Conference back40::soapbox

    initial figure is always a scare number, reality will self correct....
    ...unfortunately, it never settles where is should, there is always 
    tooooo many zeros after the decimal.
    
    previous note remedy, i'd say about $50,000 should cover hurt feelings.
    
    
    nightshift

    Wouldn't you think that your manager would ask you to remove such a
    button?  I think that if the button hadn't been so offensive/shocking/
    confrontational it may have been allowed.  
    
    It raises the question in mind as to whether a business is the proper
    place to discuss contentious *social* issues that does not affect the
    business directly.  It's ok for DECcies to argue about issues affecting
    work, shareholders, customers, etc. but is this the place to bring up
    Bosnia, use of illegal immigrant house servants, etc?  A company should
    encourage free speech and freedom of thought and all that, but not
    necessarily on company's time.

    no state action, no problem.
    
    Civil rights problems arise when State Governments or the Federal
    Government violate individual rights enumerated in the bill of rights. 
    Since GM's action was not performed by the Federal or State government,
    there was no state action.  Consequently no civil rights action arises.
    
    /STeve

    
    RE: .2
    
    So you would have no problem with Digital ceasing any and all
    activities pertaining to <pick any> -athons dealing with AIDS... right?

    
    Inmates filed 30,000 lawsuits last year against prison officials for
    `civil rights' violations, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
    The vast majority have been described by court officials as frivolous.
    A small sampling:
    
    - a prisoner's toilet seat was too cold
    - a prisoner was served smooth peanut butter instead of crunchy
    - guards wouldn't freeze an inmate's ice cream so that he could
      eat it later ($1 million suit)
    - inmate paralegal argued he should earn a lawyer's wage
    - inmates want salad bars ($129 million)
    - limited Kool-Aid refills described as cruel and unusual punishment
    - an inmate's scrambled eggs were cooked too hard
    
    Hold on to your wallets...in New York, 20% of the entire budget of the
    attorney general's office is spent on prisoner lawsuits.
    

    
    Bernard Bagley filed a $3 million lawsuit in July against the police
    department in Durham, N.C.  The former police officer is serving a life
    sentence for killing his wife with his service revolver.  Bagley says
    the department should not have issued him a gun, since he was suffering
    from anxiety attacks.
    

    
    Janet Robinson filed a lawsuit in Roanoke, Va., in April, after being
    hit in the ankle by a toy truck.  She is asking $100,000 in damages.
    The remote-controlled toy was being operated by another customer at the
    Kay-Bee Toys store when it struck her.  Robinson says the consequences
    of the accident are "pain, humiliation, aggravation and disability."
    

    This is what happens in remote areas of Virginia.

re: .5

Isn't it about time for George to try to tell us that Lawyers ain't scumbags
again?

Any judicial system that allows frivolous clims like that is seriously flawed.
Any attorney who brings suits like that is a scumbag.

    
    Alleged scumbag, Jack...
    
    :) :) :)
    

    
    according to NPR babes a lawsuit is being filed against Sturm-Ruger
    in the LIRR shoot.
    
    precedent seems to be based on a successful case where RG Industries
    was deem responsible for making a pistol which they could have "reasonably
    assumed" would be used mostly by criminals.
    
    

    Looks to me that they libary should be closed vs the gym in the jail.
    Perhaps both to cover the expenses to defend these suits..... Smooth vs
    crunchy peanut butter!! Cold johnny seats??? Geeze!

    .7 Seems to me that the only humiliation she'd suffer is the
       fact that she's suing.
    
       I still think legislation should be involked making frivilous
       law suits illegal. Also, the frivolee should pick up court
       costs, fined and be subject to a counter-suit by who or what-
       ever they're suing.
    
       A convict shows up with a suit? Add 10yrs to his sentence (in the
       hole).
    
       Sheesh, this country propagates and encourages stupidty.
    
       Chip

  In a nation of 250,000,000 people, it's not hard to come up with a handful
of anecdotes to demonstrate just about anything you'd like. The problem of
frivolous law suits in civil court is not nearly as bad as the right wing makes
it sound. 

  If you live with a plaintiff's attorney as I do you are well aware that all
this noise from the Republican right is nonsense and that most frivolous civil
cases never get past the lawyers office never mind into court. Every lawyer I
know turns down cases consistently for lack of merit and if they don't they
face the possibility of paying the expenses for the defense themselves. 

  In Massachusetts you can not even get a medical malpractice case into court
without first going through a tribunal consisting of a judge, a doctor, and
a lawyer. If they vote against your case, you have to put money in escrow that
will be used to compensate the defense in the event of a defense verdict. 

  In all MedMal and Personal Injury cases in Massachusetts the plaintiff's
attorneys work on contingency and only get paid if they win. A defense verdict
means that they have put in several hundred hours of work not to mention paying
for expert witnesses all for naught. 

  So why all the noise about big payoffs for frivolous suits from Republicans
and other conservatives? Well as Deep Throat said, follow the money. 

  Republicans get most of their money from big business and big business will
do anything to avoid paying off law suits even if they are justified. What
better way than to advocate arbitrary caps on law suits regardless of merit
and to trash the only recourse that the average guy on the street has to
compete against big business, the courts and attorneys. 

  Conservatives hate attorneys for one reason and one reason only. Attorneys
create a level playing field and conservative hate the idea that a "have not"
has an equal chance in court with a "have".

  George

    <- The noise? Because if one dime is coming outa my pocket to support
       this crap, Im gonna make noise...
    
        Chip

.14>  In a nation of 250,000,000 people, it's not hard to come up with a handful
>of anecdotes to demonstrate just about anything you'd like. The problem of
>frivolous law suits in civil court is not nearly as bad as the right wing makes
>it sound. 
    
    	Did you read .5?
    
>    Hold on to your wallets...in New York, 20% of the entire budget of the
>    attorney general's office is spent on prisoner lawsuits.
    
    	It's not a right-wing issue, except for ostriches counting their
    	towel collections...

>  In Massachusetts you can not even get a medical malpractice case into court
>without first going through a tribunal consisting of a judge, a doctor, and
>a lawyer. If they vote against your case, you have to put money in escrow that
>will be used to compensate the defense in the event of a defense verdict. 
>  In all MedMal and Personal Injury cases in Massachusetts the plaintiff's
>attorneys work on contingency and only get paid if they win. A defense verdict
>means that they have put in several hundred hours of work not to mention paying
>for expert witnesses all for naught. 

This is why The Law Offices of James P. Sokolov can afford to run prime-time
teevee commercials?

  The issue of excessive cases from inmates is a problem but it's one that can
be solved fairly easily without throwing out all of our civil court remedies.

  - limit inmates to one case every couple years. The problem comes when
    inmates flood the courts with several cases at a time.

  - use magistrates to screen out frivolous cases.

  - make a longer waiting period for filing another case for any inmate who's
    case is found to be frivolous.

  Also if you watch all these 60 minutes and 20/20 exposays, you will find that
for the most part it's not lawyers who are filing these cases, the inmates are
filing the cases themselves.

  So another possibility would be to require inmates to go through a lawyer to
file a case and either charge any attorney court costs or threaten disbarment
if they continually allow frivolous cases.

  Yes, the problem needs to be and can be fixed.

  No, the civil court system does not have to be tilted in favor of business
and other sources of GOP income to solve the problem.

  George

    
    George's account of malpractice in Massachusetts might be the view
    of fat tort attorneys on the golfcourse.  Ask any doctor or insurance
    company in the state and you will get a decidedly different view.
    
      bb

    What George says is utter crap. Not surprising really. Quite
    predictable actually. But please don't fall for it. My family
    spent thousands of $ here in the PRM defending itself against
    a bunch of lizards who were upset because they made a bad real
    estate investment... a never-ending collection of the lowest
    scum of the legal "profession" hounded my father for 2 1/2 years,
    even though he had nothing to do with the case *at all*.
    
    Lawyers *are* trash. If anything George, you make a good case
    for guilt by association.
                                                            
    -b

RE         <<< Note 99.17 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>This is why The Law Offices of James P. Sokolov can afford to run prime-time
>teevee commercials?

  This is why The Law Offices of James P. Sokolov have to run prime-time TV
commercials to support the standard of living to which they have become
accustom. 

  Also keep this in mind. Never has one dime been paid to a defendant in any
U.S. court that was not paid either because a jury of U.S. Citizens decided
that they deserved that money or because the defendant was afraid of what
a jury of U.S. citizens would decide and settled.

  If too much money is being given out it's for one reason and one reason
only and that's because citizens who serve on juries feel it should be given
out.

  George

	.18
    
>  - limit inmates to one case every couple years. The problem comes when
>    inmates flood the courts with several cases at a time.
    
    	Why just inmates?
    
    	Further, I find it amusing that the alleged man of fairness would
    	advocate limiting rights of select groups of people.

>  - use magistrates to screen out frivolous cases.
    
    	Again, just for inmates?  I agree with this suggestion for ALL
    	cases.

>  - make a longer waiting period for filing another case for any inmate who's
>    case is found to be frivolous.
    
    	Just for inmates?  I agree with this one too -- for ALL cases.

