Lock him up for good!

[MDM4AU 332]

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com

Ground Zero gawker sues for garbage-truck injury

Tuesday, February 10th, 2004

A freelance photographer who suffered brain damage after falling off a garbage truck he climbed atop to take pictures of Ground Zero is suing the carting company for $50 million.

Lawyers for the victim, Robert Levin, accuse Waste Management LLP and its truck driver of "failure to respect the plaintiff's rights as a pedestrian," according to court papers filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

The carting company's attorney said Levin's own "negligence, carelessness and recklessness" caused him to fall off the truck on Dec. 19, 2001, at 1:40 a.m.

Levin sneaked on top of the truck, which was parked near Greenwich and Carlisle Sts. in lower Manhattan, to get a better view of the site of the terrorist attack.

"Obviously, he never thought in a million years the truck would move, so I don't think his actions were negligent," said Levin's lawyer Howard Klar of Manhattan.

Link

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I have a great solution to frivolous lawsuits. There should be within the judge's discretion (or even a jury's discretion) a designation of a case as "frivolous" or "aggravated abuse of the judicial system". Cases are thrown out of court lack of evidence sometimes, but not nearly enough. In situations like this, where someone is obviously using our judicial system as a shot at the lottery, if a judge or jury decides to rule the case in favor of the defendant with a "frivolous filing" tag attached, the plaintiff should have to pay all of the court costs involved for both sides and the attorney who took the case on his/her behalf should also receive a fine that will exceed any payment he gets for his time on the case.

I don't support the "loser pays court costs" setup because sometimes cases that legitimately should be decided in a court end up being lost for various reasons. If plaintiffs, especially those who can't afford to lose, were faced with such a hefty penalty for losing, it would keep some cases out of court that should be tried and bad business practices wouldn't be brought to light like they should.

But, when something is just so out there (like this garbage truck situation) that it is offensive on it's face to reasonable people, there should be a penalty to discourage this kind of stupid, litigious crap.

[TrueTiger 0]

Thats a good idea TT.

WARR EAGLE

[Tiger Al 0]

Thats a good idea TT.

WARR EAGLE

No, it isn't. Our court system shouldn't hinder someone from seeking redress for injuries based on their ability to pay huge sums of money should some judge or jury decide that their case is "frivolous." If courts operated that way, many people with legitimate claims would feel intimidated by the very system itself to not bring their case forward for fear of losing what someone else deemed to be a frivolous case. Financial ability should never be an obstacle to justice.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Thats a good idea TT.

WARR EAGLE

No, it isn't. Our court system shouldn't hinder someone from seeking redress for injuries based on their ability to pay huge sums of money should some judge or jury decide that their case is "frivolous." If courts operated that way, many people with legitimate claims would feel intimidated by the very system itself to not bring their case forward for fear of losing what someone else deemed to be a frivolous case. Financial ability should never be an obstacle to justice.

I specifically said that I didn't want to go to a simple "loser pays" system for the very reasons you mentioned:

I don't support the "loser pays court costs" setup because sometimes cases that legitimately should be decided in a court end up being lost for various reasons.  If plaintiffs, especially those who can't afford to lose, were faced with such a hefty penalty for losing, it would keep some cases out of court that should be tried and bad business practices wouldn't be brought to light like they should.

But I do think that some cases can be rather easily tagged as "frivolous" and we can put guidelines in place to make sure that only the most egregious cases are tagged this way.

[Tiger Al 0]

It sounds good in theory (it really doesn't) but, if YOU were sitting on a jury and had been advised that the case you were supposed to be weighing impartially had been tagged "frivolous" do you honestly think that you'd view it any other way? Don't you think that would color any and all evidence you heard on the plaintiffs behalf? I do.

If you're going to hold a trial and then label my suit as "frivolous" or not, then we're back to my original point which is my attorney and I may believe this is a legitimate case but now, not only does he have the facts of the case, he also has to prove the legitimacy of it. If you or the judge can't or won't understand the damages that I incurred then you'll simply label it as "frivolous" and I'm doubly screwed because I now have to pay huge court costs. If I'm not wealthy enough to take that chance, then what would've been a legitimate case never goes to court because I'm afraid YOU might think it's "frivolous." And the defendant continues to do or not do whatever it was I would've taken him to court over.

