This is why we need tort reform...

[jdb]

Be interesting to see what this judge is doing for a living, and where, another ten years from now.

I realize that this is a headline case, and indeed not normal day-in-day-out example of the typical, but seems it should have been tossed about the time he rejected the 4K offer for his prized pair of trousers.

Man, If I finally get caught I'd hate to go up in front of him if for nothing else then the huge legal fees I'd rack up attempting a defense.

When does it become a mockery?
jdb

[guido911]

"When does it become a mockery?"  

If you ask CF, it will never become a mockery since the judge's right to his day in court to prove his emotional distress is what is most important.

[guido911]

You are right, I posted this thread to encourage discussion. So what point do you have to make regarding this subject? None. Your comments are directed at me.

Anyway, in reading many of your posts on this site, you seem to have an opinion on just about every subject out there. Here's my challenge to you smart guy (to prove I am not uncomfortable about debate), YOU take the position opposing Oklahoma's proposed tort reform and I will defend the proposed statute. I will go further and even defend the one area that I feel is over-reaching, that being the modification to the long standing collateral source rule.
Put up or shut up.

[rwarn17588]

Here's a way reducing frivolous lawsuits. The plaintiff pays court costs and other fees of the defendant if the plaintiff loses. That would help ensure that only solid lawsuits are filed.

Guido, I'm glad you decided to stay with the discussion instead of ducking.

[cannon_fodder]

Guido, I regret that I do not have the time to re-read the bill and go over it point by point at the moment.  I will make an effort to do so in the near future, but do not feel a point by point discussion is needed when the CAP itself is where we primarily disagree - a most basic premise of the bill.

Also, I will not defend the Senators comments because I do not fully agree with them.  Nor do I know in what context they were made.  Of course I have heard that quote, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the point to defend nor condemn it.

As per Texas Tort Reform, you posted to the American College pf Physicians.  Who were the primary force behind the measure and are a driving force for reform in other states.  They boldly state:

quote:Proposition 12â€"is making a difference where it counts: in lowering malpractice premium rates and reducing the number of lawsuits being filed.

The entire article is about how great it is for MD's.  They saved 8% on med mal premiums. I never argued it wouldnt be good for the medical and insurance industry, I argued it was bad for everyone else.

They saved 8% because now if they accidentally KILL SOMEONE or cut off the wrong arm, they are not required to compensate the victim to the point of making them whole.  So that's really good for the Doctor and his insurance company, not so good for victim.  A law should be in place for the good of the public, not for the good of a small and very powerful lobby.

Even if it saved the entire state of Texas 8% on medical premiums, it would be an 8% savings at the expense of those that had a negligent doctor harm them.  I'm not against stopping frivolous law suites, but an economic damages cap has NOTHING to do with that.  Likewise, you are naive if you think requiring an expert will somehow slow the tide of crappy suits.  There are already plenty of shady experts who only testify for one side on a professional basis.

I guess we may need to refine the disagreement, do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1) Negligent doctors should be forced to pay for their mistakes.
2) Most damage awards are fair.
3) Excessive damage awards are the exception, and most often quelled on appeal.
4) Non-Economic damages for the loss of a limb can easily exceed $300,000 and still not constitute a "jackpot" award.  
5) Most doctors are careful practitioners but would maintain insurance even if not required because mistakes happen.
6) There are too many frivolous lawsuits filed.
7) Damage caps will not significantly discourage frivolous lawsuits.
The collateral damage rule is fine as it stands.
9) You can find and 'compensate for their time' an 'expert' witness to say nearly anything.
10) Med. Mal. Insurance costs are not the driving cost factor in the medical field (compared to salary,  facilities, supplies and equipment)
11) The average person will not see significant savings from any Tort reform measure
12) Even if significant savings were achieved, losing ones right to fair compensation will be lost and it is not worth the trade.

I think those are fair statements of my position with an attempt to abstain from explanation.  Let me know where we disagree.

[guido911]

I will get back to you CF.

Thanks RW for complimenting me on not ducking, as YOU duck the offer to debate me on Oklahoma's tort reform statute. BTW, introducing "loser pays" is not a response to my challenge. That's called "changing the subject."

[rwarn17588]

You're welcome. []

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

This anecdotal evidence is a perfect example of why we do not.  

People always throw out such examples and say SEE, SEE!  Without knowing either the entire facts nor the final outcome.  The McDonald's woman is another perfect examples - look up how bad the burns were on her genitals and how much she ended up actually collecting.  The fact is McDonald's kept their coffee about 50F hotter than anyone else because it was more efficient to do so without regard to safety.  She shuffled away without a sum that would compensate me for third degree burns on my genitals (which one would NOT expect instantly from a cup of coffee).

First of all anyone who opens a cup of hot liquids in between their legs is a dumb donkey.Second anyone who needs to be told that coffee is hot should not be drinking coffee at all and perhaps should be locked away in a institution.Third the coffee was kept at optimal temperature in order to maintain best flavor,so Liebeck's lawyers do not know what the hell they are talking about .Forth the lawyers argued that lowing the temperature could have given here the extra seconds she needed in order to remove her clothing before suffering from burns,but she sat in a hot puddle for 90 seconds(sgrizzle pointed out that little detail) .So the Liebeck case is a example of a fraudulent lawsuit.



In Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case they claim the coffee was around 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit,which is what the temperature the national coffee association says is acceptable.

quote:http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.

snip...

Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!

Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

BUNN suggest a holding temperature of 175ºF to 185ºF and a 155ºF to 175ºF serving temperature

quote:
Ideal holding temperature: 175ºF to 185ºF (80ºC to 85ºC)

snip...

http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html
Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)

Here they say she sat in the puddle of hot coffee for over 90 seconds.

quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case#Background_of_the_case
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds,

Here they make bogus claims that extra seconds would have enabled her extra time to get out of here clothes

quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case#Evidence_presented_to_the_jury
Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 degree coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Lowering the temperature to 160 degrees Fahrenheit would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds(A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[10]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.

[cannon_fodder]

There are two sides to every story:

quote:
ATLA Wrote[/i}
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.  He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature.  Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees.  He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.  The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.  Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially.  Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonald's even admitted that no one could drink its coffee at the temperature served without third degree burns to their mouth and throat.  The Jury Awarded the woman medical bills and 3 days coffee sales (or 2.2mil) but it was reduced on appeal to $480,000 in punitive damages (about half of one day's sales of Coffee for McDonald's). She accepted a reduced amount after McDonald's threatened to appeal.

State law in NM does not allow comparative negligence.  I would have preferred to see her lose a % of the verdict because you are correct, opening hot coffee near ones genitals is NOT smart. She was partially responsible for the mishap.  12 citizens in Albuquerque sat through the entire trial and seemed to think McDonald's acted abhorrently.  The trial and appellate judge agreed and McDonald's ultimately lost faith in their own case and agreed. Ultimately, I feel comfortable trusting those minds on the matter.

and finally - I've never heard the argument that she should have ripped her clothes off... merely that at a normal serving temperature of 150F coffee is not capable of 3rd degree burns before it loses its heat (unless you poured the pot in the same spot slowly - so as to maintain a steady heat treatment).  The 2 seconds in which McDonald's coffee caused THIRD DEGREE burns is clearly not enough time to remedy the situation by any means.

On a related point - McDonald's Coffee (served at its new cooler temperature) recently won a taste testing competition in Seattle against Seattles Best and Starbucks.  

[RLitterell]

Where is Judge Judy when you need her?[}:)]

[guido911]

The judge who sued over his pants (who was the impetus for this post) has seen the light and is now seeking more reasonable damages. He only wants 54 million dollars now:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278414,00.html

[cannon_fodder]

Pretending that I know the merits of the case, even the elements of a Consumer Protection Act claim, or the proper measure of damages - which I dont...  why would be put more laws on the books to be ignored?

Juries are in place to serve as the reasonable person - they are usually the best informed parties to make the decision.  Certainly more informed about a lawsuit over a DC law applied in DC over an even that took place in DC between residents of DC than some guy sitting in Oklahoma.  Sometimes a jury gets it wrong, sure enough.  But I would sooner trust a jury than a bunch of politicians with my fate.

Secondly, there are laws in place to deal with frivolous law suits.  There are several methods to dispose of the suit and even to punish the offending filer.  The rules currently in place are not frequently enforced.  Pretending a new law will solve the problem when existing laws are supposed to cover it is naive.

All, of course, pretending it applies since we really do not have a clue when we are talking about in this case.

[guido911]

CF:  Are you serious? Can you really think of a circumstance where the damages for a missing pair of pants could be 54 or 65 million dollars? Give me a break. ANY effort to justify this damage claim brought by a jurist is itself "frivolous." I know you have faith in juries (which I certainly do not have), but this lawsuit is an abomination.

Incidentally, I originally started this thread as sort of a joke given that the lawsuit was brought by a judge, presumably a person who knows what a frivolous lawsuit is. However, if you would like to debate the recent failed tort reform effort here in Oklahoma, I would welcome the opportunity. I recently prepared a summary of the 12-15 areas that Oklahoma's legislature passed and that Henry vetoed. Of those areas, there are several that I think you would support. These include the 8 year statute of repose for just about all tort claims, new definition of "frivolous" lawsuits," confidentiality of peer review materials, and modification of Oklahoma's summary judgment statute to mirror the federal standard. One potential reform I disliked, though, was the modifications to the collateral source rule which could have resulted in the introduction of all sorts of collateral source payments a plaintiff received during trial.

[Conan71]

To me the whole thing calls into question the judge's jurisprudence.  You can cite his rights as a citizen, the laws, etc. ad nauseum and it still won't change my opinion this suit is in very poor taste and is incredibly frivolous.  

To me, and this is only my common sense- a judge is an arbitor of the law and accepted community standards.  A judge has a position of responsibility, authority, and to an extent leadership, and should be an example of fairness.  I fail to see how filing a $54 million law suit against a small dry cleaner is either fair nor a sign of sound jurisprudence.

Of course the law trumps my common sense approach. Personally, I think he ought to be jack-booted from the bench and go back to being a private practice ambulance chaser.

[Lister]

This judge is a fruitcake and I agree with you quido about tort reform. For anyone to try and argue that any such case (coffee case included) to have merit must have some kind of monetary stake in keeping the status quo (yes, I'm talking about you CF).

Frivolous lawsuits cost this country billions of dollars per year. I'm glad to hear a lawyer such as yourself argue against this nonsense quido.