>  No, the civil court system does not have to be tilted in favor of business
>and other sources of GOP income to solve the problem.

    	Hmm.  And what are the sources of income for democrats and the
    	democratic party?

    Lawyers are trash -- until you need one.
    
    Part of the problem is, we have too many lawyers.  We allow the medical
    community to ration the number of students admitted to med school, but
    we have no limitation on admission to law school.  This means that we
    have oodles of lawyers scrounging for clients, and a corresponding
    escalation in civil suits.

RE Lawyers are scum, Doctors are gods.

  Keep in mind that when Lawyers were writing the Bill of Rights, doctors
were still putting leaches on people to suck out the "bad blood".

  Of course considering the contempt that conservatives have for the Bill
of Rights, that probably doesn't help my argument much.

  George

Note 99.14 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  In a nation of 250,000,000 people, it's not hard to come up with a handful
>of anecdotes to demonstrate just about anything you'd like. The problem of
>frivolous law suits in civil court is not nearly as bad as the right wing makes
>it sound. 
    
    it is tempting to dismiss such rhetoric as the nonsense that it is.
    however, i'll cite the following facts to you. they we're reported in
    that oh so "right wing"  new magazine Time. the article is from 1991
    and i posted it in it's entirety here at the time. i remember, clearly,
    the stats it pointed out:
    
     1. torts costs, as a percent of GNP is historically around 2.5%. this
        is the "norm" for the advanced societies of the day and could be
        traced back to roman times.
    
     2. tort costs, as a percent of GNP, is between 2-3% today for
        england, france, germany, and slightly less for japan.
    
     3. tort costs, as a percent of GNP, in the US was 6.7% for 1990 
        and GROWING UNCHECKED at 12% per year.
    
    this mess is out of control and a serious detriment to the
    competitiveness of US business.

    The dime I'm talking about isn't direct money, but the lawyers,
    the courts, etc... all the these $$$$'s! Where do you think that
    money is coming from?

>    Part of the problem is, we have too many lawyers.  We allow the medical
>    community to ration the number of students admitted to med school, but
>    we have no limitation on admission to law school.

The ABA determines which law schools are accredited.  Law schools don't have
open admissions last I checked.

  Ok, nice ducking and weaving. Now here it is again.

  Caution: don't try to respond to this comment, it can be fatal to right wing
ranting and raving.

  In the large tort cases being discussed, there has never been a dime given to
a defendant in a U.S. Civil Court that has not either: 

  - been awarded to that defendant by a jury of U.S. Citizens  -or-

  - been agreed to in settlement out of fear of what a jury of U.S. Citizens
    would give if the case went to trial.

  Ok, let the bashing of U.S. citizens who serve on juries continue but this
time let it continue unmasked.

  George

    Re: .27
    
    >Law schools don't have open admissions last I checked.
    
    Nor do they have any mandated limits on size of entering class; it's
    whatever the school can handle.  Medical schools have a fixed number of
    admission slots, period.

    
    re, .28 - by the time the slime get through with them, the juries
             would give any crook anything whatever.  It's rigged.
    
      bb

re .30:

Have you ever served on a jury?

>  If too much money is being given out it's for one reason and one reason
>only and that's because citizens who serve on juries feel it should be given
>out.

Citizens who are sitting there fully realizing that whatever they feel the
settlement should be, in fairness to the suitor, they have to add 50% to
pay the scumbag attorneys.

    
    No.  They asked what I did.  I said, "Engineer".  They threw me out.
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 99.30 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    re, .28 - by the time the slime get through with them, the juries
>             would give any crook anything whatever.  It's rigged.
    
  Yeah right. The poor innocent jury of U.S. Citizens becomes totally feeble
minded once they encounter the mind bending tactics of the Plaintiff's attorney.

  Ok, here's a question. All lawyers are sum right?

  What about prosecutors and the defense lawyer in civil cases? They are all
lawyers, are they scum as well? Or are they ok because they tend to represent
the government and big business respectively?

  George

    	re .33
    
    	How true.  The current Reader's Digest has an item on the jury
    	selection process.

    Talk about duck and weave...
    
    First George says that very few cases make it to court, and then he
    says that we're attacking the juries.
    
    How many of the frivilous cases that conservatives complain about make
    it to the jury? (you know conservatites... they're the people you hate
    with a veracity that proves that *everything* you say is pure horses__t
    Mr. "let's donate our  incomes to the disadvanted")
    
    The jury awards aren't what keep the lawyers going... it's the
    retainers and associated fees. Never mind what the plaintiff
    pays, you make no mention of what people spend *defending*
    themselves against the filthy scum you're so eager to defend.
    Well, the one part that makes me happy is that at least the
    thousands of $ my father spent didn't go pay for the other
    filthy scum asses in Washington that you're so fond of...
    
    -b

I'm a SW engineer, and I've served on a petit jury.  Guy shot his neighbor
over a parking space.

RE         <<< Note 99.32 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Citizens who are sitting there fully realizing that whatever they feel the
>settlement should be, in fairness to the suitor, they have to add 50% to
>pay the scumbag attorneys.

  Well they realize wrong. No lawyer gets 50%.

  The maximum contingency fee is 1/3rd and that often gets adjusted down. For
most lawyers, after they pay taxes, and office expenses such as their rent,
clerk's salary, secretary's salary, etc they take home less than your typical
engineer. 

  Very few lawyers make more than a middle class standard of living.

  George

There are lots of not-rich lawyers, but I think if you limited your statistics
to personal injury lawyers, you'd find that they're better paid than your
typical engineer.

>>settlement should be, in fairness to the suitor, they have to add 50% to
>>pay the scumbag attorneys.
>
>  Well they realize wrong. No lawyer gets 50%.
>
>  The maximum contingency fee is 1/3rd and that often gets adjusted down. 
    
    	So if you want the plaintiff to get the full award, you take the
    	100%, and add 50% for the lawyer.  Then when the lawyer takes his
    	third (one third of 150 is 50, leaving 100) the plaintiff gets
    	what the jury thinks is his due.

>>Citizens who are sitting there fully realizing that whatever they feel the
>>settlement should be, in fairness to the suitor, they have to add 50% to
>>pay the scumbag attorneys.
>  Well they realize wrong. No lawyer gets 50%.
>  The maximum contingency fee is 1/3rd and that often gets adjusted down. For

Brush up on your math while you're at it, George.

Jury decides award to litigant should be $1x. They add 50%. Litigant receives
$1.5x. 1/3 of that goes to the attorney as you say.

 > - been agreed to in settlement out of fear of what a jury of U.S. Citizens
 >   would give if the case went to trial.


	or agreed to settle because of the cost involved in defending 
themselves no matter what a jury of U.S. Citizen would give if the case went to 
trial.

Mike

    re: Note 99.20 by MPGS::MARKEY
    
    >What George says is utter crap. Not surprising really.
    
    I'll say one thing in Georges behalf.
    
    I can file a Federal Lawsuit against almost anyone I want in less
    than an hour and at a cost of $120.  Folks in prison don't need to
    pay the filing fee.  And I'm sure they know how to file.  What have
    they got to loose?  HA - Nothing.  (their mentality).
    
    > a never-ending collection of the lowest
    > scum of the legal "profession" hounded my father for 2 1/2 years,
    > even though he had nothing to do with the case *at all*.
    
    This is the reason why I know this.  Pull this chit on me and see how
    far you get.  Hell, for $120 I can practically get anyone off my back
    and running very quickly away from me...  ;^)
    
    The burden goes both ways.  I better have sufficient grounds to bring
    the lawsuit, and it could get prohibitively expensive to defend
    against one (screw 'em, just settle... or drop my initial suit cause he's
    gonna kick my arse bigtime). 
    

> Guy shot his neighbor over a parking space.

Did he shoot him, Gerald, or only "allegedly" shoot him?

RE          <<< Note 99.36 by MPGS::MARKEY "Senses Working Overtime" >>>

>    Well, the one part that makes me happy is that at least the
>    thousands of $ my father spent didn't go pay for the other
>    filthy scum asses in Washington that you're so fond of...
    
  Ok, if you are so big on anecdotal evidence, here are a couple cases that
my girlfriend (whom you so freely call "filthy scum") worked on. Now tell me
why these cases shouldn't have been on court.

  In Massachusetts a man went in to a major hospital for surgery on his ear.
The surgeon decided to take the day off and left a resident to perform the
surgery. Not knowing what he was doing, the resident went a bit too far and
removed the man's entire middle ear leaving him deaf in that ear for life. The
jury awarded him $25,000 which didn't come close to paying his hospital bills
and left him nothing for therapy. 

  In a major hospital in Boston an infant had just had successful surgery and
was recovering when doctors inserted a catheter improperly. Instead of going
into the vein, fluids went into the infant's chest cavity. No one bothered to
check and the radiologist for some reason never bothered to look at the x-ray
taken for just that purpose. The child died. The case was settled for an
undisclosed amount. The child will no doubt be dead forever. 

  Now are you saying that those two cases had no merit? Why was my girlfriend
"filthy scum" for representing those plaintiffs?

