gbaker

Loser pays. End of problem.

JimmiLew

I have a few Laywer friends, and know for a fact that 99% of lawsuits settle before they make it to trial. In this case, the widow sues everyone with a pocket, and an insurance company that covers that pocket. If it survives rule 11 (is it real), this case will likely settle before trial. It sucks, but thats the way the system works in this country.

mrbill_fl

RIGHT! loser pays both all costs, and a possible penalty.

or how about the attorney also foots a percentage of the plaintiffs costs.... on contingency work.


current system generates its own demand, little negative consequences.

NetManiac

IMHO, it should not be cheaper to settle than to go to court. If companies stop settling, and all cases must be heard (judge, arbitrator, etc) I think there will be lot fewer of these suits. Especially, if loser pays all costs. It is an extremist view, sure. But when pendilums swing to far in one direction they must swing back, and they do not stop on center.

I don't actually know the answer. But it does make me sick when I read about suits like this.

Oh, and in case anyone is interested. #1 The k-rail that is there for the "kiddie play area" has been there ever since I started going to that track in 2003. It's not new. It was not just put there for that event. #2 That is a stupid place to put pit-out. If you are driving the course correctly you are trying to get as far left as possible to set yourself up for a 90 degree right turn at the end of that straight. So, if you're going to just rent the infield (not using the REAL pit-out) then find a better place than that!

Bigpinekey

Fabulous idea, but with lawyers making the laws, it'll never pass.

Antonio

Nothing is perfect but IMHO, considering how dysfunctional the legislative and executive branches of government have become the judicial still by functions pretty good. Courts throw out frivolous cases all the time. On occasion someone guilty gets off but rarely someone innocent is convicted. The jury system works much better that the popular media gives it credit for. When juries make mistakes, there is an appeal process that takes care of that. Yes, it all takes money and many of the players are motivated purely by greed but consider the alternatives.

kurt M

This would keep little guy from ever standing up to his rights. Person in the right does not always win. The guy with the biggest guns does at times. What if there is no looser? Ongoing can mean a very long time too.

Small Co or inventor gets slammed by big co. that is looking to suppress the development and marketing of a competing invention. Big boys sue and bring on the big in house guns to do so. One thing after the other and using the max time during. Little guy gets slammed around for a long while and then has to sue to get compensation if by chance he wins. Right or wrong after time he settles for fraction of the true cost just to get the **** to stop....

What you read might be incomplete too. Macsludgelds was found to be keeping the coffee way hotter than other coffee sellers did as a way to suppress refills. This came out via internal co. communications. They even studied temp to refill ratios. Macsludgelds was aware of previous complaints and problems prior to the suit that is often quoted.

gbaker

No, it would simply require that the plaintiff (or his attorney) put his money where his mouth is. Posting a bond is another option. There has to be a downside to losing, for both sides.

The ultimate irony is that the present legal system allows itself to be the mechanism for the illegal act of extortion, which simply fosters disrespect for the legal system.

Geo

It is indeed incomplete. I don't remember all the details now, but around 11-12 years ago I read an article about this suit in the WSJ. The gist of the article was that MickeyD's really screwed up. That suit didn't even start out as a suit. The plaintiff simply asked for some help with the medical bills and presented some evidence that while MickeyD's was fully at fault, they were contributory.

What happened is that MickeyD's not only didn't settle, not only did they ignore this lady, they made life difficult for her (again, it was 11-12 years ago so I don't remember the details). MickeyD's has multiple opportunities to settle this before a suite was filed and multiple times after the suit was filed.

The thing I remember after reading the article was thinking the whole thing spiraled out of control and it was all MikeyD's fault. In the end, while I think the award was a bit stupid, MickeyD's was even more stupid and they brought it on themselves. Apparently the jury agreed.

All of that said, I was brought up to take responsibility for myself and couldn't imagine going after MickeyD's in this situation. Nor could I see anyone going after anyone in the case of the subject matter of this thread. If you don't accept the risk that just about anything can happen out there, then don't get in the damned car, or better yet, don't even show up at the event. I swear if I get killed on the track and someone related to me files a suit, I will haunt them for the rest of their life. The only exception would be gross and willful negligence such as was the case a few years back where some pro team built a car with a cage that had tubing where the wall was grossly illegal and the driver was killed in a wreck. Then it would seem to me that the team and tech would be culpable.

kurt M

I agree with you. There has to be a way to have the little guy not get $$$ killed if he looses to a big guy. One side has no control over the costs of the other.

TD in DC

I agree about taking responsibility for your own actions, too many lawsuits, blah blah blah. I disagree about the MickeyD's situation. The old lady, she was a grandmother, received THIRD DEGREE BURNS over the entire region where she spilled the coffee. Let me repeat that: She received third-degree burns on her genitals and perenium region. You cannot drink coffee that hot. There is no reason to think you are going to receive coffee that is way too hot to drink, which is the only reason why you buy coffee to begin with.

