mean, come on! It's bleep clear as day that we were not talking about .... You know what, never mind. You're right and I'm wrong.
Sorry I do not stoop to your level. I believe in his testimony that a conversation happened between him and the owner in regards to this situation.The owner clearly might have lied to him. I have been lied on numerous occasions by franchise owners.
-
Okay, don't bother to go look it up, rely on what some dumbass McD's owner told you. He didn't even necessarily lie to you; he was just wrong.
I mean, it's not like there are multiple links to the real story of what happened in this very thread.
Come on, be curious!
Really, of course the man I worked for for over twenty years and built his business from one to twelve stores is a lying dumbass. Of course McDonald's refused to pay her medical bills, oh wait, from the time the injury was reported it was called into the insurance company which was notorious for paying out on even the most ridiculous claims. Of course every management employee in every Mcd's was lied to by some dumbass above them, even though all of were required to lower the brewing temperature and holding temperature of the coffee so that it became almost as crappy as Starbucks. Because of course it was so important to lie to thousands of employees that couldn't give a rats asp what was occurring in a lawsuit they would never have anything to do with. Bottom line, the customer ordered a cup of hot coffee, recieved a cup of hot coffee which was brewed and held at the industry standard temp, yet in this country personal responsibility mean nothing when you can get someone else to pay for your actions. I surmise that this will end with us responding back and forth in the same vein several times, so let's just pretend it did and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKxr2PJ06Y4
-
GtHawk
I will respect your decision unlike others
-
Rea search the case a little bit and you might have a change of mind.
I looked into it again and I can tell you she will not be drinking grease.
You on the other hand appear to be someone who needs some real mental help. What is wrong with you that you believe she needs to drink grease anyway?
-
You compare her to drinking grease, not me.
You are an imbecile. I NEVER said she would drink grease. I said she should not handle hot liquids.
YOu need serious help in reading comprehension.
-
Really, of course the man I worked for for over twenty years and built his business from one to twelve stores is a lying dumbass. Of course McDonald's refused to pay her medical bills, oh wait, from the time the injury was reported it was called into the insurance company which was notorious for paying out on even the most ridiculous claims. Of course every management employee in every Mcd's was lied to by some dumbass above them, even though all of were required to lower the brewing temperature and holding temperature of the coffee so that it became almost as crappy as Starbucks. Because of course it was so important to lie to thousands of employees that couldn't give a rats asp what was occurring in a lawsuit they would never have anything to do with. Bottom line, the customer ordered a cup of hot coffee, recieved a cup of hot coffee which was brewed and held at the industry standard temp, yet in this country personal responsibility mean nothing when you can get someone else to pay for your actions. I surmise that this will end with us responding back and forth in the same vein several times, so let's just pretend it did and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKxr2PJ06Y4
I agree with you. Personal responsibility means something. The only idiot on this thread that thinks otherwise is completely unhinged.
He/she/it thinks a googled photo is all the evidence one needs.
I have a brother-in-law who reprimanded a neighbor's kid who was throwing rocks at his mailbox, almost hitting his car. The police came and handcuffed him. Why? Because the sorry parents of his neighbor's kid beat the kid to show whelps and showed that to the police. That is what a photo is worth, nothing. The idiot here is an idiot and is not worth the effort anymore to correct as he/she/it was not brought up with sane parents.
-
Judge tosses $417M award against Johnson& Johnson
LA Times, Oct 21, 2017, ROBERT JABLON/Associated Press
A judge on Friday tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder for feminine hygiene.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company's request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial that ended with the award two months ago.
Nelson also ruled that there wasn't convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice and the award for damages was excessive.
The decision will be appealed even though Eva Echeverria has died, said her attorney, Mark Robinson Jr.
More: http://www.latimes.com/sns-bc-us--talcum-powder-cancer-lawsuit-20171021-story.html
What I've read on the talc powder furor leads me to believe that it's not the monster it's made out to be, HOWEVER, when it comes to Johnson and Johnson:
Risperdal Lawsuits Currently Underway In Pennsylvania
https://psychroaches.blogspot.com/2017/04/risperdal-lawsuits-currently-underway.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia
And gynecomastia isn't even scratching the surface of JNJ and their GD Risperdal.
http://psychroachesadverseevent.blogspot.com/2009/03/risperdal-adverse-reactions.html
-
I agree with you. Personal responsibility means something. The only idiot on this thread that thinks otherwise is completely unhinged.