  George

>  In Massachusetts a man went in to a major hospital for surgery on his ear.
>The surgeon decided to take the day off and left a resident to perform the
>surgery. Not knowing what he was doing, the resident went a bit too far and
>removed the man's entire middle ear leaving him deaf in that ear for life. The
>jury awarded him $25,000 which didn't come close to paying his hospital bills
>and left him nothing for therapy. 
    
    	Sounds like he had a bad lawyer, winning such a poor award for
    	such obvious loss.

George,
  I don't believe anyone's accused your girlfriend in particular of being
filthy scum. One can malign the profession without directing epithets at
any individual.
  Are you prepared to claim theat the entire profession is as upstanding
as your girlfriend?

RE         <<< Note 99.41 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Brush up on your math while you're at it, George.
>
>Jury decides award to litigant should be $1x. They add 50%. Litigant receives
>$1.5x. 1/3 of that goes to the attorney as you say.

  No you are still wrong. That 1/3rd is the maximum. In large verdicts if
it is adjusted it is adjusted down.

  What often happens is that after an awarded is decided, the judge will allow
the plaintiff's attorney 1/3rd on a certain amount then some amount less like
1/4th on all money over that amount.

  From that amount subtract taxes, FICA, rent, clerk's salary, secretary's
salary, office supplies and you come up with quite a bit less than 1/3rd.

  George

Since we convicted him, even George wouldn't insist on "alleged."

RE   <<< Note 99.39 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>There are lots of not-rich lawyers, but I think if you limited your statistics
>to personal injury lawyers, you'd find that they're better paid than your
>typical engineer.

  No, it goes the other way. The guys who make out best are the defense lawyers
who get a regular retainer. Most personal injury lawyers just about scrape
by in hopes of a really big score which may or may not come.

  See "The Verdict" with Paul Newman or the TV show "Shannon's Law" for a
portrait of the life style of a typical personal injury lawyer. There is a
small group that does really well but most are pretty much broke all the time. 

  George

RE         <<< Note 99.47 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>  I don't believe anyone's accused your girlfriend in particular of being
>filthy scum. One can malign the profession without directing epithets at
>any individual.
>  Are you prepared to claim theat the entire profession is as upstanding
>as your girlfriend?

  No of course not. There are scum in every profession. There are scum doctors,
scum engineers, scum lawyers, and scum salesmen.

  Sure we've met a few lawyers that are genuine scum. My girlfriend worked for
one for about 2 months and once she caught on to what he was doing she quit.
But that was one guy.

  The vast majority of lawyers that I have met at the office where she has
worked are Type A, aggressive, and somewhat a pain in the ass to deal with but
for the most part they are honest people just trying to make a living by
representing their clients.

  Obnoxious? yes. Dishonest scum? No.

  George

    Again, George, you miss the point...
    
    No one said that no case has merit. These sound like perfectly
    valid cases. *You* said that only conservatives hate lawyers
    and its because they hate a balanced playing field. Well,
    granted, I'm a conservative and I hate lawyers... but you're
    reasoning is total hooey, as usual. My family, none of whom
    would even remotely qualify as "rich", was hounded by a bunch
    of millionaire absentee landlords who were upset because the
    condos they purchased as rental properties took a nosedive
    in value. One of them, I might add, is a prominent liberal
    journalist... who I would gleefully name if I didn't think
    the SOB would come after me. The case never made it to a
    jury, nor were there any settlements.
    
    But even this is *not* the point. I don't hear people complaining
    about malpractice suits, or true personal injury suits. What
    I hear them complaining about are other frivilous suits, such
    as the one I mentioned... or how about the guy who sued Oxford
    University Press? This is the sort of crap that people are
    complaining about... and it's not just conservatives who are
    complaining... and you know it. But since you're the self-
    appointed apologist for most of the things that are truly
    screwed up, it doesn't surprise me that lawyers are on your
    list.
    
    -b

RE              <<< Note 99.46 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	Sounds like he had a bad lawyer, winning such a poor award for
>    	such obvious loss.

  It happens all the time. For every example of a big award I've seen the GOP
come up with my girlfriend has personally seen a case that was underpaid.

  Contrary to popular opinion, juries do not like to give away a lot of money.
Plaintiff's attorneys are well aware of this and most often work really hard for
a settlement rather than going to trial.

  George

RE   <<< Note 99.49 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Since we convicted him, even George wouldn't insist on "alleged."

  That's right. At that point it goes from "alleged" perpetrator to "convicted"
perpetrator or "appellant" as the case may be.

  George

>  It happens all the time. For every example of a big award I've seen the GOP
>come up with my girlfriend has personally seen a case that was underpaid.
    
    	Maybe your problem is that you see too many GOP boogeymen behind
    	any attack on your liberal dream.
    
    	It's not just the "GOP" coming up with these...

RE          <<< Note 99.52 by MPGS::MARKEY "Senses Working Overtime" >>>

>    But even this is *not* the point. I don't hear people complaining
>    about malpractice suits, or true personal injury suits. What
>    I hear them complaining about are other frivolous suits, such
>    as the one I mentioned... 

  Ok fine but why blame that on lawyers?

  The inmate cases that were mentioned are for the most part filed by inmates,
not by lawyers. As for the case you mentioned, it sounds like it was a bunch of
"millionaire landlords" that started this suit, not their lawyers. 

  And I notice no one has touch a questions I asked earlier.

  If all lawyers are scum then are prosecutors scum? Are the lawyers who defend
people in law suits scum? Or are they ok because they represent government and
big business?

  George

Re              <<< Note 99.55 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	It's not just the "GOP" coming up with these...

  Oh yeah, I forgot, the conservative think tanks.

  You know it's funny. Most lawyers I've met are conservative Republicans. 

  Go figure,
  George

    
    Gee, George, I have to wipe up here, after weeping all over
    my desk.  Your note about the plight of the poor overworked
    ambulance-chasers nearly broke my heart.  All it needed was
    violins...
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 99.58 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>    Gee, George, I have to wipe up here, after weeping all over
>    my desk.  Your note about the plight of the poor overworked
>    ambulance-chasers nearly broke my heart.  All it needed was
>    violins...
    
  I can understand where you wish that I had said that. It would be a lot
easier than dealing with what I really wrote. 

  Come on, take a crack. Are prosecutors and the lawyers who defend civil
suits scum or are they ok because they represent the government and big
business?

  Whooo, is that one too hot for the lawyer bashers to handle or what?

  George

>  Ok fine but why blame that on lawyers?
>  The inmate cases that were mentioned are for the most part filed by inmates,
>not by lawyers.

Perhaps the inmates filed the suits, but do you think the inmates successfully
argued them in court personally to come up with these settlements/awards?

That's the part to be blamed on the lawyers - the fact that they took these
cases.

    In a nutshell George, yes they are. Prosecutors routinely take the job
    only to make hay for current or future political ambitions... sort of
    scumbags in training. The ones who defend civil suits... are rare. You
    can find thousands of lawyers as a plaintiff in such cases, try to find
    a good lawyer to defend you though... Have you ever been sued George?
    
    Both sides play the system to keep the money rolling.
    
    Not too hot at all George...
    
    -b

RE         <<< Note 99.60 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Perhaps the inmates filed the suits, but do you think the inmates successfully
>argued them in court personally to come up with these settlements/awards?
>
>That's the part to be blamed on the lawyers - the fact that they took these
>cases.

  No you don't understand the issue.

  The problem is caused by what are referred to as "jail house lawyers". These
guys are not lawyers at all and have never gone to law school or taken the bar
exam. These are guys who spend their time in the jail house library reading
how to file suits then they file them themselves either on their behalf or
they do the paper work for a friend who files his own case.

  Real lawyers have very little to do with this issue.

  George

RE          <<< Note 99.61 by MPGS::MARKEY "Senses Working Overtime" >>>

>    In a nutshell George, yes they are. Prosecutors routinely take the job
>    only to make hay for current or future political ambitions... sort of
>    scumbags in training. 

  Ok fine if you feel that way that's great. All prosecutors are scum. So what?
Let's do away with the District Attorney's office? How about the Attorney
General's office, should we do away with that as well? When you think about it,
with no prosecutors we wouldn't need any police since there would be no one to
take their cases to court. And of course no more prisons, just think of the
money we'll save. 

>The ones who defend civil suits... are rare. You
>    can find thousands of lawyers as a plaintiff in such cases, try to find
>    a good lawyer to defend you though... 

  There are tons of defense firms. In Boston there's Hale and Dore, or Ropes
and Grey (Digital's litigation firm), if you want a big firm. Are they all
scum? Then there's my girlfriend's old boss who defends Boston Gas and Dow
Corning (he's defending all the breast implant cases in the greater Boston
area) is he scum? Just ask your local state bar association for a list, there
are tons of defense firms. 

  Oh and what about all those plaintiff attorneys in town that are bringing suit
against Dow for silicon breast implants that burst, are they all scum? Should
all those women suffering from silicon induced immune deficiency be prohibited
from bring suit?
    
> Have you ever been sued George?

  No but if I were sued Patty would give'em one hell of a fight. I'd tell her
that if they win, that's your Christmas present and next year's vacation down
the tubes. I'd have one motivated advocate. 

  George 

>  No you don't understand the issue.

