Damn Lawyers and the Compensation Culture!

[francisgraham]

Pelmetman asked me my view on the compensation culture and I told him that I think it's out of control and that the fault lies with various governments, who should reform the no-win, no-fee system to weed out all but the sensible cases.

Having said that however, I'd like to tell you about the case that has already been mentioned and which the ill-informed often use as an example of 'The compensation culture gone mad'.

It is of course Liebeck v McDonald's, where a woman sued because she was scalded by a hot drink.

These are the facts:

In 1992, Stella Liebeck purchased a paper cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru. In trying to pull of the cap she accidentally spilled the coffee in her lap, suffering third-degree burns to her thighs and groin.

She spent eight days in hospital and endured a series of skin grafts. This was followed by two years of further medical treatment.

Mrs Liebeck did not engage an 'ambulance-chasing scumbag lawyer' as some on this site would describe them. She went to McDonald's where she told them that serving coffee that is scalding hot from a drive-thru window, where they must know people would open it on their knees, was irresponsible and that they had a duty of care to ensure that the coffee was served at a temperature that would not cause third-degree burns.

She asked for $20,000. Her medical fees were over $10,000 dollars, her future medical fees were $2500 and her loss of earnings was over $5000. A total of nearly $18,000. She can hardly be accused of wishing to profiteer from her mishap!

McDonald's offered her $800.

Getting nowhere with McD's Mrs Liebeck engaged a lawyer. He asked McD's for $90,000 to settle the case. They refused. He issued a writ for $300,00 and an independent mediator recommended a final settlement of $225,000, which Mrs Liebeck accepted, but once more, McDonald's refused and so it went to court.

During the trial it emerged that, in the ten years before the trial, over 700 people had been scalded by McD's being served at temperatures that were far too high for take-away consumption, with its inherent risk of spillage.

After much evidence, with which I won't bore you, but it's all available on-line, the jury found unanimously for Mrs Liebeck. The agreed damages, based on McD's being 80% responsible and Mrs L 20% responsible, presumably for being clumsy.

Now this is important: Pelmetman has been banging about a needing a Court of Commonsense, presumably staffed by ordinary people.

This decision was not handed down by a judge, but by a jury of twelve ordinary people who had heard and considered the evidence from both sides.

And I'm sure you'll agree that McD's would have had the best legal brains available to them, but still they lost!

She was awarded $2,000,000 dollars because the jury punished McD's because they had let this come to court when they should have settled for a much lower sum much earlier.

Remember, a jury of 12 ordinary 'common-sense' people made this recommendation!

On appeal much later, a judge reduced it to $450,000 of which Mrs L would have probably received two thirds, so for her suffering, she is hardly a rich woman.

And the outcome? McDonald's no longer serves take-away drinks at temperatures that cause third-degree burns!

Now I would ask you all to try to answer this next question honestly, Forget that it's me, whom some of you obviously dislike and try to be truthful.

If you had given your child a cup of McD's coffee and in opening it either you or the child had slipped or been slightly clumsy and her face had been splashed with coffee so hot that it scarred her for life and meant hours of skin grafts and weeks in hospital, what would you do?

Would you say, in the parlance of our American cousins, "Oh well sh*t happens, nothing we can do about it."

Or would you think "This was unnecessary, take-away coffee does not need to be served at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns. If McD's will not compensate my child and pay for her cosmetic surgery or whatever I'm going to sue them.

And that's when you'd rush to a slimy, scumbag lawyer! And believe me, you all would!

And the moral of this story? Under the sensationalist headlines, there is usually a more complex and a much more understandable and reasonable reason for a compensation claim! 

And please, no lists of 'silly' claims. I know they exist and many of them are unreasonable, but not all!

[aultymer]

"The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

 

Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

 

And...

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?"

 

12 common sense people? this was in the USA!

[francisgraham]

aultymer - 2011-09-28 3:00 PM"The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?And...Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?"12 common sense people? this was in the USA!

I see that you've had plenty of time to do some research on this but apparently you haven't the time to look up all these cases of illegal developments on flood plains etc. Interesting!

What does it matter if there were only 700 cases? Remember, it was 700 cases reported. But it's a pointless example.

If a car has an inherent fault and 200,000 are sold, but only one actually results in a death, does that make it excusable? But are you actually saying that any number of severe burns is acceptable when, by the application of a few changes, they can be avoided?

