When it is necessary to restate “common sense” as warning labels it proves our legal system has won at reducing the preceived level of consumer intelligence to the lowest common denominator.
Your article lacks objectivity and its date from the JVR is taken out of context. Surprise! Why not explain why McDonalds brewed its coffee at the tempature it did – one which is well above the tempature which coffee is typically brewed, ie to more coffee from its beans and, thus, generate more profits. And while the “Big Mac” suits seem ridiculous, it certianly seems to have opened all fast food chains to a “low carb” market as a result of them. The fact is that products have never been safer than they are today; that is, undoubtedly as a result of what at what time may have been considered a frivilous law suit, but in the end made others aware of dangers inherent in some products.
To: David Sampedro
First, maximizing profits is not against the law. Second, the ‘low carb’ products now being offered have nothing to do with law suits, rather a market response to Dr. Atkins incredible following and third, anyone who puts a hot cup of coffee between her legs while driving a car is stupid. Why should I, as a member of society have to pay for her stupidity?
The infamous “McDonalds Hot Coffee” case is an excellent example here, and I’m glad it was raised. The facts of the case reveal that McDondalds was aware that the excessively high temperatures at which it kept its coffee were dangerous, yet chose not to lower them… that is, until the courts held them accountable. Please review the facts here:
Working in the insurance industry, I am continually presented with an Industry vs Trial Lawyers chasm that takes individual research to bridge. There are certainly trial lawyers who are trying to milk the system for all it’s worth, but it’s a mistake to lump them all into that category. I agree with the article’s suggestion that perhaps once companies realize they can’t rely on insurance to cover all their liabilities, they’ll take more responsibility for making reasonable choices. That would be a result we all would benefit from, insurance companies included.
The Wall Street Journal ran a story (July 12) documenting the vigorous backing of VP candidate John Edwards by the bigggest (read richest) names at ATLA. If you think it’s bad now, just wait. This group is salivating over the prospect of one of their own leading legislative agenda and, more importantly, influencing judicial nominations going forward. The Tort Tax is going up! Hang on to your hats (read: wallets and purses) corporate America!
Amazing how many conservatives actually believe that Trial Lawyers are to blame for this legal system. Are the judges that preside over the cases elected or appointed by elected officials? Stop talking and start walking – get involved and do something on the election front! Every one knows state and federal government is controlled by special interests – lobbyists, corporate sponsored PACs, etc. The Trial Lawyers are just one organization and not the sole ones to blame. How many of the conservatives who have commented – like Geoff and Mark Wells – would change their stance if they or someone in their immediate family were to suffer a severe injury due to a defective product?
When corporations like Halliburton are allowed have fully owned subsidiaries file bankruptcy so that can reach their own settlements and financially obligate the burden of their asbestos claims onto their insurers I guess the Legal system works just fine then. The burden of insurers becoming insolvent because of these corporate actions are not a problem – the class action lawsuit is the problem right? It is about time that everyone – individuals in society, the government and corporations stand up and take responsibility for their actions or inactions!
How is it that as far back as 1918 there is documented evidence as to the harmful nature of asbestos and that many life insurers refused to issue life insurance policies (Pudential Life acknowledged this)to anyone who worked in an industry handling asbestos material because of the actuarial data showing the high mortality rates in those industries! But yet did anyone warn the workers? Did the employers get safety conscious? Did the government assist in safe guarding these workers back then? What about the toxicity of the air around lower Manhattan after 9/11 that EPA declared safe and subsequently a finding is released that the air was toxic and office workers diligently and patriotically returning to work to show how America will not be terrorized now are suffering with diminished lung function and lung disease?
How about the recent declaration by the U.S. EPA that DuPont Co. (the 2nd largest chemical manufacturer) failed for the past 20 years (from June 1981 to March 2001) to warn of the danger and toxicity of the chemical components of Teflon that workers and maybe even consumers have been exposed to? DuPont violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by not reporting the dangers of perfluorooctanoic acid – a crucial ingredient in Teflon. I wonder how many of these individuals that have this negative opinion of the civil tort system and trial lawyers would have the same opinion if they discover that they or their spouse or children have been exposed to high level of a carcinogen from their non-stick Teflon coated cookware or their stain resistant carpet?