>  Real lawyers have very little to do with this issue.

The implication in .5, by my reading, was not simply that the suits were being
filed, but that they were successfully getting into court and being won. Are
you saying that "jailhouse lawyers" are successfully arguing these cases
before juries?

   >Ok fine if you feel that way that's great. All prosecutors are scum. So what?
   >Let's do away with the District Attorney's office? How about the Attorney
   >General's office, should we do away with that as well? When you think about it,
   >with no prosecutors we wouldn't need any police since there would be no one to
   >take their cases to court. And of course no more prisons, just think of the
   >money we'll save. 

    I don't like lawyers, that does not mean I want to do away with them.
    They are a necessary evil.
    
    As for the Attorney General's office... YES! By all means do away
    with it (at least the Federal AG.) Make DA a non-political position.
    That would put an end to things like the guy in western MA who
    refused to extradite Lewis Lent to NY for the murder of Sarah
    Wood... so he could make political hay by prosecuting him in
    Massachusetts (I'd also be willing to bet you $100 that clown is
    a registered Democrat. Want to take my bet George?)
    
    -b

>  No but if I were sued Patty would give'em one hell of a fight. I'd tell her
>that if they win, that's your Christmas present and next year's vacation down
>the tubes. I'd have one motivated advocate. 

One charming relationship, there . . . 

    
    .64:
    
    Actually, Jack, the article I quoted in .5 did not indicate the success
    or failure of the suits (I wish it had!), only that the suits had been
    filed, and (in a couple of cases) what award was sought.
    

    We're talking apples and oranges, or extremes on both sides.
    
    Lady spills coffee in crotch and wins BIG-BUX v. McD's.
    Inmate initiates legal action over peanut butter
    agenda oriented bleeding heart lawyers prolong death sentance of felon
    Ambulance chasers advertise on TV
    Meowmixskis old lady would kick ass if MrG ever got sued.
    
    All different issues, different angles.  
    The system is <r.o.>'d up no doubt.  How to fix it (pulling lint from
    Mt pockets).

    	Re .64
    
    
    	Yes, those suits that are won in court are won by lawyers. The
    state has to provide a laywer for an inmate who files a suit, so those
    laywers that are doing this winning have been assigned this job by the
    State. Are you sugesting that pehaps they should do less than their
    best at the job they are being paid for. (And legally and morally
    obligated to do at that)
    
    	I feel that nusiance lawsuits by prisoners are a drain on the legal
    system, and realize that most are unfounded, but to blame the lawers is
    fairly short sighted. What is needed is some way to reform the prisoner
    complaint system, so as to weed out the nusaince suits without
    stifleing the real ones. I'm not sure what that might entail. 
    
    	The problem with big awards/sue anything mentality in the
    non-inmate population may have more to do with laywers. Of course it is
    the juries who hand out these ridicules verdicts however, so I'm not
    sure what to think. Maybe a cap on Damages you can receive, without
    capping the punative damages. I suggest this because I realize that for
    a truly large coorparation, a million dollars (just to have a figure)
    might not be any real deterent, so perhaps While the amount the
    plaintif can receive should pehaps be limited to actual damage, I think
    there should still be higher punative damages in some cases that could
    be awarded to some sort of charity/agency or whatever. Perhaps educatin
    or compenstation funds for related injuries. Another thing that I think
    might help, is to forbid the practice of charging a percentage of award
    as a fee. Require all atorneys to bill by hours, no percents. I
    wouldn't outlaw deals that you pay only if you win. Those help somone
    who is to poor to afford a laywer, but I would require them to bill by
    the hour though at a standerd hourly rate. (Can vary by Attorney, but
    must be disclosed up front BEFORE asking for damages or perhaps even
    before the suit is filed.)
    
    
    								S.R.

    My younger brother is being sued by an inmate;  It seems that
    this alleged criminal allegedly attacked a female officer
    and my brother with a shank;  During said scuffle the inmate
    suffered a broken wrist, jaw, nose and several ribs.
    
    Suit states that there was to much force used to subdue him...
    
    I say they should have tazered his a@@, and as he was laying there
    doing the "bug", they should have shot him...
    
    You see, Dead men don't sue, nor can they testify....And as far
    as I am concerned, if your an inmate your an animal, and animals
    should only have the right of existence.....Thats it..FINAL!!
    
    Dig a big hole, throw some scraps into it, and a few knives
    and let them fight for the food ... shoot the winner!
    
    
    
    Sin-te-da

Why is it that inmates _DO_ have a right to sue?

I was under the impression that when you were convicted of a felony, you
automatically relinquished certain rights. As an example, I thought that
the right to vote was not extended to convicted felons while incarcerated.

Am I mistaken in this? If not, why shouldn't their right to sue be eliminated
as well.

              Republicans To Press Liability Reform Legislation
                              By DAVID G. SAVAGE
                               Los Angeles Times
                           Copied w/o Permission from
                     New Hampshire Sunday News(27-Nov-94)
         
     WASHINGTON--In August, a New Mexico jury handed down a $2.7 million
     punitive damage verdict against McDonald's Corp.  because an elderly
     woman said she had been burned by hot coffee that she spilled on her
     leg. The jury had already awarded her $160,000 to cover medical bills
     and pay for her suffering.
         
     In September, a San Francisco law firm was hit with a $6.9 million
     punitive verdict because one of its partners had sexually harassed a
     female employee. A week later, an Alaska jury hit Exxon Corp. with a
     $5 billion punitive verdict, this on top of $3.8 billion that the
     company had paid out in fines and damage verdicts for the cleanup of
     the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
         
     A month ago, a jury in Las Vegas, Nev., handed out a $5 million
     punitive verdict, on top of a $1.6 million compensatory award, against
     the Hilton Hotels Corp. because it failed to prevent drunk Navy and
     Marine aviators from molesting a woman attending the Tailhook
     Association convention.
        
     Corporate attorneys interpret this latest round of huge punitive
     verdicts as showing that, despite a decade of clamorings for reform,
     the legal system is still out of control.
         
                        [subhead] Biggest Applause Line
         
     But this month's elections have given the business community newfound
     optimism. Republican candidates for Congress and state offices
     reported that one of the biggest applause lines was to attack "crazy
     lawsuits." Now, after capturing control of Capitol Hill and 15 new
     statehouses, they are promising the most sweeping changes ever in the
     nation's liability laws.
         
     "At the federal level, the climate for tort reform has never been
     better," said Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform
     Association, a lobbying coalition whose members  range from Boeing Co.
     and Exxon  to the American Camping Association and the Ski Industries 
     Association. "The prospects also look good all across the country," he
     said, noting that Republicans made big gains in California, Illinois,
     Michigan and Texas.
         
     The big losers are the trial lawyers, consumer advocates who until
     this year have fought off significant changes in the liability laws.
     While a majority of senators has favored federal restrictions on
     product-liability lawsuits, those measures were blocked by a handful
     of key Democrats allied  with the trial lawyers. 
         
     In the next Congress, the Republicans promise  to pass a series of
     "common-sense legal reforms," including the first-ever federal limits
     on product-liability suits. Their "contract with America" proposes to 
     "discourage frivolous lawsuits" by making the losers pay the
     defendant's costs and to put "reasonable limits on punitive damages."
         
     In product-liability cases, such as the hot-coffee case, the
     Republican proposal  would limit the punitive award to three times the
     actual damages or $250,000 whichever is higher. Because the Jury in
     the coffee case said the scalded woman was due $160,000 to pay for her
     injuries, it could then have awarded her $480,000 in punitive damages.
         
                          [subhead] Sending a Message
         
     But consumer advocates say big punitive verdicts - or even threats of
     such huge awards - are needed to force giant corporations to change
     their ways.
        
     "It takes a lot of money to send a message to Exxon, GM (General
     Motors Corp.) or McDonald's," said Pamela Gilbert, director of
     Congress Watch for consumer advocate Ralph Nader's  Public Citizen
     project.
         
     The Republicans and business lawyers say they will press a
     liability-reform  bill next year that, besides limiting punitive
     damages, would:
        
     -> Free retailers and distributors from most product-liability suits.
     Now, those who are hurt by defective products usually sue not only the
     manufacturer but whoever sold the product.
        
     -> Bar punitive damages against the makers of drugs, vaccines and
     medical devices that have been tested and approved by the Food and
     Drug Administration and airplanes that have been approved by the
     Federal Aviation Administration. While the injured could still win
     damages to cover their medical bills and their suffering, they could
     not get  punitive damages unless the product-makers  deceived federal
     regulators.
        
     -> Reduce damage awards if the injured person misused the product or
     altered it in a significant way.
       
     -> Prohibit lawsuits in which the plaintiff's use of alcohol or
     illegal drugs caused an accident or an injury.
        
     Proponents of the bill say it would help U.S. manufacturers by
     establishing a uniform federal law on liability.
         
     "If you are making a product now that is sold in the 50 states, you
     have to deal with 50 different sets of laws," said William Fay,
     executive director of the Product Liability Coordinating Committee.
         
