WTF is wrong with us?

[gemini 0]

Does anyone else think this kinda' crap has got to end?

PANAMA CITY BEACH, Fla. –– A couple is suing the franchisee of a McDonald's restaurant, claiming an improperly prepared bagel damaged the husband's teeth and their marriage.

John and Cecelia O'Hare sued Friday for unspecified damages more than $15,000. They alleged the McDonald's, owned by Johnstone Foods Inc., was negligent and violated an "implied warranty that the food sold was reasonably fit for human consumption."

They contend in the suit that John O'Hare broke teeth and bridgework on Feb. 1, 2002 when he bit into the bagel. The suit did not say what exactly was wrong with the bagel.

The suit alleges the wife "lost the care, comfort, consortium and society of her husband." The couple's attorney, Tim Warner, did not return telephone messages left at his office.

Tracey Johnstone, owner of Johnstone Foods, said she never before had a bagel complaint and had no idea how it could have been prepared in a way that would damage teeth.

"It's a bagel," she said.

Blue skies,

Jim

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Does anyone else think this kinda' crap has got to end?

Not really.
Look at it this way, either (a) the suit is groundless, or (b) there really was something wrong with the bagel.
(A) Suit is groundless. Suit fails. If it's really groundless, the McDonald's recovers their court costs, and the only people who lose are the people who filed suit.
(B) Bagel really had something wrong. Couple wins. McDonalds' all over America start exercising better quality control.
I know that I've seen what I would consider to be "defective" fast food (some wag had stuck a plastic cap from a coke cup into a burger). If you bit into that and broke a tooth, I could see grounds for a suit.
The media often hypes up the "sensational" part of those court cases. That means they take one product liability case out of 1000, and focus on the parts that could outrage you. (i.e. "Huge Award for Coffee Spill.") They usually leave out the parts that might lead you not to get excited (the media's job, after all is to excite you). (i.e. that same McDonalds has had ten previous cases, the court has fined them increasing amounts, and now the court is trying to get them to take their prankster employees seriously before someone gets really hurt.) Punitve damages may seem ridiculous on first inspection, but they do provide a much needed way to get the attention of large enterprises.
Oh, the "marital consortium" thing is general legalese for an impact on their sex life. You might think that's no big deal, but what if your girlfriend couldn't give you blowjobs for a month? Would it seem a little more important to you then?
While there are definitely things I don't like about the American legal system, this kind of suit isn't really indicative of them. And the fact that anyone is allowed to file suit for any reason, at any time, is one of the features I most prize. The right to legal recourse is a societal foundation of the rule of law.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jfields 0]

Anyone remember the chicken head found in a box of McNuggets?

That was intentional, as it didn't even fit in the box.

Not really hazardous to health, but definitely not what the people paid for, either.

I tend to agree with Tom that over the long term, these things tend to regulate themselves. The occasional damages are getting bigger, but also as a result of increasingly callous behaviour by corporations. Fining them $100, or even $100,000 is chump change they don't even miss. Fines and court judgements can only be effective when they are big enough to hit the bottom line of the company, stir up tons of negative press, and create irrate shareholders. The point isn't that someone actually lost millions of dollars. It is usually a punitive award on top of actual damages that makes the number so big. It is done intentionally, to send a message and teach a lesson.

[CrazyIvan 0]

If I was a Judge:

Bailiff: All rise...Judge Crazy Ivan presiding
Judge Crazy Ivan: All seated
Bailiff: Case 5454-A-E44, O'Hare vs McDonalds
Judge Ivan: Please the plaitiff rise...FUCK YOU, GET OUT OF MY COURTROOM....GET A LIFE

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[trilete312 0]

The problem is the rash of groundless lawsuits. Our court system is swamped with people suing corporations and individuals with the hope of getting rich quick.

Do I think the corporate world is guilt free? Absolutely not. But people have gotten so greedy these days that we are to blame also. Why are the first thoughts so many people have after an accident, I am going to sue them.

