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: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 10:07am
Exactly...one was due to negligence and the other was not.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 10:12am
Harassment? And you are saying the first case was frivolous? As was pointed out in an earlier post... they are now taking care on the temperature. I don't think that is as frivolous as you think. I was a business insurance underwriter for 13 years, also handled placement of reinsurance on larger accounts, and even designed inland marine contracts... I've seen a lot of goofy claims... but sometimes it isn't always the summary that makes sense, it's in the details.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2001
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 10:25am
<"Be extremely careful if you are stupid and plan to drive a car or truck with this open container of hot liquid between your legs"?>

Okay, my memory is a little fuzzy on this case .... are you *sure* that's what she was doing? I remember when I first heard about this suit I thought it was ridiculous too, but after reading a little more about it it started to make a little more sense. For example, I do remember reading that that particular McDonald's had been receiving complaints that the coffee was too hot for quite some time.

Don't have time to do a Web search on this but I will .... I just wanted to mention this, as I don't remember hearing anything about her actually driving with the cup of coffee between her legs. Please refute me if I'm wrong.

Bev

girl in chair
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 12:33pm
Interesting.

I used to be an actuary working on the statistics of claims and the such.

I found that suits such as these did actually do harm to the insurance industry, as the suits themselves are not regulated and there are no controls to keep them at bay.

Yes, I do feel the lawsuit against McDonalds was a harassment type suit as the woman basically sued McDonalds because she had less common sense than most 4 year olds. Yes, the coffee may have been hotter than the norm, but McDonalds did not put the cup in between the legs of the woman as she was attempting to drive her car. Only she was stupid enough to do that, and should have to bear the consequence of her action by herself. She did purchase hot coffee, and not iced tea afterall.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:16pm
Reasonable use applies here, and one can argue that a cup of coffee sold through a drive through placed between one's legs would be seen as such.

The insurance industry would do much better if it stopped bellyaching about such claims and found a way to smooth out the industry cycle, but... they won't, and only way it does is with heavy regulation, which also will not happen. I've bee through market conduct surveys by insurance departments, and know how companies deal with them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 4:29pm
Well I can also vouch for the fat cats that head insurance companies getting paid way too much.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 4:43pm
I heard about the complaints too, which is why the first jury was swayed in the claimants favor.

The coffee was spilled by the claimant due to her own admitted negligence.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 4:44pm
I dont know why my post responding to you never made it, and I cannot remember what I said, but it responded to yours perfectly, and explained my position, and my contempt for the system, and not the jurors.

You assumed incorrectly, or just misunderstood what my point was.

Pages