Yet another reason for the world to laugh at us.....

T.J. wrote: In reply to yamaha: I watched a documentary about the hot coffee lawsuit. That lady was really badly burnt and didn't really get a giant payout. That lawsuit was hijacked to make it into a rallying cry about how we need tort reform, but it seems like it all driven by the big corporations to protect themselves. They've tricked you into supporting their side by leading you to think it is in your best interest when it is not. The Hot Coffee movie, of course, has its own agenda, but I encourage you to watch it to at least get the other side of the story. The lady still poured hot coffee on herself and I think her injuries were as severe as they were because she was old and unable to get up out of the car very fast so she sat in a puddle of very hot coffee until she was severely burned. Someone else may have jumped out of the car a lot faster and not have gotten burned so badly.

I’ve got a perfect solution to this and it’s so obvious, the fact that we haven’t already implemented it strongly suggests that influential people are actively working to maintain the status quo.

I believe the fundamental argument in support of imposing punitive damages (awards that go beyond the remedy of medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and legal fees) is to get the attention of entities that have deep pockets. The thinking is that McDonald’s for example, has no incentive to reduce their coffee temperature from dangerously high levels if they determine that they’re making enough additional money by keeping them high so to more than off-set the legal settlements.

Fine, I get it, hit them in the pocket to get their attention. But why in the hell do we give the extra punitive money to the plaintive and the attorney…the courts have already determined and provided the remedy. Remedy means remedy, they’re done, good bye, see ya’.

Give the extra punitive money to consumer watchdog groups or pay down the national debt or pour lighter fluid on it and toss a match. Whatever, just don’t give it to the plaintive and attorney like we currently do because it of course, incentivizes abuse which drives up the cost of goods and services for all of us. Jesus, this isn’t rocket science.

It’d be so easy to have everything running right…big companies would be compelled to do the right thing, plaintiffs and their attorneys would be fairly compensated, and we’d see a significant reduction in the cost of our goods and services.

One example, 18% of our total medical expenditure is defensive…that means not necessary but just done to keep the attorneys away. If we only resolved half of this waste, we’d all see a 9% reduction in our health insurance bill overnight.

God forbid we ever start holding businesses accountable for their advertising claims. Imagine the horror of a product having to do what is claimed in the ads.

foxtrapper wrote: God forbid we ever start holding businesses accountable for their advertising claims. Imagine the horror of a product having to do what is claimed in the ads.

Fox Buddy,

I’m all for accountability, nail them all you want, just don’t give more than the remedy amount to the plaintiff.

Economic Theory 101 – remove the incentive, remove the unwanted behavior.

I only received 3 hr and 15 minutes of energy and was promised no crash, yet I crashed my car.

Who's taking my next case!

I like RedBull, although I don't drink it regularly, maybe one or twice a month. NOW ROCKSTAR IS NASTY!

Maybe they are suing because they really want this?

RX Reven' wrote:

T.J. wrote: In reply to yamaha: I watched a documentary about the hot coffee lawsuit. That lady was really badly burnt and didn't really get a giant payout. That lawsuit was hijacked to make it into a rallying cry about how we need tort reform, but it seems like it all driven by the big corporations to protect themselves. They've tricked you into supporting their side by leading you to think it is in your best interest when it is not. The Hot Coffee movie, of course, has its own agenda, but I encourage you to watch it to at least get the other side of the story. The lady still poured hot coffee on herself and I think her injuries were as severe as they were because she was old and unable to get up out of the car very fast so she sat in a puddle of very hot coffee until she was severely burned. Someone else may have jumped out of the car a lot faster and not have gotten burned so badly.

I’ve got a perfect solution to this and it’s so obvious, the fact that we haven’t already implemented it strongly suggests that influential people are actively working to maintain the status quo. I believe the fundamental argument in support of imposing punitive damages (awards that go beyond the remedy of medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and legal fees) is to get the attention of entities that have deep pockets. The thinking is that McDonald’s for example, has no incentive to reduce their coffee temperature from dangerously high levels if they determine that they’re making enough additional money by keeping them high so to more than off-set the legal settlements. Fine, I get it, hit them in the pocket to get their attention. But why in the hell do we give the extra punitive money to the plaintive and the attorney…the courts have already determined and provided the remedy. Remedy means remedy, they’re done, good bye, see ya’. Give the extra punitive money to consumer watchdog groups or pay down the national debt or pour lighter fluid on it and toss a match. Whatever, just don’t give it to the plaintive and attorney like we currently do because it of course, incentivizes abuse which drives up the cost of goods and services for all of us. Jesus, this isn’t rocket science. It’d be so easy to have everything running right…big companies would be compelled to do the right thing, plaintiffs and their attorneys would be fairly compensated, and we’d see a significant reduction in the cost of our goods and services. One example, 18% of our total medical expenditure is defensive…that means not necessary but just done to keep the attorneys away. If we only resolved half of this waste, we’d all see a 9% reduction in our health insurance bill overnight.