Since this case McDonald's hasn't stopped brewing its coffee at the optimum temperature but it now serves it at a lower temperature (no one can drink coffee at 195 degrees, it would burn your mouth!) and it now serves it in much sturdier cups with larger warnings on, so a lot of good has come from this case.

The important point here is that this is not coffee being served in a restaurant, but in a car. If you are sitting in a car, where are you supposed to open your coffee and handle your burger? You do it in your seat for God's sake!

But once again you show your true nature and completely let yourself down by this one statement:

'12 common sense people, this was in the USA'

Have you seen the educational standards of the average Briton these days? Did you see a lot of news recently about riots in our cities? Wonderful examples of British citizens eh?

What evidence have you vis a vis the educational standards of the average American citizen as compared to the average British citizen?    Having visited the US on a number of occasions I can assure you that your rather snide implication could not be more wrong!

I'd still like to know what you'd do if it had happened to your child. 

Naturally, you'd say, I'm sorry that you're scarred for life dear and you're going to need months of surgery, but I'm not taking part in this compensation culture nonsense.

Yea, of course you would! (lol) (lol)

Here's a bit more reading for you!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454

[soarer]

FG

why do you post a thread,get a reasonable reply then retort on an aggressive manner ?

barking springs to mind ffs.

[nowtelse2do]

soarer - 2011-09-28 3:47 PM

 

FG

why do you post a thread,get a reasonable reply then retort on an aggressive manner ?

barking springs to mind ffs.

 

Because he is, or thinks he is an intellect troll. I've said it once that he is a snob and I have seen no reason yet to apologise or retract what I said. Look at 98% of his posts and everyone is an idiot, have no IQ. etc, etc,...... It does get boring *-)

 

Just remembered, you will never get the last word, that's reserved for himself.

 

Dave

[aultymer]

I find the dear, departed, lady 100% in the wrong.

 

Firstly, she went to MacDonalds.

Secondly, she ordered coffee without realising it would be hot.

Thirdly, she did not use a cupholder or put the cup on the floor before she opened what she must by then have realised was a hot cup.

Lastly, because of this well publicised case - I cannot get hot coffee in the KFC drive thru.

 

[francisgraham]

soarer - 2011-09-28 3:47 PMFG why do you post a thread,get a reasonable reply then retort on an aggressive manner ?barking springs to mind ffs.

Because it's aultymer who started our relationship in the 'Living in a shed' thread with this!

In spite of all the things you say you could be FG, you are obviously just an arsehole. 

If this couple are made homeless through the application of the rules you support then they will be eligible for temporary B&B paid for by the ratepayers. WOW thats a result for us all??? 

I hope they send you the bill.

Since then he's accused me of stealing from clients and being a drunkard! If I posted that England was in the UK he'd find a reason to disagree! 

Anyway, what was aggressive, just because I objected to a totally nasty comment implying that all Americans are thick?

[pepe63xnotuse]

soarer - 2011-09-28 3:47 PM

 

FG

why do you post a thread,get a reasonable reply then retort on an aggressive manner ?

barking springs to mind ffs.

 

..Thank God somebody else said that?!.. ;-)

FG,is rather painting a picture of himself,as some sort of deranged,sweating,bleary eyed bloke..sitting infront of his computer screen..rocking backwards and forewards,whilst ranting .."...AGREE WITH ME DAMN YOU!...WHY WON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME?!?!.." :-S

 

..Hello?..Nurse..Oh Nurse!?..I think FG has skipped his Meds again.... *-)

 

(..I wonder if he's "got a little black book with his poems in" ?..that's for the 'Floyd fans out there.. ;-) )

 

Edit..Oops! missed your post FG...Please..Just take the "hint" and stop!..as NONE of us are being impressed with all of childish "He started it" nonsense... *-)

(..as I've posted previously..a pity really,as I do agree with you on many of your points..)

[francisgraham]

nowtelse2do - 2011-09-28 4:03 PM

soarer - 2011-09-28 3:47 PMFG why do you post a thread,get a reasonable reply then retort on an aggressive manner ?barking springs to mind ffs.

Because he is, or thinks he is an intellect troll. I've said it once that he is a snob and I have seen no reason yet to apologise or retract what I said. Look at 98% of his posts and everyone is an idiot, have no IQ. etc, etc,...... It does get boring *-) Just remembered, you will never get the last word, that's reserved for himself.Dave

You must admit though, this section of MMM forum does have a lot of idiots! Which is why it's virtually dead. All the intelligent ones have given up and no longer visit. And don't blame me. I've just been away for a month and during that time it was quieter than ever!