     But the initial Republican proposal, even if it becomes law, would not
     necessarily affect most civil lawsuits that do not involve products.
     For example, the suits involving sexual harassment at the San
     Francisco law firm and at the Tailhook Association convention arose
     under state law and would not be affected by the proposed federal
     restrictions.
         
         
                       [subhead]Juries Allot Punishment
         
     The biggest fights are likely to focus on limiting punitive damages. 
     Until the 1970s, it was generally understood that the criminal justice
     system meted out punishment and civil lawsuits compensated the injured
     for damage or losses. But these days, big-time punishment usually
     comes from angry juries in civil cases.
         
     Critics of this trend say punitive damages have at least three
     drawbacks.
        
     First, those being punished often did not cause the damage. Certainly
     officials of the Hilton Hotels Corp. did not molest Paula Coughlin,
     the former Navy lieutenant who was assaulted at the Tailhook
     convention.
         
     "That kind of verdict suggests there is something very wrong with the
     legal system," said Yale University law professor George Priest.
     "Obviously, everyone feels badly for her, but why should the hotel be
     held responsible? Not the officers? Not the Navy? It doesn't make
     sense."
         
     Second, the winners often get an undeserved windfall. Jurors in the
     San Francisco case were told that several women were harassed by
     attorney Martin Greenstein. They handed down a $50,000 compensatory
     verdict in favor of Rena Weeks, who worked for Greenstein for 25 days.
     Then they added on the $6.9 million punitive verdict, which Weeks and
     her lawyers will share.
         
         
     Third, the punishment on civil cases depends entirely on the whim of
     the jury, unlike the criminal justice system where  penalties are
     spelled out in law Typically, plaintiff's lawyers ask the jury to
     "send a message" to a corporation by handing down large monetary
     award.
         
     Both critics and defenders punitive damages agree that
     multimillion-dollar verdict is akin to a lightning bolt - spectacular
     but rare. They disagree,  however, on whether these lightning bolts
     send a valuable warning.
                                     -30-
    

    I completely agree with the consumer groups that say huge lawsuit
    awards are the only thing that big business understands.  Remember, IBM
    was big enough to out-lawyer the Justice Department in their anti-trust
    case.
    
    That said, I wholly support this part of the "Contract With America."
    The proposed reforms sound great to me.

    for a few of those back about criminal rights. remember the
    constitution and our legal system garuantee's a convicted felon on
    death row more right than someone who joins the armed services of the
    united states.

                    <<< Note 99.72 by ISLNDS::MCWILLIAMS >>>
>                 -< Republicans to press for Liability Reform >-

	All of these proposals look reasonable to me as well.

	A 3X limit on punitive damages would go a long way in discouraging
	or eliminating frivolous/questionable lawsuits.

Jim

    > They handed down a $50,000 compensatory verdict in favor of Rena
    > Weeks, who worked for Greenstein for 25 days. Then they added on the
    > $6.9 million punitive verdict, which Weeks and her lawyers will share.
    
    Actually, this was recently scaled back to $3.5M, I read.
    
    DougO

    
>>    Actually, this was recently scaled back to $3.5M, I read.

	although she could re-try that part of the case

    Wordy:
    
    You mean to tell us that mean ole IBM had paid lawyers who were smarter
    than our Justice Department lawyers?  [Answer: They were smarter since they
    WEREN'T Juctice Department lawyers}
    
    The reason why IBM 'won' was that they outlasted the Justice Department
    and effectively waited until various government lawyers left for
    greener pastures.  The JD then 'settled' for what they could.

    Ron, I don't know if IBM's lawyers were smarter, but there were
    apparently more of them, and I suspect better paid ones.  And if you
    say they outlasted the government, well, I won't argue that point
    either.

RE         <<< Note 99.64 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>The implication in .5, by my reading, was not simply that the suits were being
>filed, but that they were successfully getting into court and being won. Are
>you saying that "jailhouse lawyers" are successfully arguing these cases
>before juries?

  Well if cases are being won then they hardly seem frivolous and probably
should be in court.

  The problem is that there are many frivolous cases being filed which do not
belong in court. The reason the solution is difficult is that it would be
a violation of everyone's civil liberties if once you were thrown in jail
you had no recourse in the court for valid suits.

  George

RE    <<< Note 99.68 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    We're talking apples and oranges, or extremes on both sides.
>    
>    Lady spills coffee in crotch and wins BIG-BUX v. McD's.
>    Inmate initiates legal action over peanut butter
>    agenda oriented bleeding heart lawyers prolong death sentance of felon
>    Ambulance chasers advertise on TV
>    Meowmixskis old lady would kick ass if MrG ever got sued.
    
  Actually the system is not as screwed up as this list implies. What you
are talking about here is a list of anecdotes extracted from the legal system
that supports a nation of 250,000,000 people. For every case of a screwup
that you can come up with there are probably thousands of cases that result
in a reasonable outcome.

  George

    re: Note 99.81 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    That's why I said:
    
    .68> extremes on both sides.
    
    Of all the valid cases, we hear mainly about the bizarre or frivolous,
    especially the ones which yield cash to someone.

    DOOM!

    You in a bad mood or something, Steve?

�                      <<< Note 99.14 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

�  If you live with a plaintiff's attorney as I do ...
    
    Why is this no surprise?  Reminds me of the punch line to the joke
    about the Irish couple who had been courting for 30 years.
    
    Dick

| <<< Note 99.84 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>


| You in a bad mood or something, Steve?

	He probably just found something else that goes against our founding
fathers way of thinking. You know how he gets when that happens. 



Glen

    re: .84
    
    Actually, no.  I just didn't have time to elaborate on my DOOM's
    yesterday.  Great attention grabbers, eh?  8^)

	Not sure where this belongs, so if there is a related 
topic....feel free.....



	Once upon a time there was a rancher/businessman who met
	a female lawyer from Chicago - they fell madly in love
	and had a whirlwind romance.  Coming back from their
	tropical passion trip, it appears that she proposed to him, he
	accepted and all looked wonderful.  Well, she and her 
	daughters went out and spent some time at his ranch, and he he turn 
	spent some time at their place in Chicago - after spending 
	this time together it occured to him that this wasn't going to 
	work, and he broke off the realtionship (no details on WHY this wasn't 
	going to work, btw).   Apparently this breakup caused her 
	great depression and heart ache and consequently she could not
	maintain her practise.  

	She in turn is sueing him for some outrageous amount of money
	based on breach of contract - and to date his court fees are 
	in excess of 90,000.00 

	This is a true story that's being battled out in the courts.

	It brings up a lot of questions (for me anyway), but I guess 
	the biggest one is WHY should she be able to sue him at all?

	Can I go back and sue the guys who broke up with me???

	Where is any personal responsibility being account for???

	This all seems so silly and so sad, imnsho.

	What do you think????

    Pat:
    
    Sure, sue 'em, it's American as Apple Pie and you might get a few bucks
    in the process.

  If you want to sue, I know a lawyer that will work for reasonable rates.

  Of course I'll end up with a good chunk of your money.

  :*)}
  George

    
    Re: .88
    
    I think one of the news magazine shows covered this and she
    was able to use an old and obscure law about verbal contracts.
    
    							Hank

    I think it is possible to launch lawsuits over "broken promises" --
    such as a betrothal. Sounds very Victorian, but there are still a lot
    of both bad and old+bad laws on the books.
    
    Isn't lawsuit reform part of the Contract?  Make the plaintiff pay
    costs if he/she loses?
    
    

RE    <<< Note 99.92 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

>    Isn't lawsuit reform part of the Contract?  Make the plaintiff pay
>    costs if he/she loses?
    
  Most likely. A typical Republican plan, then only the rich will be able
to afford risky law suits.

  George

    
    No matter how you tweak the system, George, some people will fail.
    
    All reforms have to begin somewhere.  

    <<< Note 99.94 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

    
>    No matter how you tweak the system, George, some people will fail.
    
>    All reforms have to begin somewhere.  

But it does seem rather curious that the ones who "fail" from conservative 
tweeks seem invariably to be the poor. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I'm 
whining...

    So the current situation where everyone pays more for everything
    because of liability is better? Ho ho!

RE    <<< Note 99.94 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

>    No matter how you tweak the system, George, some people will fail.

  Right, and if the Republicans have their way they'll make good and sure it's
the rich who are not the ones doing the failing. 

  There is already a better system in place for controlling runaway law suits
then just arbitrarily requiring the plaintiff to pay every time there is a
defense verdict and that's the tribunal system used in Massachusetts for
Medical Malpractice suits. 

  In Massachusetts if you want to file a medical malpractice suit you have to
present your case to a tribunal consisting of a judge, a doctor and a lawyer. 

  If they accept your case, you can go forward. If they reject your case, then
you have to put up a bond that will cover the defense costs in case you lose. 

  It's fair because some cases do have merit but could still result in a
defense verdict. This gives people other than the rich the opportunity to
pursue valid cases while at the same time putting at risk those who would file
a frivolous case. 

  George

    re: .88 - 
    
    Just FYI - I saw the news mag show on this one, and he broke it off
    because of her behavior while at his ranch.  While she had represented
    to him that she craved a slower, simpler lifestyle in the country, her
    time at his ranch "proved" to him that she really was quite
    uncomfortable in that world.  Since the ranch was his *life* and his
    choice of lifestyle, he felt the relationship would not really work,
    and chose to break it off via letter (rude, if you ask me, but not
    "illegal", per se.)
    