I like it, probably not gonna happen considering the trial lawyers' influence on the law.

The British limit the BS lawsuits by requiring the losing team to pay the other team's legal costs.

you know, I saw a little twitter headline yesterday pop up saying 'red Bull settles false advertising lawsuit' and said to myself 'I wonder if it was because it doesn't really give you wiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggsssss?!' And laughed to myself.

I never actually thought that was truly the case. Ridiculous.

Basil Exposition wrote: The British limit the BS lawsuits by requiring the losing team to pay the other team's legal costs.

Except when the soft-hearted (and soft-headed) jury inevitably finds for the plaintiff against the big evil corporation, then the big evil corporation has to pay for the BS lawsuit.

I'm suing DirecTV because I got rid of cable and bad things still happened to me.

I'm suing Kia because I out my kid's pet hamsters in my Soul and told them to drive on down to the club last weekend. Turns out Kia Souls can't really be driven by hamsters.

In reply to RX Reven':

I wasn't advocating juries awarding silly amounts to plaintiffs. I was just saying that the hot coffee lawsuit in and of itself was not really a frivolous lawsuit, at least not as much as it's portrayed. Like I said in my original post, the lady did in fact spill coffee on her own lap - it's not like a McD's employee poured it on her. I think she could just as easily sued Ford for not having cup holders in the Probe she was riding in at the time. The spinmeisters use this case to argue for tort reform and most people think the whole case was just BS and the lady got millions for nothing. In reality, she was severely injured (by her own doing in my book) and got something less than a million of which her lawyer probably took a good percentage. I'm not arguing against some sort of tort reform, just saying that it is worthwhile to watch the movie to see a different side of the story and see how you are being manipulated.

T.J. wrote: ...In reality, she was severely injured (by her own doing in my book) and got something less than a million of which her lawyer probably took a good percentage...

I believe she originally ONLY wanted McDonalds to pay for her medical expenses. They refused. Thus the lawsuit.

golfduke wrote: you know, I saw a little twitter headline yesterday pop up saying 'red Bull settles false advertising lawsuit' and said to myself 'I wonder if it was because it doesn't really give you wiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggsssss?!' And laughed to myself. I never actually thought that was truly the case. Ridiculous.

As ridiculous as someone who didn't read the article or any of the posts in this thread and posts about it anyway?

Grizz wrote: Monster 4 eva

This, even though they discontinued my favorite flavor (M-80) and reduced the amount of fruit juice in Khaos from 50% to 30%.

Tom_Spangler wrote: Regardless, that crap could cure cancer and I still wouldn't drink it. It's nasty.

I get blinding migraines (in the "can't see anything" sense) and a small can of Red Bull makes my eyesight come back in ten minutes tops. I still get the headache about fifteen minutes after the visual things start, but I don't care about that, I can function with a headache.

T.J. wrote: In reply to RX Reven': I wasn't advocating juries awarding silly amounts to plaintiffs. I was just saying that the hot coffee lawsuit in and of itself was not really a frivolous lawsuit, at least not as much as it's portrayed. Like I said in my original post, the lady did in fact spill coffee on her own lap - it's not like a McD's employee poured it on her. I think she could just as easily sued Ford for not having cup holders in the Probe she was riding in at the time. The spinmeisters use this case to argue for tort reform and most people think the whole case was just BS and the lady got millions for nothing. In reality, she was severely injured (by her own doing in my book) and got something less than a million of which her lawyer probably took a good percentage. I'm not arguing against some sort of tort reform, just saying that it is worthwhile to watch the movie to see a different side of the story and see how you are being manipulated.

Hi TJ,

I’m in agreement with all of your specific points.

I would only caution against using the McDonald’s case as the high water mark for excessive punitive damages…for whatever reason, the media latched onto it but that’s not to say it represents the extreme of abuse.

Additionally, the majority of the cost isn’t in the individual awards but in the absurd defensive measures that must be taken to avoid those costs. IE: printing a bazillion labels that say “WARING, this bag of peanuts may contain peanuts.