Stop blaming the trial lawyers for the legal system and tell the government and corporations to start taking responsibility. Removing or limiting civil tort actions would only embolden the worst offenders of the public good. You can’t change the laws for some and not others. Are we really sure we want what we are asking for?
Your comment is right on point. Like the media, our legal system is a reflection of the values of the people. If juries did not hand out outrageous awards, these types of suits would not proliferate. There was even a case where the jury agreed the defendant was not guilty, but still wanted them to pay the plaintiff for their suffering!
However, trial lawyers are not free from blame. If you know you can take advantage of weaknesses in the law to unjustly enrich yourself, is it morally OK to do so? Under your argument, it would be. Lawyers regularly shop forums to ensure their high dollar cases wind up in “favorable” jurisdictions like Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas, where they know the judges are elected and see these cases as a way to reward their political contributors. Take a good look at our friend Rcihard Scrugs. And then take a look at the recent Mississippi bribery case: http://www.casewatchers.com/JusticeOliverDiaz.html.
Just because no one is stopping the trial lawyers from abusing the system doesn’t mean what they’re doign is right. Scrugs and his ilk are not out there to stop big bad corporations, they’re out there to enrigh themselves at the expense of society. More than 50% of the money that goes through the tort system goes to the lawyers. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/law/lawb.html
It’s true that society bears a large share of the blams, but the trial lawyers are working to keep those citizens from insisting on change through their ads, and they know the prospect of a big win looks liek afree lottery ticket to their plaintiffs. Add to that the inherent advantage an injured plaintiff has over a corporation in the eyes of a sympathetic jury, and the trial lawyers know if they can just keep meaningful reform from Federal legislation, human nature will ensure tort law will be a meal ticket for them years and years. Can you really argue that simple legislative relief, such as rules to prohibit forum shopping, and laws to ensure nationwide class action suits (like tobacco) must be heard in Federal courts, rather than forum shopped to abusive courts like Mississippi? This is the danger of having an ally of the trial lawyers in office.
I think you totally missed the point I was making in my previous comment. NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR DECISIONS, ACTIONS OR INACTIONS. We live in a disposable society and it has proliferated to the point that values, reputation, goodwill and especially character have such diminished value that it is OK to throw them away as well.
Secondly where do you get off judging whether it is morally acceptable or not to use to law to quote you – “unjustly” enrich one’s self? Why are you asserting that the Trial Lawyer is unjust in bringing certain cases to trial? Didn’t a defective product or an accident have to occur to someone before there is even a case? Trial Lawyers are NOT making up the injuries and they aren’t creating the unsafe products or staging the accidents. Where is the product control and testing? Where is the safety conscienceousness of the manufacturer or distributor? With all of the advancements in technology and science today they couldn’t figure out that the products they make or sell or install could be made better or safer? I guess you think it is “morally” acceptable for others to profit at the expense of their employees or I guess in your opinion “Justly” enriched by selling a product that can be toxic or harmful or defective when they could have made it better? But by the time it becomes a problem they could just file for bankruptcy and go away and start over – just throw away that company with the problems and start over again – right?
If you are going to preach about morals and getting rich then why do you and so many others START WITH TRIAL LAWYERS and the CIVIL TORT ACTIONS? WHY DOES EVERYONE FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS TOO LATE AT THAT POINT! We are a society destined for destruction in the name of greed and enrichment. How can you not see that the problems really start with people that do not care about their character, values and goodwill – but care about cornering market share and greed. These same people knowingly break the laws and create unsafe conditions. In such an advanced age where we can produce just about anything – from molecular sized computer chips to laser scanning technology for examining the air or sea worthiness of planes and ships – how is it that companies are still allowed to get away with making a defective or unsafe product or cause both employees and consumers to be exposed to a known toxic condition that is in violation of federal or state laws? I hope that you don’t believe that these corporations unknowingly created unsafe products or conditions and that they couldn’t have done anything differently before the product went to market?