Personal responsibility works both ways. Sure, we need to take personal responsibility when we do something unreasonable or make a mistake, but corporations also need to take personal responsibility when they are unreasonable or they make a mistake. MickeyD's did not, and they were popped bigtime by a jury of our peers. I can assure you that if my grandmother or me had received third degree burns of the genetalia, I would be "talking" with MickeyD's. If I found out that they knew of the issue and had ignored it, and then they refused to pay for my medical bills? You bet I would sue them, and frankly, they would deserve it.

Now, with respect to the Porsche CGT lawsuit . . . I don't know the facts. "IF" the facts are as they were reported, I personally would not sue.

I think that the way to "fix" any problem is NOT to make loser pays all. Rather, it is to give Rule 11 some teeth. In other words, if you file a frivolous suit, you pay and the attorney receives substantial personal penalties. By contrast, if you lose a non-frivolous suit, you are out nothing but your own costs, which is enough of a penalty itself. The problem now is that courts are too hesitant to make a finding of a frivolous suit, so companies are too likely to settle frivolous suits. If the companies knew that a judge would not hesitate to find that a suit is frivolous, they probably wouldn't settle frivolous suits. Then again, the suit probably would not get brought in the first place.

This topic makes my head hurt. I prefer thinking about how sweet it will be if I can swing a 997 GT3RS.

Flying Finn

But she drove with the cup between her legs!

First of all, putting the cup between the legs is not what you're supposed to do with a hot coffee cup, and further more, you are not supposed to drive a vechile with that cup of hot coffee between your legs.

So, you're saying if I go to a restaurant and order a bowl of soup, cup of tea or sizzling stake and slap it to my face & get burns, I should to sue them?

TD in DC

She wasn't driving. She was the passenger. In fact, the 79 year old was burned while her grandson, who was driving, had pulled over to let her mix sugar in her coffee. Here, read the facts for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck

In any event, MickeyD's was selling it at a drive through. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that some will be drinking while driving.

But the main point is that, if the coffee were at a normal temperature, there wouldn't be third degree burns.

And Finn, why you would think I am ok with people ordering steaks or soup and driving is seriously beyond me. I think nothing of the sort, and I have never posted anything to suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, even if someone did stupidly try to eat soup or a steak while driving, if the food is fit for consumption, it wouldn't cause third degree burns. Also, I think there is a huge difference in drinking a cup of coffee while driving, which his very common, and trying to eat sizzling fajitas in your lap. In any event, don't try to make me out to be a radical just because I am providing additional background facts about a case that gets misdescribed all the time.

I agree that the system needs reform, I just think the MickeyD's example is misused in support of reform. If you used any of the other frivolous lawsuits that get filed everyday, I would sit back and continue to lurk without saying a word. But when I hear the MickeyD's case get misdescribed over and over by everyone (you are not alone), I can't help but step in because I think that the MickeyD's case is actually an example of a non-frivolous suit that shows why private litigants need to have the right to sue.

Now, if you are talking about limits on the size of judgments, then maybe MickeyD's is a good example to discuss. However, it is clear in that case that the jurors were trying to send MickeyD's a message. More importantly, however, we are not talking about the size of judgments here . . . that is a discussion for another day.

Now, good thing that we both want 997 GT3 RSs and that we both agree that drivers should have the choice of whether to buy Porsches with sunroofs, cupholders and, most relevant here, traction control. I do not want litigation to take those choices away from us. In reality though, I think that we have much more to fear from DOT than we ever will from litigation, whether frivolous or not.

P.S. Just for the record, I am NOT a trial attorney. In fact, I spend my time defending large corporations, so this post doesn't reflect any bias against corporations. Indeed, I hope to run one myself someday soon.

Flying Finn

TD,

Didn't know she wasn't the one driving. And I do agree that there is some blaim if the coffee was too hot but I still think there should've not been a law suit in this kind of case.

To me, it's just more to blame her since whe spilled it and coffee is supposed to be hot, that's all. I think I look at this kind of things more simply since where I come from there are very few cases where people would sue someone. And that is not to offend anyone, just the way it is.

And enough of that, like you, I much rather talk about soon coming 997 GT3 RS, even if the discussion involves sunroofs & other crap like that!
Hmm... Do you think we could sue PCNA if they force sunroof for all GT3s?

Cheers and have a great weekend!

TD in DC

You too! If I could force myself to sue my favorite manufacturer (or anybody for that matter), I would be much happier to represent you in fighting for the right not to have sunroofs, cup holders and traction control than for forcing Porsche to requiring us to buy them for our own safety and convenience.