When someone drops a dumbbell on there toe at the gym, why does a personal injury lawyer tell them to sue over unsafe conditions. If a criminal comes into your house robs you and falls in the empty pool in your backyard as he tries to escape, he is likely to sue you for an unsafe hazzard. He will likely win.

The court system needs to be revamped to put an end to the mass of meaningless get rich quick lawsuits that are brought before it every day.

Sorry for the rant, but this is one of those topics that just pisses me off.

-----------
Ready, Set, Gooooooo

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

The court system needs to be revamped to put an end to the mass of meaningless get rich quick lawsuits that are brought before it every day.

I agree with you 1000000%

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[jfields 0]

How do you tell which suits are meaningless before they get to court? Is it some bureaucrat in charge of deciding whether your suit is valid, or a judge that may not agree with you?

If I have a grievance, I'd rather it be heard by a jury. If it is frivolous, then I'll end up paying the other side's fees, as well as court fees. The system is set up in many ways to ward off frivolity. The cases that get tossed out, with the loser paying the defendant just don't make the news.

I'm not saying things are perfect. Far from it. But the path of arbitrarily refusing to hear court cases is a horrible precedent.

[Push 0]

So do I.

But, I don't think this is all too groundless. If the "bagel" was actually bread-turned-solid-rock, you bit into it and broke most of your front teeth and had to have them implanted or something, you would: be short of a couple of tens of thousands of dollars, miss a month or more of work (maybe be fired), just in general suffer.

Sounds like a good case to me.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[CrazyIvan 0]

I believe COMMON SENSE has something to do also, I mean, you just got implants and you're munching on a BAGEL? c'mon!!!

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[Push 0]

I meant that you'll need implants after the bagel (and not the silicone kind)

Seriously, if something is dangerous in not obvious ways it should be marked. I don't know how often you knock on the table with your bagels to check how hard they are.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[TequilaGirl 0]

I don't believe the article states - he had just gotten bridgework......

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But the path of arbitrarily refusing to hear court cases is a horrible precedent.

Actually, it's a historical night mare. When certain people are arbitrarily excluded from legal recourse, you invite illegal recourse.
One of the major tools of Jim Crow was the denial of legal recourse--if you're not allowed to seek justice, your rights can be effectively ignored.

Quote

Our court system is swamped with people suing corporations and individuals with the hope of getting rich quick.

As a potential compromise solution: Some European countries award the plaintiff the value of damages, but keep the punitive damages as a fine for the state treasury. This would eliminate the "get rich quick" lawsuits, but still allow the use of punitive damages to change organizational behavior.
I'm not sure it's such a good solution (I can see several problems with it), but it does illustrate that simply barring access to legal recourse is not the only possible solution to the perceived problem.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Push 0]

The problem here is that the state might end up encouraging frivolous lawsuits and also helping them win, just to get the money. They way it stands now the encouragement for frivolous lawsuits is from the money they award, but at least the state is impartial.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Guest]

Quote

If it is frivolous, then I'll end up paying the other side's fees, as well as court fees. The system is set up in many ways to ward off frivolity. The cases that get tossed out, with the loser paying the defendant just don't make the news.

Uh, does your state have "loser pays" tort reform on the books? Mine doesn't.

Bogus lawsuits are filed all the time.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Uh, does your state have "loser pays" tort reform on the books? Mine doesn't.

If you are certain that you will win (i.e. your lawsuit isn't frivolous) then filing a countersuit to recover legal costs shouldn't be too hard, regardless of institutional tort rules.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jfields 0]

In Maryland, there are many scenarios where the loser pays attorney's fees and such.

Yes, bogus lawsuits are filed all the time. And mostly tossed out or lost. What alternative system of dispute resolution to you recommend, if you are to limit the types or numbers of lawsuits?