I’m not for bigger government – BUT since certain agencies currently exist and are charged with providing certain regulation and standards – where is the US Consumer Product Safety Comission, the Food & Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency when we have to deal with e. coli, mad cow disease, toxic playground equipment (which manufacturers are still allowed to produce), toxic air in lower manhattan after 9/11, Dupont’s toxic chemical in teflon and scotchguard? This country makes laws but no one enforces them or regulates their compliance. I find it humorous that we live with sort of an honor system when it comes to these regulations but many companies are dishonorable and sometimes the only means for punishment of this dishonor is the civil tort system!
No one wants to see someone injured by a product that malfunctions or from a product that is toxic. The lawsuits that are brought to bring attention to these problems are warranted, particularly if there is evidence that the manufacturer had any knowledge before the product was sold to the public. But what has happened to common sense? I doubt that anyone was strong-armed and force-fed at McDonald’s. How can we have become a society that must have ludicrous labels on all products because someone wants to be remunerated for their stupidity and there is a lawyer who will get them just that? Our high school and college kids think it’s fine to cheat. Everyone wants to blame everyone else and no one is willing to accept responsibility for their actions. Unless our attitudes change, the cost of product liability coverage is going to continue and the labels will just get more riduculous.
On a recent vacation with my family I bought an inflatable beach ball, which had one entire panel, 1/6 of its surface, covered in warnings in 12 different languages, that basically the beach ball was not a life preserver. That’s a comment on the need for tort reform.
Incompetent lawyers,designers, importers and marketing people put all those bad warning labels on products as they have not done an engineering analysis, reviewed the law, and acted accordingly.
The proliferation of warning labels has come about due to the misunderstanding of the law and thinking that the more stickers you have, the more defense the is against a suit. (wrong wrong wrong)
Get back to basics and educate the product designers, engineers, marketers and importers on the basics of building and selling a safe product instead of pushing this hype!
When it is necessary to restate “common sense” as warning labels it proves our legal system has won at reducing the preceived level of consumer intelligence to the lowest common denominator.
Your article lacks objectivity and its date from the JVR is taken out of context. Surprise! Why not explain why McDonalds brewed its coffee at the tempature it did – one which is well above the tempature which coffee is typically brewed, ie to more coffee from its beans and, thus, generate more profits. And while the “Big Mac” suits seem ridiculous, it certianly seems to have opened all fast food chains to a “low carb” market as a result of them. The fact is that products have never been safer than they are today; that is, undoubtedly as a result of what at what time may have been considered a frivilous law suit, but in the end made others aware of dangers inherent in some products.
To: David Sampedro
First, maximizing profits is not against the law. Second, the ‘low carb’ products now being offered have nothing to do with law suits, rather a market response to Dr. Atkins incredible following and third, anyone who puts a hot cup of coffee between her legs while driving a car is stupid. Why should I, as a member of society have to pay for her stupidity?
The infamous “McDonalds Hot Coffee” case is an excellent example here, and I’m glad it was raised. The facts of the case reveal that McDondalds was aware that the excessively high temperatures at which it kept its coffee were dangerous, yet chose not to lower them… that is, until the courts held them accountable. Please review the facts here:
http://tinyurl.com/2wz8 (a nice, succinct overview with annotations)
Working in the insurance industry, I am continually presented with an Industry vs Trial Lawyers chasm that takes individual research to bridge. There are certainly trial lawyers who are trying to milk the system for all it’s worth, but it’s a mistake to lump them all into that category. I agree with the article’s suggestion that perhaps once companies realize they can’t rely on insurance to cover all their liabilities, they’ll take more responsibility for making reasonable choices. That would be a result we all would benefit from, insurance companies included.
The Wall Street Journal ran a story (July 12) documenting the vigorous backing of VP candidate John Edwards by the bigggest (read richest) names at ATLA. If you think it’s bad now, just wait. This group is salivating over the prospect of one of their own leading legislative agenda and, more importantly, influencing judicial nominations going forward. The Tort Tax is going up! Hang on to your hats (read: wallets and purses) corporate America!