My ability to seek justice shouldn't depend on my net worth.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

It sounds good in theory (it really doesn't) but, if YOU were sitting on a jury and had been advised that the case you were supposed to be weighing impartially had been tagged "frivolous" do you honestly think that you'd view it any other way? Don't you think that would color any and all evidence you heard on the plaintiffs behalf? I do.

Actually, I'm saying that this tag would either be put on by the judge up front and the case would be thrown out that instant --OR-- a jury could try the case and if, after hearing all the facts, they not only feel the evidence was lacking but that it was a bald-faced attempt to turn the courtroom into someone's personal lottery shot, they could label it "frivolous". Honestly, I'm not totally sold on the jury idea. Something tells me if it's a strong enough case to make it to trial, then it's not frivolous, but then again, as facts come out, things could change. As a safeguard, the judge could have the discretion to discard the jury recommendation of "frivolous" and simply keep the ruling for the defendant.

And obviously, the plaintiff would still have the right of appeal, at least on the "frivolous" part.

If you're going to hold a trial and then label my suit as "frivolous" or not, then we're back to my original point which is my attorney and I may believe this is a legitimate case but now, not only does he have the facts of the case, he also has to prove the legitimacy of it. If you or the judge can't or won't understand the damages that I incurred then you'll simply label it as "frivolous" and I'm doubly screwed because I now have to pay huge court costs. If I'm not wealthy enough to take that chance, then what would've been a legitimate case never goes to court because I'm afraid YOU might think it's "frivolous." And the defendant continues to do or not do whatever it was I would've taken him to court over.

My ability to seek justice shouldn't depend on my net worth.

Your ability to seek justice also shouldn't include a free pass at crapshoots that don't cost you anything except a little time, since most attorneys work on the basis on only being paid if they win a judgment or settlement and are willing to take almost anything because "you just never know, stranger things have happened."

[Tiger Al 0]

Titan, I think that things that are considered frivolous lawsuits are a necessary "evil" that, unfortunately, have to be put up with. An attempt to subvert a person's ability to seek redress in a court of law, however noble its' goal, is bad news.

Also, I would suspect that if you really looked into lawsuits that were claimed to be "frivolous" you might find that there really was, very often, merit to the case but when read in the newspaper many of the supporting facts are omitted.

Remember the McDonalds coffee lawsuit? If you've never looked at the facts and only know the heresay, then you might feel obliged to call that one "frivolous", too.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Remember the McDonalds coffee lawsuit? If you've never looked at the facts and only know the heresay, then you might feel obliged to call that one "frivolous", too.

OK, I'll bite how was that not a frivolous suit? She spilled her coffee! Did she intend to buy cold coffee?

I don't follow you with that.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'd love to hear the more detailed explanation on the McDonald's lawsuit as well. I mean, everyone knows coffee is supposed to be hot. And most people have the God-given common sense not to try to drive with a full, just poured, piping hot (as it is supposed to be) cup of joe between their legs. There are going to have to be some extraordinary circumstances on this one.

All I know is, now everytime I get coffee, I have this insanely stupid message on the cup that warns me "Careful: The product you are about to enjoy is very hot!" No s**t, Sherlock. :roll:

[stoic-one 1,548]

Me three......

[Tiger Al 0]

As I said, until you really look into SOME, not all, of these cases, what you get from the media is the bare minimum, sensationalist, Cliff's Notes version. Usually, you don't even get that, but rather, a friend who says, "Hey, Titan, did you here about that McD's lawsuit? Some lady spilled COFFEE on her lap and got fifty million gazillion dollars in a lawsuit!!! What idiot doesn't know that coffee's SUPPOSED to be hot?!?" I heard this version so many times until I decided that that couldn't possibly be all there was to it because, if it was, then calling it "frivolous" would be an understatement.