This is an amusing example of the absurdity but you know what isn’t amusing, the fact that my wife had to have a C-Section with her second delivery because our baby was in a Frank breach position. My brother in-law is a doctor that has done obstetrics and he said C-Sections aren’t indicated with Frank breaches. More risk, more pain, more scaring, more recovery time, less ability to attend to a new born all with added cost to the medical system. Why, because of our flawed legal system.

It is broadly accepted that ~18% of our medical systems costs go to defensive measures. A single paragraph of legislation that simply says “punitive awards are not to be given to plaintiffs or their counsel” would easily cut this in half overnight.

How would you like to see your health insurance premium instantly reduced by 9% or how would you like to see a 9% increase in the number of people that receive medical care that’s just as good at yours with zero additional cost to the health care system.

This is real and it could be done instantly with one paragraph of legislation but no, we’re trying a different approach.

Knurled wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: Regardless, that crap could cure cancer and I still wouldn't drink it. It's nasty.

I get blinding migraines (in the "can't see anything" sense) and a small can of Red Bull makes my eyesight come back in ten minutes tops. I still get the headache about fifteen minutes after the visual things start, but I don't care about that, I can function with a headache.

Have you tried Excedrin? It's aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine. Since the caffeine in the Red Bull is probably what's helping, Excedrin might do the same thing, and also help with the headache. Also, no sugary crap water!

Tom_Spangler wrote: Have you tried Excedrin? It's aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine. Since the caffeine in the Red Bull is probably what's helping, Excedrin might do the same thing, and also help with the headache. Also, no sugary crap water!

Or just caffeine pills (as shown above), so no sugar or blood thinners.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

Knurled wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: Regardless, that crap could cure cancer and I still wouldn't drink it. It's nasty.

I get blinding migraines (in the "can't see anything" sense) and a small can of Red Bull makes my eyesight come back in ten minutes tops. I still get the headache about fifteen minutes after the visual things start, but I don't care about that, I can function with a headache.

Have you tried Excedrin? It's aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine. Since the caffeine in the Red Bull is probably what's helping, Excedrin might do the same thing, and also help with the headache. Also, no sugary crap water!

Excedrin Migraine and coffee chaser... no dice.

It's not just the caffeine, there's something else in there that affects brain chemistry (the taurine, maybe) and other similar drinks don't have the same effect.

I'm pretty insensitive to caffeine, I used to joke that the last thing I do before going to bed is put down my coffee and take my glasses off. But there is "something" in Red Bull that makes my brain work right again.

In reply to Zomby Woof:

I LOLed.

RX Reven' wrote: I would only caution against using the McDonald’s case as the high water mark for excessive punitive damages…for whatever reason, the media latched onto it but that’s not to say it represents the extreme of abuse.

I originally posted in this thread trying to say just that. The hot coffee case has been hijacked for tort reform propaganda, but the actual case is a lot different than people have come to believe. As to your proposed solution, it sounds reasonable to me, but I'm no lawyer.

I have said that before about the McDs case.. but people do not believe me that the lady got very hurt by that cup of joe..

T.J. wrote: I'm suing DirecTV because I got rid of cable and bad things still happened to me. I'm suing Kia because I out my kid's pet hamsters in my Soul and told them to drive on down to the club last weekend. Turns out Kia Souls can't really be driven by hamsters.

Shoulda bought a Rondo.

News flash.

Some people think lawyers file class action suits for the betterment of mankind, and not for the betterment of their wallets.

Who knew.

T.J. wrote: In reply to RX Reven': I wasn't advocating juries awarding silly amounts to plaintiffs. I was just saying that the hot coffee lawsuit in and of itself was not really a frivolous lawsuit, at least not as much as it's portrayed. Like I said in my original post, the lady did in fact spill coffee on her own lap - it's not like a McD's employee poured it on her.

1. She was handed the cup at the drive-through window with the lid on improperly. This caused the coffee to gush out, through no fault of hers.

2. McDonalds had already been warned that their coffee was excessively hot, dangerously so, and ignored those warnings.

3. McDonalds had already been ordered to lower the temperature of their coffee, and ignored those orders.

4. McDonalds had internal memorandums explaining how it was in their financial best interest to continue serving overly hot coffee and to pay medical expenses to those whom they hurt.

5. McDonalds for some reason decided not to pay for this womens injuries when asked.

6. The internal memorandums mentioned in #4 above are what sank McDonalds, just like the Ford internal memorandums regarding the Pinto are what sank Ford in their similar case.

7. Facts like these are universally disregarded by frothers.