Natural Selection at work

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, you just don't bother to google anything to make sure you know what you're talking about before you go off about it.

It's very entertaining and very informative. It also comes down hard on our legal system, but not because people file frivolous suits.

In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.

In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.

In May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph's lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit.

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris's family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn't have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn't like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station's "whimsical tiger logo" with Kellogg's mascot, "Tony the Tiger." It didn't matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg's "Tony."

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn't doing him much good during the ten years he's serving for armed robbery.

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn't earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer's large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like "cement blocks" hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What does any of those examples have to do with the suit against McDonalds?

Oh, right. Nothing. Not to mention, all but two of those cases were thrown out or dismissed, which really doesn't help your argument about frivolous lawsuits, since they were recognized as frivolous. Anyone can file a suit. It's whether they make their case that counts.

Again, a little research before you post will do you wonders.

[GenuineRisk]

Speaking of research, Dell, my curiosity was piqued by the first case listed and I decided to do a little more poking around online about that case. And, not surprisingly, the case is not what you presented. What you presented:

"In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles."

First off, "troubles" means that one of the two men was burned over 70 percent of his body and lost the tips of all ten of his fingers, along with most of his hearing and eyesight. The other would have escaped with minor injuries, but he went back in to save his friend, who was burning to death, and so ended up seriously injured himself. The explosion was so strong it threw the homeowner through two rooms and out of the front door of her home. It blew out windows and set a neighbor's tree on fire.

The chemical company first argued that that didn't really count as an "explosion." They then argued they shouldn't have to list "explosive" on the packaging, despite the fact that they USED TO list it on an earlier version of the product.

http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryC...7780/Page1.htm

(This is the document denying Para Chem an appeal. It's a judge making the determination to deny appeal, not a jury)

"Frivolous lawsuits" is a favorite of the Right to trot out ever so often, because limiting damages benefits Big Business, basically giving them more freedom to market unsafe products without fear of liability. And in this case, there were no punitive damages awarded against Para Chem; just compensatory damages. If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?

Pretty sure I'd never have an open can of flammable anything near my water heater or my refrigerator. I don't even leave my clothes dryer on when I leave the house. Mind as well asked me what I'd like for dinner when I visit the moon.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What does any of those examples have to do with the suit against McDonalds?

I stubbed my toe this w/e and it still really hurts. Wonder if I should sue Cobalt, the pier owner, the pier installer or the State of Wisconsin for leaving a 'dangerous' lake open without warning signs?

Seriously, I made a decent living for almost 20 years off 'frivolous/fraudulent' lawsuits, not by filing them but by exposing them.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Pretty sure I'd never have an open can of flammable anything near my water heater or my refrigerator. I don't even leave my clothes dryer on when I leave the house. Mind as well asked me what I'd like for dinner when I visit the moon.





I stubbed my toe this w/e and it still really hurts. Wonder if I should sue Cobalt, the pier owner, the pier installer or the State of Wisconsin for leaving a 'dangerous' lake open without warning signs?

Seriously, I made a decent living for almost 20 years off 'frivolous/fraudulent' lawsuits, not by filing them but by exposing them.

First, actually read the judge's statement on the Para Chem case and get back to me. It's not enough to say "flammable" on a label anymore.

Second, again, none of what you've said has anything to do with the McDonald's case.

Speaking of getting back from tangents, here's more on the shooting range death:

http://gawker.com/9-year-old-shootin...gic-1629808348

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

First, actually read the judge's statement on the Para Chem case and get back to me. It's not enough to say "flammable" on a label anymore.

That's because 'stupidity' instead of common sense is presumed nowadays

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Second, again, none of what you've said has anything to do with the McDonald's case.

The McDonald case was an example of a frivolous suit. This thread never was about McDonald's despite your yearning to make it so.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Speaking of getting back from tangents, here's more on the shooting range death:

http://gawker.com/9-year-old-shootin...gic-1629808348

Wow it would be ironic if the family of the little girl, who shot the instructor, filed a lawsuit.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The McDonald case was an example of a frivolous suit. This thread never was about McDonald's despite your yearning to make it so.

Explain what about the suit was frivolous. Let me remind you of McFact number 5 from my earlier post. Actually, I'm probably minding you of it, as I doubt you bothered to read any of the facts of the case in the earlier post. Nevertheless:

"McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible."

I also suggest you google images of the women's burns. Or hell, just watch the documentary. It's all in there. There was nothing frivolous about that lawsuit. And if McDonald's had just been willing to pay for her hospital bill in the first place, they'd never have been sued. They brought it on themselves by negligence and then greed.