[Guest]

Quote

Seriously, if something is dangerous in not obvious ways it should be marked.

I can see a lenthy legalese disclaimer engraved into a bagel here, or a paper streamer attached through the hole that says something like "WARNING. By breaking this label you are acknowledging the following:..."

Perhaps we can genetically engineer the foods, so that they grow with a warning label already on them.

Fucking lawyers.

Still, these kinds of abuses wouldn't occur if there were safeguards in the system to prevent them.

Like people demanding perfect, safe lives.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

The basis of tort reform is "loser pays" in court.

The lawyers' associations have lobbied against any such reform, and are also notorious for "venue shopping"; that is, filing suits in places where they know judges and juries are especially liberal and generous. Just check out Overlawyered.

Yes, we all like to see wealthy corporations take it in the shorts, but they'll just pass the cost along to consumers.

Also, I think you'd feel very differently if you were on the recieving end of a frivolous suit that could ruin you. Just ask Bill Booth.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[jfields 0]

Quote

Fucking lawyers.

Yup. Lots of lawyers suck, but not all of them. Lots of riggers are careful, but not all of them. Lots of politicians suck. Well, probably all of them.

The point is that no profession has all perfect members.

Quote

Like people demanding perfect, safe lives.

Or demanding people be accountable for their actions, and have a sense of personal responsibility. I know, what a crazy concept!

[Push 0]

Maybe it would be better to just make the bagels safe to eat?

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Push 0]

Quote

Or demanding people be accountable for their actions, and have a sense of personal responsibility. I know, what a crazy concept!

Or corporations. If I live to see a time when corporations have a sense of accountability and responsibility beyond what the legal system enforces, I will see everything.

Somewhere I saw an article about "legal expense accounts". Corporations keep them, not to pay for lawyers, but to pay for the lawsuits that will follow bad products. The price of failure of their products actually goes into their profit calculations.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[trilete312 0]

One of the problems is that you aren't necessarily out anything. There are plenty of Scheister lawyers who will sue anyone in the hopes of settling out of court. They will take a case for no out of pocket fee from you but they will take a big chunk of the cash awarded to you.

One of my best friends is a claims manager for an insurance company and they will settle suits out of court that they could probably win,but it is cheaper to them to settle. When they look at the cost in lost productivity and people time to go to trial, it is cheaper to pay someone $5,000-$10,000 to settle.

I don't say we need to get rid of lawsuits, I just say there should be a penalty for bringing a lawsuit and losing. This is off the top of the head but how about something like punitive damages to the person you sued. They are out time, money, and that ever famous "Mental Anguish" if you sued and lost, pay up.

-----------
Ready, Set, Gooooooo

[billvon 3,107]

>Maybe it would be better to just make the bagels safe to eat?

Right! Add chemicals to make them soft and mushy, even when old. And when is someone going to do something about those peach pits? You could lose an eye if you jammed a peach pit in your eye just right! Did you know they let _kids_ eat peaches without adult supervision?

And, of course, alcohol. It's a _toxin_ for crying out loud! They use it to kill bacteria. We need a law prohibiting that stuff before it kills someone.

[Push 0]

Ugh, it's difficult to come across right.

I was trying to say that both people and corporations should be accountable. If the bagel was a problem, it's the corporation's fault. If not, it's the person's fault. But it should be obvious to the person and corporation, and shouldn't make it to court if the guy is just being stupid.

I must admit, even though I can see how these people may have a point, it's probably frivolous. Worse, it's a copycat of the coffee lawsuit.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[billvon 3,107]

>If the bagel was a problem, it's the corporation's fault. If not, it's the
> person's fault. But it should be obvious to the person and
> corporation, and shouldn't make it to court if the guy is just being
> stupid.

Actually, I agree there. But the limitation of liability should be the cost of the bagel. Want your money back for a bad bagel? No problem. A lawsuit because it ruined your sex life? Hard to imagine how that could be called justice.