[francisgraham]

pepe63 - 2011-09-28 4:12 PM

soarer - 2011-09-28 3:47 PMFG why do you post a thread,get a reasonable reply then retort on an aggressive manner ?barking springs to mind ffs.

..Thank God somebody else said that?!.. ;-) FG,is rather painting a picture of himself,as some sort of deranged,sweating,bleary eyed bloke..sitting infront of his computer screen..rocking backwards and forewards,whilst there ranting .."...AGREE WITH ME DAMN YOU!...WHY WON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME?!?!.." :-S ..Hello?..Nurse..Oh Nurse!?..I think FG has skipped his Meds again.... *-) (..I wonder if he's "got a little black book with his poems in" ?..that's for the 'Floyd fans out there.. ;-) )

Sorry, don't know what 'Floyd fans out there' means! Actually, I don't mind if someone doesn't agree with me. Please remember that the spat on the Shed's thread started with Aultymer telling me that my opinion was rubbish and that I'm an arsehole. 

Since then I've tried to get him to explain why giving councils the power to ignore the law is acceptable but I can't get an answer.

But actually, it's all good fun and I love a good argument! Sharpens the brain, for the few of us who have one of course! :-D

Edited to say:

Edit..Oops! missed your post FG...Please..Just take the "hint" and stop!..as NONE of us are being impressed with all of childish "He started it" nonsense..

Perhaps you could tell Aultymer that as well! He does seem to have a bit of a grudge! It takes two to tango you know!

[aultymer]

I find that people who carry grudges from thread to thread just a bit tiresome.

 

I do agree it was quiet when fg was away and admire his efforts to get this near moribund forum moving again. (even if what he says is suspect)

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

francisgraham - 2011-09-28 4:21 PM

 

Perhaps you could tell Aultymer that as well! He does seem to have a bit of a grudge! It takes two to tango you know!

 

Okay..point taken..it takes two..

 

Aultymer!..Play nice now... ;-)

 

There now!..wasn't that easy...(lol)

 

(Oh..and sorry yes, the "..little black book.." line was a Pink Floyd lyric...about someone who had..shall we say.. "lost it" somewhat... :-) )

[nowtelse2do]

francisgraham - 2011-09-28 4:21 PM It takes two to tango you know!

 

Very true Mr Graham, but you do seem to have a lot of partners.

[aultymer]

How do you know it's a Mr?

[CliveH]

 

 

O goodness - here we go again.

 

Compensation culture? - on the whole good or else those with no moral compass would get away with all sorts.

 

Does the compensation culture lead to spurious claims? - of course it does.

 

Is that a problem? - No

 

Are we all better off for knowing that in the event of an accident against us caused by another’s negligence, we can gain compensation and the guilty party held responsible? - Yes.

 

Mind you having just had to inform a VERY good legal bod that what he is recommending to a mutual client is a Gift With Reservation (IHT therefore WILL apply) and not a Potentially Exempt Transfer (where if you survive 7 years the gift falls outside of the estate for IHT purposes), I would always council getting a second opinion.

 

8-) :-S

[nowtelse2do]

aultymer - 2011-09-28 5:13 PM

 

How do you know it's a Mr?

 

You're leaving your self open..!! Frances- Feminin. Francis- Masculine.

 

Dave

[aultymer]

nowtelse2do - 2011-09-28 5:52 PM

 

aultymer - 2011-09-28 5:13 PM

 

How do you know it's a Mr?

 

You're leaving your self open..!! Frances- Feminin. Francis- Masculine.

 

Dave

could still be Mrs - In't North only girls are called Francis - however you spell it - unless they are kaflic - they get away with anything.

[MandyAndy]

This Forum needs

 

1. A thank you button

2. I back you completely button

3. What a Plonker button

 

Would have some very interesting results I feel :-D :-D

 

Mandy

[aultymer]

I bet I can get more 'plonks' than you, Mandy!

[Guest pelmetman]

Mandy&Andy - 2011-09-29 6:05 AM  What a Plonker button Would have some very interesting results I feel :-D :-D Mandy

Good idea:D...........Then at the end of the year we could give the top 3 winners a virtual reward;-)..........we could call it........."The Rodneys"(lol)

[nowtelse2do]

aultymer - 2011-09-28 10:32 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2011-09-28 5:52 PM

 

aultymer - 2011-09-28 5:13 PM

 

How do you know it's a Mr?