Amazing how many conservatives actually believe that Trial Lawyers are to blame for this legal system. Are the judges that preside over the cases elected or appointed by elected officials? Stop talking and start walking – get involved and do something on the election front! Every one knows state and federal government is controlled by special interests – lobbyists, corporate sponsored PACs, etc. The Trial Lawyers are just one organization and not the sole ones to blame. How many of the conservatives who have commented – like Geoff and Mark Wells – would change their stance if they or someone in their immediate family were to suffer a severe injury due to a defective product?
When corporations like Halliburton are allowed have fully owned subsidiaries file bankruptcy so that can reach their own settlements and financially obligate the burden of their asbestos claims onto their insurers I guess the Legal system works just fine then. The burden of insurers becoming insolvent because of these corporate actions are not a problem – the class action lawsuit is the problem right? It is about time that everyone – individuals in society, the government and corporations stand up and take responsibility for their actions or inactions!
How is it that as far back as 1918 there is documented evidence as to the harmful nature of asbestos and that many life insurers refused to issue life insurance policies (Pudential Life acknowledged this)to anyone who worked in an industry handling asbestos material because of the actuarial data showing the high mortality rates in those industries! But yet did anyone warn the workers? Did the employers get safety conscious? Did the government assist in safe guarding these workers back then? What about the toxicity of the air around lower Manhattan after 9/11 that EPA declared safe and subsequently a finding is released that the air was toxic and office workers diligently and patriotically returning to work to show how America will not be terrorized now are suffering with diminished lung function and lung disease?
How about the recent declaration by the U.S. EPA that DuPont Co. (the 2nd largest chemical manufacturer) failed for the past 20 years (from June 1981 to March 2001) to warn of the danger and toxicity of the chemical components of Teflon that workers and maybe even consumers have been exposed to? DuPont violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by not reporting the dangers of perfluorooctanoic acid – a crucial ingredient in Teflon. I wonder how many of these individuals that have this negative opinion of the civil tort system and trial lawyers would have the same opinion if they discover that they or their spouse or children have been exposed to high level of a carcinogen from their non-stick Teflon coated cookware or their stain resistant carpet?
Stop blaming the trial lawyers for the legal system and tell the government and corporations to start taking responsibility. Removing or limiting civil tort actions would only embolden the worst offenders of the public good. You can’t change the laws for some and not others. Are we really sure we want what we are asking for?
Hi Matt –
Your comment is right on point. Like the media, our legal system is a reflection of the values of the people. If juries did not hand out outrageous awards, these types of suits would not proliferate. There was even a case where the jury agreed the defendant was not guilty, but still wanted them to pay the plaintiff for their suffering!
However, trial lawyers are not free from blame. If you know you can take advantage of weaknesses in the law to unjustly enrich yourself, is it morally OK to do so? Under your argument, it would be. Lawyers regularly shop forums to ensure their high dollar cases wind up in “favorable” jurisdictions like Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas, where they know the judges are elected and see these cases as a way to reward their political contributors. Take a good look at our friend Rcihard Scrugs. And then take a look at the recent Mississippi bribery case: http://www.casewatchers.com/JusticeOliverDiaz.html.
Just because no one is stopping the trial lawyers from abusing the system doesn’t mean what they’re doign is right. Scrugs and his ilk are not out there to stop big bad corporations, they’re out there to enrigh themselves at the expense of society. More than 50% of the money that goes through the tort system goes to the lawyers. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/law/lawb.html
It’s true that society bears a large share of the blams, but the trial lawyers are working to keep those citizens from insisting on change through their ads, and they know the prospect of a big win looks liek afree lottery ticket to their plaintiffs. Add to that the inherent advantage an injured plaintiff has over a corporation in the eyes of a sympathetic jury, and the trial lawyers know if they can just keep meaningful reform from Federal legislation, human nature will ensure tort law will be a meal ticket for them years and years. Can you really argue that simple legislative relief, such as rules to prohibit forum shopping, and laws to ensure nationwide class action suits (like tobacco) must be heard in Federal courts, rather than forum shopped to abusive courts like Mississippi? This is the danger of having an ally of the trial lawyers in office.