    IMHO, the lady is a gold-digger.  She's suing him for millions in pain
    and suffering over a 30-day engagement.
    
    M.
    

    	I hadn't heard about the Mass "Tribunal system" I must agree it
    sounds fairer then the Loser pays. Loser pays would discourage alot of
    frivoulous lawsuits, but would also discourage a lot of legitamate
    cases where there was s a chance you could lose. Say some one has a
    gripe against Digital. Chances are Digital could afford to keep the
    case in litigation long past what most individuals could. If you run
    out of money to pay your lawyer, oops, now you got to pay ours too,
    since you lost.
    
    
    								S.R.

    Ummm... by the way... the McDonald's coffee lady ended up needing
    skin grafts and a good deal of reconstructive surgery. The
    details of what happened to her are extremely unpleasant.
    _Extremely_. Imagine boiling hot liquid poured on your
    genitals...

    I know she's an icon for bad lawsuits, but I'm not sure she's
    an appropriate one...

    -b

    Yup.  Second and third degree burns are not pleasant.

>>    I know she's an icon for bad lawsuits, but I'm not sure she's
>>    an appropriate one...

	I'd say she's primo.

    >I'd say she's primo.
    
    On what grounds?  Her pain and suffering were hardly trivial.

    re: .446
    
    >On what grounds?  Her pain and suffering were hardly trivial.
    
    
     I would add "self inflicted"...
    

    
>>    On what grounds?  Her pain and suffering were hardly trivial.

	Her pain and suffering don't make the lawsuit (or the fact
	that it wasn't thrown out of court) any less preposterous.
	In my opinion, of course.

    
        I think the woman, even though I feel bad for her suffering,
    had to be a dimwit. I've bought coffee many times at the drive-in
    window. I put it in a "safe" place for drinking it. I don't put it
    on my lap where it can tip over and fill up my genitals... OUCH!!!!
    Gotta be stupid!!!!!
    
       Rosie

    .446
    
    Trivial or nontrivial.  What will her total hospital bills be?  If the
    settlement is more than 3 times that amount, my insurance company would
    say it's excessive.
    
    The 3-times number is what they offered me when I was hit by a car and
    spent 2.5 weeks in hospital, including a week in the ICU and a charming
    morning in surgery, and with the prospect of an additional three days
    in hospital, with a second surgery, two years later, and an unspecified
    amount of physical therapy, loss of consortium, and a permanent 25%
    disability.

    The point of her lawsuit was not that she spilled coffee on
    herself, but that the coffeemaker at the McDonalds was
    malfunctioning and producing extremely hot coffee.

    I had a similar thing happen to me at Dunkin' Donuts once...

    I got a cup of coffee and not realizing the temperature,
    gave my tongue a nasty burn... the coffee was much hotter
    than normal, near boiling temperature. I didn't sue
    them, because my tongue recovered, but I didn't need
    tens of thousands of dollars of surgery either. If I
    had burned myself very badly, and had scarring as a
    result, I might have done the same thing she did...

    -b

    When the suffering is your _own_ fault, I see little reason that the
    pain level should make any difference in the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was
    ridiculous, and she never should have gotten a dime for her own
    carelessness.
    
    This does not mean that I have no compassion for her pain, I do.  No
    one said that her suffering wasn't real, just that she should not have
    been able to sue McDonald's for an accident that McDonald's did not
    cause.  
    
    Now, if she were sitting in her car and someone careened into the back
    of her causing the coffee to be spilled in her lap, *then* she should
    be reimbursed for the doctor bills by the person who ran into her car
    (for the burns, as well as any other harm done to her and her car).
    
    This is a prime example of ridiculous lawsuits.  It has nothing to do
    with trivializing her pain and suffering.
    
    
    -steve

    FWIW, I agree with Dick... the jury award was probably
    excessive. But that is not to damn the woman for bringing
    the suit in the first place, I tend to think the suit
    was justified. She did not spill normal coffee on herself,
    she spilled coffee that was _way_ above the normal
    limits. The evidence put forth in the trial suggested
    that her injuries, for a time, were considered life-
    threatening.

    -b

    No reflection on you, Brian, but people with a modicum of common sense
    take a very careful first sip of restaurant coffee; it's often too hot.
    I've had friends complain because McD's coffee wasn't blistering hot -
    by the time they got to work, it was cold.  Go figure.

    Dick, the time with the Dunkin' Donuts coffee I was talking about...
    I took one of those "test sips" and the pain was so intense, it
    immediately filled my entire head. I don't remember pain quite
    like it. I can easily imagine someone dropping the coffee and
    causing themselves further injury.

    Steve, etc:

    And again, for the umpteenth time, the lawsuit was not about
    her spilling coffee on herself, it was about her spilling
    _ridiculously hot_, out of any normal temperature range,
    coffee on herself, that had been produced by a piece of
    _faulty_ equipment that had not been appropriately maintained
    and tested by the restaurant management.

    -b

	bri, so if she had taken a little sip and burned the tip of
	her tongue (which happens all the time to people), would she
	have been justified in suing?

    >	bri, so if she had taken a little sip and burned the tip of
    >	her tongue (which happens all the time to people), would she
    >	have been justified in suing?

    No, probably not. That wouldn't have put her in a hospital
    ER trauma unit, nor would it have required surgery, nor
    would there have been continued pain and suffering...

    -b

>>    No, probably not.

	Okay, so her lawsuit is strictly justified in your mind as
	a result of her stupid act of putting the coffee between her legs.  
	End of story.

    >	Okay, so her lawsuit is strictly justified in your mind as
    >	a result of her stupid act of putting the coffee between her legs.  
    >	End of story.

    No. I feel the lawsuit was justified by the extent of her
    injuries. It was less likely that she would have been
    as severely injured if she had not done this, but that's
    beside the point. The jury was convinced that the greater
    negligence belonged with the restaurant managers who
    did not correct a known problem with faulty equipment.

    -b

>>    No. I feel the lawsuit was justified by the extent of her
>>    injuries. 

	The extent of her injuries was as a result of her own actions.
	If she had dumped the coffee over her head and blinded
	herself, her injuries would have been even greater, so would
	you have said the lawsuit was even _more_ justified in that
	case?  

    
    I don't know about YOU folks, but I make coffee with boiling water.
    
    I therefore assume coffee to be somewhere in the range of 80-100
    degrees celcius.
    
    Call me wacky.
    

    If someone dumps a cup of coffee of normal temperature over
    their head, they will get wet. If they dump a cup of boiling
    water over their head, they will get burned.

    If someone is deliberately trying to injure themselves,
    they have no case. If someone is injured due to the
    demonstrable negligence of someone else, they should
    have the right to sue...

    None of us have all the facts in the case. I assume that the
    jury had more facts than we do, and they found in her favor.
    The reward was perhaps excessive. However, I question her
    status as the tort reform poster child...

    -b

>>    If someone dumps a cup of coffee of normal temperature over
>>    their head, they will get wet. If they dump a cup of boiling
>>    water over their head, they will get burned.

	see .461.

Ya know, the first time I saw "CAUTION: contents under pressure. Cap may
forcefully eject.", I knew someone, somewhere won a big lawsuit.

I think she should have been awarded a free coffee at the McDonald's of her
choice.

    OK, fine, I'm apparently one of two people (the other of whom
    has been silent for awhile) who think she might have justification.
    Unlike someone else we know, I've said my piece and no one is
    buying it, so I'll move on... :-) :-)

    Lesse, where was that sardine discussion...

    -b

    	Didn't she have the to-go cover on the cup of coffee?
    
    	And I agree with the reply back there about expecting hot
    	drinks to be hot.
    
    	When I make tea, for instance, I pour water as hot as I can get
    	it.

    Yes, the coffee had a lid.
    
    As for hot coffee, if you pour out the boiling water yourself, you
    expect it to be extremely hot.  If you pour coffee out of one of the 
    coffee urns at one of the local coffee stations, you do not.  I submit
    that buying coffee at McDonald's is far more analogous to getting
    coffee at a coffee station than making it yourself.  Certainly I've
    never managed to burn myself with the hot water I get for making tea.
    
    As for putting it between her legs, it's not such a stupid idea. 
    Obviously, she didn't have a cup holder.  So where can you put a cup of
    coffee so it doesn't slide around and tip over?

    <<< Note 99.109 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>


>    I got a cup of coffee and not realizing the temperature,
>    gave my tongue a nasty burn... the coffee was much hotter
>    than normal, near boiling temperature.

	The CORRECT brewing tempurature for coffee is 180 degrees.
	Try holding THAT in your hand.

	The lady was compensated for her clumsiness, nothing more.

Jim

    Is it still illegal in England to eat whilst driving a car ??

    It's illegal to have condoms in commercials in England, which
    surprises me actually. Just hear that the U.K. banned a Levis
    commerical whic had some guy putting a condom in the change pocket.

    We have all kinds of condom commercials in Canada.

    	From what I heard, the lady herself wasn't driving.  She was
    	just a passenger.
    