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2:  McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3:  The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4:  The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5:  A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6:  After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7:  On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8:  A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

LINK

[TitanTiger 20,499]

That does shed some light on it. Although, I do have to still ask...why would you put this between your legs while driving? That's the part that gets me. First of all, cup holders have been standard issue in cars since the mid to late 1980s. But aside from that, I just don't put something I know is really hot down there, especially full. I've driven with a Coke sitting between my legs before. But I'm not that concerned with a spill of a ice-cold beverage. It might take my breath, but nothing too bad would happen. But hot coffee, even if it was 20 degrees cooler, would hurt like hell.

I don't know. I understand McD's was a bit callous, but then again, they were probably thinking the same thing I was. And you know as well as I do, when you start paying out money to people over stuff like this, some lawyer will take that and make it tantamount to an admission of guilt when they decide to sue for real.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I don't know. I understand McD's was a bit callous, but then again, they were probably thinking the same thing I was.

The hard lesson is that you HAVE to consider the idiots and morons of the world first - the worst murder in US history occured with the death of common sense.

I actually get paid to assess risk and look for loopholes in my contracts that might be exploited by idiots. One example - when we hire a catering company to come out and cook for and feed our workers on a barge or platform, I actually had to put in a paragraph that says the catering company will assume all liability for any claims brought by someone alleging illness or death brought on by food that is improperly cooked or handled or stored. My ops guys were flabergasted that I actually had to worry about this, but it is true!

[Tiger Al 0]

That does shed some light on it. Although, I do have to still ask...why would you put this between your legs while driving? That's the part that gets me. First of all, cup holders have been standard issue in cars since the mid to late 1980s. But aside from that, I just don't put something I know is really hot down there, especially full. I've driven with a Coke sitting between my legs before. But I'm not that concerned with a spill of a ice-cold beverage. It might take my breath, but nothing too bad would happen. But hot coffee, even if it was 20 degrees cooler, would hurt like hell.

I don't know. I understand McD's was a bit callous, but then again, they were probably thinking the same thing I was. And you know as well as I do, when you start paying out money to people over stuff like this, some lawyer will take that and make it tantamount to an admission of guilt when they decide to sue for real.

I want to say that in another article I read that it happened at the drive-thru window. Maybe a mishandling in the exchange or something or when she was bringing it in the car. I don't think she was actually driving, though she probably intended to.

[DKW 86 7,431]

I wont go into the legalese here but most of these lawsuits are definitely frivolous. I could do a half hour on bankruptcy and what a joke it is.

IE:

1) 270 out of 535 Congressman and Senators have declared Bankruptcy.

2) While in Brankruptcy Court, for a case I was involved in, I watched as a full 40% of the applicants were filing their 2nd, 3rd, or higher bankruptcies.

3) I proved fraud by the applicant in my case, showed where in two appraisals they had more than ample equity in the home and that they had recently been given cash over the bankruptcy amount and the idiot still signed the bankruptcy petition.

We have way too many people in the US that just skate by in life. It is truly sad. They sue or screw companies in bankruptcy court and WE get to pay the bills for them. Meanwhile they skate by on the huge awards. But I also know that there is indeed divine justice in time in everyone's life.

[Grumps 3,704]

I wont go into the legalese here but most of these lawsuits are definitely frivolous. I could do a half hour on bankruptcy and what a joke it is.

Absolutely, David!!!

Frivolous lawsuits are killing America. It seems that TigerAl and many others want to look out for what might happen to the "little guy" so much, that EVERYONE pays the price whether or not the potential bad thing ever happens.

And Titan Tiger, don't let TigerAl influence you too heavily. Just because he quoted some story that was supposedly quoted from Wall Street Journal doesn't mean it is true, just as he pointed out that the McD lawsuit isn't frivolous because the e-mail or guy at the water-cooler says so.

As Jenny said, the courts are trying to make enough laws so that common sense will no longer be necessary. In the process millions of $$ are being spent (much of which ends up in the lawyers's hands). The end result is either you have a stupid verdict and someone "wins the lottery" or the correct decision is made and the money was given to the lawyers without much good coming from it. Either outcome is wrong for society.

Okay TigerAl let me have it.....

