The GOP myth of the "Lawsuit" crisis

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
The GOP myth of the "Lawsuit" crisis
28
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 3:32pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 4:09pm
I totally disagree with the president's call for a cap on awards. Our system has checks and balances, and capping it would remove one of them. Think of how manufacturers have worked to make safer products the last 30 years or so... they are doing so because of the potential consequences, not because they are good citizens. Bush's plan would hurt the average citizen for the benefit of... (who benefits from everything he proposes?) Insurers would *love* a cap on these awards... this was my profession for 25 years, and I've designed insurance contracts... caps are great for reducing risk, and increasing profits, and that is all they care about... not whether someone injured is compensated fairly.

I will say that one aspect of awards needs to change, and that is for punitive damages. Some of the larger awards are heavy in punitive damages. To me that is quite apart from compensating for an injury, omission, etc... that has already supposedly happened. Punitive damages are to teach a lesson, and as such the money should not go to the plaintiff, it should go to the state, and if done correctly, be used to educate and improve. Capping such awards, or setting guidelines is fine by me. Some states don't allow for open ended punitive damages (NH is one.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 8:55pm
I like one of the ideas that one of my local candidated proposed in the 2002 election.

He said that he would like to see some sort of restriction on the punitive awards, but also said in order to curtail frivilous lawsuits, where people are just looking for money, he would like to see a provision in the law, where if a party brings a suit, and they lose, then that party would have to pay the court costs, and attorney fees for BOTH sides. Interesting, as it would make people without a true case think twice about proceeding with their suit.

Any thoughts?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 9:19pm
I'm against it, because someone who has a legitimate suit and loses would pay, and that will favour those with more $.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 12:01pm
Well therein lies the problem.

How do you stop those lawsuits that have no real merit, such as the woman who sued McDonalds (I think it was them) because she burnt herself while driving with an open cup of hot coffee between her legs.

If I were the judge, I would have told her anyone stupid enough to do it deserved to get what they got, and how was that McDonalds fault?

This is just a prime example, where her award judgement was overturned on appeal (thank god).

How about this one. A NJ doctor was on his way home, and witnessed a car accident, and pulled over to assist. One of the victims of the accident was having a heart attack, so the doctor performed CPR until the rescue vehicles arrived, thereby saving the mans life.

It turns out that the man had a cracked rib due to the CPR which saved his life. He then sued the doctor and WON. His award was just under $1,000,000.

What is wrong with this picture. The doctor saves the mans life, and in doing so, accidentally cracks the mans rib, so not only is the man alive thanks to the actions of the doctor, but he is getting about $800,000 in damages for this too.

Things need to be addressed and changed with personal injury laws in this country, and they have needed change for quite some time.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 12:17pm
A judge can stop such a trial if they think it does not have merit.

What is wrong with the picture is the defence did a lousy job of defending their client. Setting limits is the wrong way to go, and taking away the right to sue using economics favours those who can afford to bring cases. Doing so is far more egregious than our current problem.

I'm open to consider changes, but caps on regular awards or attaching financial penalties for frivolous suits is not ones that appeal to me. Take the McDonald's case... to most of us it sounds incredible... and rather a "duh?" Yet... someone presented a hell of a case, right? Enough to overcome objections. A judge, a person we would assume is educated in law history and precedent, presided. Was the coffee hotter than she is used to getting? Was the container flimsy, and likely to spill? It may not be as goofy as it sounds when one looks closer. (It may still be goofy, my point is not that this was a good verdict, but that things need a closer look as to why it turned out that way.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 12:27pm
The reason why many of these suits turn out the way they do is that the juries look at the poor victim, and then see the large corporation they are going after with the very deep pockets.

Both of the situations that I described in my earlier email should not have even seen a courtroom, and something in the law needs to be amended to keep cases such as these from the courts, wasting the time of the court, and putting un-needed strain on liability insurance for companies, doctors, and the like.

If someone is negligent, then that is a different reason, and a lawsuit would be merited, but not for the reasons as outlined in the two examples I provided.

Are you aware that many OB/GYNs are dropping the obstetrics part because legally, they are responsible for any child that they deliver, until that child reaches the age of majority? Meaning if a doctor delivers a baby, and all is well with that child, but then at age 15 they develop an illness or a chronic condition, where they can get another doctor to testify that it is probably a result of the OB/GYN's care during pregnancy or delivery, then that person can sue. Again...something wrong with this picture.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 12:39pm
I'm not arguing that abuses exist, but every right we have is abused at some point by someone. We need to be careful curtailing the ability to take action, because at one time it was virtually impossible to do successfully, and people were being hurt and killed by all manner of unsafe products. We need to protect the good in the system, and be better at keeping frivolous cases out... but the tough part is making that judgement - who decides?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:37pm
Common sense would dictate that McDonalds is not responsible for a stupid person driving a car with an open container of hot coffee between their legs.

Common sense would dictate that a doctor saved a mans life, who is now complaining about having a cracked rib. Would that man rather have a perfect rib and be dead?

I know it is a fine line, but something must be done about it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:47pm
No product should be sold that is that hot... what if a child were burned by it? Seems to me this is a good example of why government regulation, inspection etc is a good thing.


Edited 10/4/2004 2:49 pm ET ET by rayeellen
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 4:26pm
I could counter that she violated the law in several states that says you are comitting a moving violation if you are eating or drinking while operating a motor vehicle.

Government regulation in selling coffeee?

Are you serious?

That is one thing I will not allow my tax dollars to be wasted on, is some bureaucratic idiot setting up an office to monitor how fast food chains sell their coffee, and regulate at what temperature it should be sold at.

Besides, if a child were burned as a result of an accident, it still does not explain how McDonalds would be culpable (unless an employee is responsible for causing the accident).

Pages