    	If the cup had the to-go lid, how did it spill?

    
    I much prefer the go-cup lids you get at expresso bars, you know, the
    type that stand up really high and have the hole in them rather than
    the flat sort you have to rip open and fasten.
    
    It's VERY difficult to spill coffee on yourself with the former, and it
    doesn't crush your steamed milk when you're having a latte 8^).

    Well we got the condom Levis ad in Australia ! I have seen ads for
    condoms in England before... quite a few actually. But I guess they
    were for condoms and not some other product.

    When I was brought up, if you did something stupid you dealt with the
    consequences. You didn't find someone else to blame. The story now is
    find the deep pockets and try to convince a jury that some part of the
    responsibility for your stupid action lies with whoever has the money.
    A sad state of affairs.
    
     I personally don't think that 40 degrees is all that much different.
    It's _supposed_ to be hot. Not tepid. Putting it where she did was
    stupid. I don't see that she should hit the lottery as a result of her
    stupidity, but she did.

    
    has anyone else heard of the lawsuit a woman has against one of the
    movie theatre chains???  apparently her son ordered the nachos at the
    snack bar...which come with nacho chips, cheese sauce, and jalepenos,
    in some cases...anyway, i guess the kid spilled the cheese on his hand,
    burned himself, and now mom is sueing.  anyone got anymore info on this
    one???
    
    

    
>>    As for hot coffee, if you pour out the boiling water yourself, you
>>    expect it to be extremely hot.  If you pour coffee out of one of the 
>>    coffee urns at one of the local coffee stations, you do not.

	I do.  Whenever I buy coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, for example,
	I know it'll be too hot to drink.  Sometimes it's 10 minutes
	before I can drink it.  

>>    As for putting it between her legs, it's not such a stupid idea. 

	It would seem to me to have been just about the worst place she
	could have put it.  She'd probably concur at this point.

    
    Chelsea, really...between her legs?
    
    How about in the coffee holder?   Most cars have them, and if they
    don't, they can be purchased at an automotive supply store.
    

| <<< Note 99.129 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Baloney Convalescence" >>>

| It's illegal to have condoms in commercials in England, 

	Why a place where it always rains would be against a raincoat
commercial is beyond me... :-)

    >How about in the coffee holder?   Most cars have them, and if they
    >don't, they can be purchased at an automotive supply store.
    
     And if you don't have one, then you go inside to drink your coffee _or
    you take a risk by putting the cup in a non-stable or unsafe place and
    assume the responsibility for that act._

    
    Recently in the WSJ they had a short aside on lawsuits
    related to little league.
    
    One I remember was a woman at a game who was hit by a ball that
    a youngster failed to catch. She sued the coaches and won a monetary
    settlement. The youngster who failed to catch the ball was her 
    daughter.
    
    Being a T-ball coach, I'll have to raise this as an issue at
    our kick-off/draft meeting.

    re .137
    
    It doesn't always rain in England ! It snowed only the other day !!
    
    :-)

    
    
    I spille my coffee this morning on the way to work.  I am in the
    process of starting suits against the maker of the coffee mug, the
    maker of the coffee, the maker of my coffee pot, and myself.......
    I hope I get enough from the others to pay myself or I might have to
    declare bankruptcy.
    
    Mike

    
    The question in my mind is, Did the woman that spilled the coffee ever
    have McD's coffee before? I have had it several times and it is always
    very hot. 
    
    ed

    >         <<< Note 99.139 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>
    
    
     >   Recently in the WSJ they had a short aside on lawsuits
     >   related to little league.
    
     >   One I remember was a woman at a game who was hit by a ball that
     >   a youngster failed to catch. She sued the coaches and won a
     >   monetary settlement. The youngster who failed to catch the ball was
     >   her daughter.
    
    
    shouldn't that fall somewhere under the 'rule' that you accept the risk
    of injury when attending such a game, as in getting hit by a puck at a
    hockey game or a baseball at a baseball game???
    
    and it was her daughter??????  wonder if they planned it together...
    
    

    Re: .133
    
    >I personally don't think that 40 degrees is all that much different.
    
    It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of safety.  That's why
    parents are told to keep the hot water setting to 140 degrees; hotter
    water could scald children.  The difference between 140 and 180 is
    definitely significant.
    
    
    Re: .135
    
    >It would seem to me to have been just about the worst place she could 
    >have put it.  She'd probably concur at this point.
    
    Hindsight is like that.  Look, I'm tired of hearing you say where she
    shouldn't have put it.  Tell us where she should have put it, or go
    away already.
    
    
    Re: .136
    
    >How about in the coffee holder?
    
    As I said, she obviously didn't have one, so it wasn't an option.

    Re: .138
    
    >you take a risk by putting the cup in a non-stable or unsafe place
    
    Between the legs is quite stable, really; the cup isn't going to move
    around a whole lot.

    
    <-------
    
    And if suddenly you have to jam on the brakes???
    
    Styrofoam does not resist pressure very well...
    
    So who would be sued then... the cup maker???
    

    
    Give it up Chelsea.
    
    It's a stupid place to put it while in an automobile.
    It is not "quite stable" and to speculate that it isn't going
    to move around a whole lot is absurd.
    
    Perhaps you should find another place to keep your coffee.

    >As I said, she obviously didn't have one, so it wasn't an option.
    
     That's an assumption. There has been no evidence one way or another
    that she had another place to put it.

    >Between the legs is quite stable, really; the cup isn't going to move
    >around a whole lot.
    
     I planned ahead for this quibble, which is why I said "or unsafe."

    
    Between your legs is stable whilst driving?  Only if you have a
    hand-controlled vehicle.  Brake, accelerator, clutch.  Not too stable,
    IMHO.
    
    I put my coffee on the console between the seats, resting up against
    the dash area, and put my hand on it when making awkward movements.  I
    also don't open it until I reach my destination or am able to come to a
    complete stop.  Too much risk of spilling it and burning myself.  I've
    done it before 8^/.
    
    Of course, my parents always taught me that I'm responsible for my own
    actions, but hey.

     >Of course, my parents always taught me that I'm responsible for my own
     >actions, but hey.
    
     Oddball.

>    Between your legs is stable whilst driving?

Didn't somebody say she wasn't driving?

    
    
    	Hmmm...I just ask the coffee shop for one of those cardboard drink
    holders and stick it in that on the passenger seat. Nice and stable and
    it's can't burn me if it does happen to tip.
    
    
    jim

    You don't have to be responsible for your actions in America
    today, just ask any lawyer.
    
    We are turning into a nation of victims and I'm getting quick sick of
    it.  I'd have awarded the lady a free cup of coffee at the same
    McDonald's she purchased the first one, or her money back.  Then I
    would make her pay court costs (this opinion changed from my last note
    that got "lost" from the 'crime and punishment' topic).
    
    The only way I would award her any compensation is if the coffee was
    spilled into her lap directly from a McD's employee.
    
    Quit yer whinin' already, America.  Geez, what ever happened to
    personal responsibility?
    
    
    -steve

    All this talk of coffee between the legs, for some reason, conjured
    up an image of a guy in college. I wonder where he kept his coffee...

    His name was James Hendrix (it was pretty tough not calling him
    "Jimi"), and he was a dwarf. He drove an enormous land-ark type
    car, a Caddy or Lincoln or some such... and he drove it while
    _standing_ on the seat. He had special controls installed on
    the steering wheel for the accelerator and brakes.

    What was really kinda neat was you'd see James come steamin'
    into the parking lot, looking rather imposing in his big car;
    it looked like there was a really large man driving it. Then,
    the door would swing open and a three foot tall guy would
    jump down off the seat.

    I bet James didn't keep his coffee between his legs.

    -b

    
    What was the real issue in this case? That she was holding it somehow
    or somewhere that she shouldn't have -- or that this particular
    restaurant was serving coffee at 180F -- which produces a real burn if
    the liquid spills?  
    
    WSJ reported that this settlement went this high because McDonald's
    rejected the initial advice of their own counsel, which was to settle;
    a recommendation made after a tour of local restaurants found that
    everybody else was serving hot liquids at 140F. They decided to tough
    it out; they paid for that decision.

    
    Chelsea...if one is in the habit of drinking (coffee) while driving,
    one should either place it in the cup holder provided, or stick a 
    crowbar in one's wallet and buy a cup holder.
    
    To do otherwise is inviting trouble of the sort that McD's shouldn't
    be held responsible for.
    

| Between your legs is stable whilst driving?

	I won't say a word.... nope.... I won't..... but I will think it.... :-)

    I think the real issue is...
    
    a) coffee is known to be hot, handle it with care or take a chance of
    burning yourself
    
    b) this lady did not handle the hot beverage carefully
    
    c) who gives a flip how hot the coffee is?  that is IRRELLEVENT, it was
    the fact that she mishandled it and spilled it into her lap that is the
    only pertinent issue
    
    
    So, if I spill 140 F coffe into my lap and burn my private parts,
    should I be able to sue the resteraunt?  In your answer is NO, then why
    should this lady?  Think about it.
    
    
    -steve

    The temperature of the coffee is hardly irrelevant.