Mike:
I think you totally missed the point I was making in my previous comment. NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR DECISIONS, ACTIONS OR INACTIONS. We live in a disposable society and it has proliferated to the point that values, reputation, goodwill and especially character have such diminished value that it is OK to throw them away as well.
Secondly where do you get off judging whether it is morally acceptable or not to use to law to quote you – “unjustly” enrich one’s self? Why are you asserting that the Trial Lawyer is unjust in bringing certain cases to trial? Didn’t a defective product or an accident have to occur to someone before there is even a case? Trial Lawyers are NOT making up the injuries and they aren’t creating the unsafe products or staging the accidents. Where is the product control and testing? Where is the safety conscienceousness of the manufacturer or distributor? With all of the advancements in technology and science today they couldn’t figure out that the products they make or sell or install could be made better or safer? I guess you think it is “morally” acceptable for others to profit at the expense of their employees or I guess in your opinion “Justly” enriched by selling a product that can be toxic or harmful or defective when they could have made it better? But by the time it becomes a problem they could just file for bankruptcy and go away and start over – just throw away that company with the problems and start over again – right?
If you are going to preach about morals and getting rich then why do you and so many others START WITH TRIAL LAWYERS and the CIVIL TORT ACTIONS? WHY DOES EVERYONE FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS TOO LATE AT THAT POINT! We are a society destined for destruction in the name of greed and enrichment. How can you not see that the problems really start with people that do not care about their character, values and goodwill – but care about cornering market share and greed. These same people knowingly break the laws and create unsafe conditions. In such an advanced age where we can produce just about anything – from molecular sized computer chips to laser scanning technology for examining the air or sea worthiness of planes and ships – how is it that companies are still allowed to get away with making a defective or unsafe product or cause both employees and consumers to be exposed to a known toxic condition that is in violation of federal or state laws? I hope that you don’t believe that these corporations unknowingly created unsafe products or conditions and that they couldn’t have done anything differently before the product went to market?
I’m not for bigger government – BUT since certain agencies currently exist and are charged with providing certain regulation and standards – where is the US Consumer Product Safety Comission, the Food & Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency when we have to deal with e. coli, mad cow disease, toxic playground equipment (which manufacturers are still allowed to produce), toxic air in lower manhattan after 9/11, Dupont’s toxic chemical in teflon and scotchguard? This country makes laws but no one enforces them or regulates their compliance. I find it humorous that we live with sort of an honor system when it comes to these regulations but many companies are dishonorable and sometimes the only means for punishment of this dishonor is the civil tort system!
No one wants to see someone injured by a product that malfunctions or from a product that is toxic. The lawsuits that are brought to bring attention to these problems are warranted, particularly if there is evidence that the manufacturer had any knowledge before the product was sold to the public. But what has happened to common sense? I doubt that anyone was strong-armed and force-fed at McDonald’s. How can we have become a society that must have ludicrous labels on all products because someone wants to be remunerated for their stupidity and there is a lawyer who will get them just that? Our high school and college kids think it’s fine to cheat. Everyone wants to blame everyone else and no one is willing to accept responsibility for their actions. Unless our attitudes change, the cost of product liability coverage is going to continue and the labels will just get more riduculous.
On a recent vacation with my family I bought an inflatable beach ball, which had one entire panel, 1/6 of its surface, covered in warnings in 12 different languages, that basically the beach ball was not a life preserver. That’s a comment on the need for tort reform.
Total misinformation an ignorance about the law.
Incompetent lawyers,designers, importers and marketing people put all those bad warning labels on products as they have not done an engineering analysis, reviewed the law, and acted accordingly.
The proliferation of warning labels has come about due to the misunderstanding of the law and thinking that the more stickers you have, the more defense the is against a suit. (wrong wrong wrong)
Get back to basics and educate the product designers, engineers, marketers and importers on the basics of building and selling a safe product instead of pushing this hype!