He/she/it thinks a googled photo is all the evidence one needs.
I have a brother-in-law who reprimanded a neighbor's kid who was throwing rocks at his mailbox, almost hitting his car. The police came and handcuffed him. Why? Because the sorry parents of his neighbor's kid beat the kid to show whelps and showed that to the police. That is what a photo is worth, nothing. The idiot here is an idiot and is not worth the effort anymore to correct as he/she/it was not brought up with sane parents.
@IsailedawayfromFR
Why don't you chill with the namecalling?
No one is talking about photos and not a soul on here dismisses personal responsibility. What @RoosGirl said is that the facts of the case aren't what most think they are. Guess what, she was right. I wasn't familiar with them, either; I learned something. Here you are:
https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts (https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts)
"....Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen."
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Why don't you chill with the namecalling?
No one is talking about photos and not a soul on here dismisses personal responsibility. What @RoosGirl said is that the facts of the case aren't what most think they are. Guess what, she was right. I wasn't familiar with them, either; I learned something. Here you are:
https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts (https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts)
"....Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen."
Are you deaf dumb and blind? I never said anything to roosgirl. The idiot I referred to was goodwithagun(which I doubt) who labeled me slanderous for not accepting that a woman who gets coffee is not stupid for recognizing that coffee is indeed hot.
The idiot believes I said she was drinking grease instead.
YOu really need to clean up your act with the namecalling.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Why don't you chill with the namecalling?
No one is talking about photos and not a soul on here dismisses personal responsibility. What @RoosGirl said is that the facts of the case aren't what most think they are. Guess what, she was right. I wasn't familiar with them, either; I learned something. Here you are:
https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts (https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts)
"....Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen."
Sigh! If I come to your house and you give me a cup of coffee which I manage to spill on myself I am not going to say your coffee burned me! I most likely would say I burned myself with the coffee.
Guess I'm just old fashioned!
-
Are you deaf dumb and blind? I never said anything to roosgirl. The idiot I referred to was goodwithagun(which I doubt) who labeled me slanderous for not accepting that a woman who gets coffee is not stupid for recognizing that coffee is indeed hot.
The idiot believes I said she was drinking grease instead.
YOu really need to clean up your act with the namecalling.
@IsailedawayfromFR
So you're just drunk, then, I guess?
Check out that link I posted when you sober up.
-
Sigh! If I come to your house and you give me a cup of coffee which I manage to spill on myself I am not going to say your coffee burned me! I most likely would say I burned myself with the coffee.
Guess I'm just old fashioned!
@Bigun, putting the coffee between her legs wasn't the best move to make. But McD's coffee caused serious burns to others, including children, when employees accidentally spilled it on them. The chain knew it was too hot, knew it could inflict injuries, and refused to do anything about it.
If you're going to preach responsibility, preach it for McDonald's, too.
-
Are you sure he was there? Were you there to witness him being there?
If the conversation happened it happened. I believe his veracity.
-
If the conversation happened it happened. I believe his veracity.
Listen, I was tired of the whole conversation by that point and was being facetious. No one is suggesting that the boss didn't say what he said. The facts of the case are just different than what he apparently said. Those facts are available through online research and I will believe those over some third-hand story told by someone here.
-
Listen, I was tired of the whole conversation by that point and was being facetious. No one is suggesting that the boss didn't say what he said. The facts of the case are just different than what he apparently said. Those facts are available through online research and I will believe those over some third-hand story told by someone here.
I believe him and what his boss told him about the case.
-
I believe him period.
Good choice.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
So you're just drunk, then, I guess?
Check out that link I posted when you sober up.
You are likely the most classless person I have ever dialogued with on this thread. You also have no clue as to what you are saying.
-
You are likely the most classless person I have ever dialogued with on this thread.
@IsailedawayfromFR
I don't care.
You're just like most loudmouths---you want to spew without being challenged, and when that happens, you whine.