 

You're leaving your self open..!! Frances- Feminin. Francis- Masculine.

 

Dave

could still be Mrs - In't North only girls are called Francis - however you spell it - unless they are kaflic - they get away with anything.

 

You may have Miss (ed) something

 

Dave

[Guest pelmetman]

aultymer - 2011-09-28 3:00 PM"The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.

I am no fan of Mc Cr*p, although I was once a much larger person than I am now due to their fine dining experience:$

I do feel that cases like this have helped to turn our societies into the "It must be someone elses fault" culture that we now have*-)........and we're all the more poorer for it in my view...........Except for lawyers of course eh... Francis?(lol)

If you take the case back to basics, the clumsy lady spilt the coffee, not Mc'd, so following this principle should I sue Mr Ford for providing me with the van or the council for putting up the lamp post that I reversed into8-)

Incidentally, I still get phone calls from the "Claims4U" brigade referring to my accident with the lamp post*-)   

[Retread24800]

Not for the first time are lawyers having a bad press and looking back there has never been a time when they have, just read your Dickens, Unfortunately their entrenched position within the establishment doesn't help, We find lawyers predominate in parliament, making more and more laws for lawyers to interpret, thus providing more work for more lawyers, it was lawyers who drafted, and advised on the compensation culture laws, and it is lawyers who profit from them. You don't find Joe Public trawling round sink estates, looking for 'victims', you don't find Joe Public supporting criminal gangs claiming damages for staged accidents, what you find are lawyers, the answer for the reputable lawyers ( whats an oxymoron?) is to ask their chums in parliament to change the rules, thus disbarring doubtful practitioners. That will never happen due to the rapacious nature of the beasts.

[nowtelse2do]

pelmetman - 2011-09-29 12:39 PM

 

should I sue Mr Ford for providing with the van or the council for putting up the lamp post that I reversed into8-)  

 

Dozy sod..!! was it at night? if so try one of these next time (^) :D :D

 

Then there was the case when the guy put his Winnebago on cruise control then went back to the kitchen to make a coffee 8-) enough said, but sued Winnebago, won and was awarded hundreds of thousands of $'s because they didn't give a warning in the handbook saying that it was dangerous to do this. He also got another new Winnebago of them.

 

Is it true? well its daft enough to be. He must have had the best lawyer ever up against the worst judge ever if it is true 8-) *-)

 

Dave

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2011-09-29 12:39 PM

If you take the case back to basics, the clumsy lady spilt the coffee, not Mc'd, so following this principle should I sue Mr Ford for providing me with the van or the council for putting up the lamp post that I reversed into8-)

You'd sue neither but if, with a modest bang the lamp post fell over and killed your wife who was standing next to it whilst you reversed and it transpired that the council workmen hadn't followed the proper installation procedure, I suspect that I know whom you'd be running to!

And if a chemist sold you some hydrochloric acid and you were slightly clumsy and tripped and it went all over you, and it transpired that it wasn't in the correct kind of safety container, I know who you'd come running to!

You are right of course, and I've never denied it, that the no-win, no fee system needs reforming but, as I said earlier, personal injury lawyers account for a tiny proportion of the profession and the vast majority of lawyers are burrowing away unknown to the general public in many other aspects of business and personal life where a trained lawyer is essential for your protection.

No matter how much all this is explained there will always be those who can only see the negative side of everything and who live in a world that they seem to be convinced only exists to screw them, whether that's motorhome dealers, lawyers or anyone else whom they object to having to spend money with!

The paradox is of course that these same people usually turn out to be the most tight-fisted on the planet but begrudge anyone else who may make more money than they do! I simply ignore their rants as they are usually the kind of people who just hate everyone!

But again I ask the same question. If it had been your child who had suffered third degree burns because McD's sold coffee at an unnecessary scalding temperature, knowing full well that it would be opened in car with the inherent risks involved, would you just shrug your shoulders and put it down to bad luck?

Don't bother answering that though, I know the answer. It's amazing how people in the saloon bar or on motorhome forums can bang on about the compensation culture, but the minute an accident happens to them and even if they are partially to blame, as was the McD's woman, their attitude suddenly changes!

I think that CliveH's response to this question was the most intelligent that I've read yet and perhaps you should read it again?

Finally, it's actually because of the threat of litigation that you are now more secure, more safe and, if in hospital for instance, stand far less chance of dying through someone's inattention or carelessness.

But who ever looks on the positive side these days when the can have a hate-filled rant about people and professions that they really know nothing about!