[MDM4AU 332]

FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT EXAMPLE:

I worked for a property management company in Montgomery several years ago. A former resident filed a lawsuit to try to get back late fees paid on rent. (The late fee was a flat $25 and you were turned over to collections once you were 10 days late.) The suit claimed "Loss of use of earned income." The suit went to court and we eventually won. But, we still had to pay our attorneys etc. to defend this stupid suit. I was no longer living in MGM when it all happpened but I had to return a couple of times to meet with the attorneys.

How in the world should this have been allowed? It was in her lease and on a seperate ammendment to the lease that she signed.

Here's just a funny lawsuit story (some may have heard this):

A young lawyer buys a box of expensive cigars. He insures them. He smokes them all. Then he files a claim (lost in a small series of fires) before a premium payment has been made. The insurance company refuses to pay. He takes them to court.

Once the judge hears both sides he scolds the insurance company for being so foolish to insure them without a smoking clause, etc. So he finds in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $24,000. :roll:

On the day the young attorney deposits the check, the ATF and FBI scoop him up and haul him off for ARSON! He gets 30 days in jail and has to pay a $35,000 fine and repay the award.

(This was told at a BAR Association gathering.)

[MDM4AU 332]

It's Time to Stop Lawsuit Abuse in America.

Frivolous lawsuits.

Outrageous awards.

Filthy rich (and getting richer) trial lawyers.

These are sure fire signs of a legal system spinning completely out of control. America is quickly becoming a country of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.

While there still are a number of good lawyers out there professionally plying their trade and upholding the letter of the law, there are way too many opportunistic lawyers using the legal system for their own greedy and self serving benefit.

In today’s sue or be sued society, it sometimes seems that litigation, lawyers and lawsuits have replaced baseball as America’s favorite past time. Personal responsibility, once a cornerstone principle that propelled America to prominence as the greatest country of all time, has been methodically replaced by runaway civil litigation.

Americans are paying more for everything they buy thanks to lawyers.

Junk lawsuits exact a heavy financial toll from each and every American, efficiently siphoning wealth from hard working American families and redistributing the assets into the overflowing coffers of the super rich trial lawyers...READ THE REST HERE

[Tiger Al 0]

I worked for a property management company in Montgomery several years ago. A former resident filed a lawsuit to try to get back late fees paid on rent. (The late fee was a flat $25 and you were turned over to collections once you were 10 days late.) The suit claimed "Loss of use of earned income."  The suit went to court and we eventually won. But, we still had to pay our attorneys etc. to defend this stupid suit. I was no longer living in MGM when it all happpened but I had to return a couple of times to meet with the attorneys.

How in the world should this have been allowed? It was in her lease and on a seperate ammendment to the lease that she signed.

You're saying that your company went to court for a $25 late fee? Is that all?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I worked for a property management company in Montgomery several years ago. A former resident filed a lawsuit to try to get back late fees paid on rent. (The late fee was a flat $25 and you were turned over to collections once you were 10 days late.) The suit claimed "Loss of use of earned income."  The suit went to court and we eventually won. But, we still had to pay our attorneys etc. to defend this stupid suit. I was no longer living in MGM when it all happpened but I had to return a couple of times to meet with the attorneys.

How in the world should this have been allowed? It was in her lease and on a seperate ammendment to the lease that she signed.

You're saying that your company went to court for a $25 late fee? Is that all?

I think it was several months of late rent that was the problem. And also, if the company didn't go to court and just gave back the money, their payment requirements would have no teeth. Once it got out that they weren't willing to defend their own rules, people would start paying late routinely. It messes with cash flow and is just not a good way to do business.

For situations like that, binding arbitration would make more sense, but then the trial lawyers would rip a vocal cord screaming bloody murder about it.

[MDM4AU 332]

You're saying that your company went to court for a $25 late fee? Is that all?

She lived there for about 5 years. It was multiple late fees and Titan is right. They wanted to claim that our late fee rules were somehow wrong or harmful. :roll:

Imagine the repercussions of the girl winning.

[Tiger Al 0]

OK. Your original post made it sound like it was to collect $25, which, if so, I was going to say that it would've made more sense just to cut your losses, unless proving the point was worth all the money it cost to do so.