    Re: .147
    
    >Perhaps you should find another place to keep your coffee.
    
    I don't drink coffee.
    
    I'll give it up when someone describes to me a better place to put
    one's coffee cup, other than a cup holder.

    Re: .150
    
    >I put my coffee on the console between the seats, resting up against
    >the dash area
    
    And if the coffee tips and gives you third degree burns on your legs, 
    folks will tell you it's your own damn fault for putting the coffee in
    an unsafe and unstable place.

    Re: .159
    
    >if I spill 140 F coffe into my lap
    
    You won't be meeting the same conditions as the woman in this case,
    whose coffee was 180 F.
    
    >and burn my private parts,
    
    You wouldn't.  Which is not to say you wouldn't suffer some discomfort.

    Search the latest "Wacky News Briefs" for far better examples
    of frivolous lawsuits... if people keep harping on the coffee
    lady, other people will probably get the same impression I did:
    if that's the best you can come up with to show that the
    system is broken, maybe the system isn't broken.

    -b
    

>    I'll give it up when someone describes to me a better place to put
>    one's coffee cup, other than a cup holder.

Human anatomy isn't well-suited to holding coffee cups (other than in the hand,
of course).  For those who insist on using a non-hand part of the anatomy for
this purpose, I suggest trepanning.

    
    Chelsea...
    Fine.
    
    I use a spill proof cup and I put the coffee on
    the other side of the front seat, wedged between the armrest and
    the seatbelt buckle.
    
    If I don't have a spill proof cup, I still put the coffee
    there. 
    
    If I'm a passenger, I hold the cup with my right hand.
    
    Now, give it up!
    
    

    
    
    Well, the cup may or may not be stable, but the liquid is not stable at
    all.  The cup could remain still and the liquid be sloshing all around.
    
    
    

            <<< Note 99.161 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I'll give it up when someone describes to me a better place to put
>    one's coffee cup, other than a cup holder.
    
    	Uhmmm...  one's hand?
    
.162>    And if the coffee tips and gives you third degree burns on your legs, 
>    folks will tell you it's your own damn fault for putting the coffee in
>    an unsafe and unstable place.
    
    	I believe she already indicated that she not only would accept
    	that criticism, but would make that same judgement upon herself.

    
    <-- Joe is absolutely correct.  I have, after over a year of driving this
    vehicle, found this to be the safest place in my Rodeo for a cup.  But 
    if it does spill, it's my own damn fault for putting it somewhere not
    designed for cupholding, and I will take responsibility for that.
    
    You've got to draw the line somewhere.

    The problem was, the lawyer this lady hired twisted the issue from
    "this lady did a dumb thing" to the  temperature of the coffee, which I
    find a ridiculous twist (unless the coffee was so hot it ate a hole in
    the cup, then proceeded to burn the lady's...lap).
    
    All one needs to do is pick up the cup to realize that it is VERY hot,
    and one should be _extra_ careful with it.  I can easily tell this
    whether it is in a paper, styraphome (sp?), ceramic, whatever coffee
    cup.  
    
    And to be honest, I think that the 140F temporature used by the old
    lady's lawyer is a bit cool.  Fresh coffee is well above that
    temperature, though after sitting in the holding bit for a while, it
    will inevitably cool off (at least in some places...depends on how hot
    they have it set).
    
    I find the whole suit ridiculous in the extreme.
    
    
    -steve

>>    would make her pay court costs (this opinion changed from my last note
>>    that got "lost" from the 'crime and punishment' topic).

	Steve, as you know, the note didn't get "lost".  If you need
	help posting it, let me know.

>>            <<< Note 99.144 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
>>    Hindsight is like that.  Look, I'm tired of hearing you say where she
>>    shouldn't have put it.  Tell us where she should have put it, or go
>>    away already.

	Too bad you can't get paid to be obnoxious.  I can think of at
	least one place that you could stick _your_ coffee, my dear
	Chelsea.

    The words "ensuing cat fight" never crossed my mind... honest! :-) :-)
    :-)

    -b

	don't hold your breath, brian.

RE                 <<< Note 99.170 by CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!" >>>

>    The problem was, the lawyer this lady hired twisted the issue from
>    "this lady did a dumb thing" to the  temperature of the coffee, which I
>    find a ridiculous twist (unless the coffee was so hot it ate a hole in
>    the cup, then proceeded to burn the lady's...lap).
    
  So I'm curious, why didn't the McDonald's lawyer twist the issue back from
the temperature to "this lady did a dumb thing"?

  It would seem that either McDonalds was poorly represented or the jury heard
both sides and rendered their verdict.

  George

Yah, between the legs is a pretty stable place to hold things while driving,
even in a standard transmission... I put my bottle of soda there all the
time.

Note that the above statement makes the coffee lady's case even more
ridiculous.

There's also a difference between drinking a cold soda while driving and
drinking something moderately dangerous like a hot liquid.

    the background on this case is that this is not the first time
    MacDonalds has been made aware of the issue of the temperature of their
    coffe.  It is just that they decided that little old ladies weren't
    worth as much as small children.  (They have settled out of court
    numerous times for children being burned by spilled coffe, and they
    admit they keep their coffe hotter than most resturants.)
    
    Now does anyone think skin grafts are less expensive on old ladies than
    on young children?
    
    meg

   re: .170 by Leech
   
   You really don't have a clue, do you?
   
   Go ahead, do a little expurimint (sp?).  Get an assestint (sp?).  And
   get a thurmomiter (sp?).  Have the assestint (sp?) take three styraphome
   (sp?) cups, three lids, and a pierecks (sp?) measuring cup.  The
   assestint (sp?) will fill the pirecks (sp?) cup with water, put in in
   your local microwaiphe (sp?) oven, and nuke it for, oh, 8 minutes or so.
   
   The assestint (sp?) carefully takes the pirecks (sp?) cup out of the
   microwaiphe (sp?) oven.  The assestint then carefully fills each of the
   styraphome (sp?) cup with the hot water and some cold water.  Your
   assestint (sp?) with helped (sp?) from the  thurmomiter (sp) prepairs
   (sp?) one styraphome (sp?) cup with 120 degrees water, one with 140
   degree water, and one with 180 degree water. The assestint (sp?) will
   put lids on the sthraphome (sp?) cups.
   
   
   Now, the assestint (sp?) will hand you a cup.  The assestint (sp?)
   will not tell you which is which.  You will hold the cup in your
   hand for not more than five seconds and give it back to the assestint
   (sp?).  No peaking inside.  Tell the assestint (sp?) how hot the cup is,
   and the assestint (sp?) will mark the cup.  Repeat for each cup.
   
   The assestint will now *hand* you what you think is the 120 cup.  You
   will take the lid off, and drink it (not sip it, DRINK it) sense (sp?)
   you are so goode (sp?) at telling how hot liquid inside a styraphome
   (sp?) cup is.
   
   
   
   Good luck.
   
   								-mr. bill

Maybe this belongs under TTWA.  If the lady had been scalded by coffee from
Joe's Diner instead of McDonald's, would she have sued the car manufacturer
for not providing cup holders?

    Doubtless she would have found someone else to blame.

    Here's the thing that's been bothering me about this...

    This woman had severe injuries, which could be demonstrated,
    which resulted in legitimate medical bills. It seems to
    me the people who feign back or neck injuries that cannot
    be substantiated are a far greater problem and overall
    burden on the the system.

    I'm being honest when I tell you that this woman's case
    does not bother me. Yes, people who take the system for a
    ride bother me, but I remain unconvinced that this lady
    took anybody for a ride.

    It seems to me that the system usually works the way it's
    supposed to. The danger in changing the system is that
    it inevitably affects people with legitimate suits as
    well.

    I'm sure there are a lot of corporations and government
    agents who would be delighted at the prospect of tort
    reform.  And a lot of "little people" who will take an
    even bigger screwing in the process.

    -b

RE   <<< Note 99.179 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Maybe this belongs under TTWA.  If the lady had been scalded by coffee from
>Joe's Diner instead of McDonald's, would she have sued the car manufacturer
>for not providing cup holders?

  Yes. As many plaintiff's attorney will tell you, sue everyone in sight then
see what bubbles up to the surface. 

  George

    re: .171
    
    Nah, no need repost it (I couldn't find it in the other topic, it
    seemed to be missing) as I've pretty much said the same thing in this
    string (though not all in one note).
    
    Besides, Mr. Bill will just throw another fit and I wouldn't want him
    to pop a blood vessel before the weekend.  8^)  [I'm kidding Mr. Bill.]
    
    
    -steve

    >Besides, Mr. Bill will just throw another fit and I wouldn't want
    >him to pop a blood vessel before the weekend.  8^)  [I'm kidding Mr.
    >Bill.]
    
     Oh, so you DO want him to pop a blood vessel before the weekend?!!

                     <<< Note 99.183 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Yes. As many plaintiff's attorney will tell you, sue everyone in sight then
>see what bubbles up to the surface. 

    	Are you in support of this practice?
    
    	Personally, this is one of the reasons the legal system is
    	so contemptable.

re: .-1

You beat me to it, Joe. Let's hang on to that one for the next time George
starts telling us about the fine upstanding members of the legal profession.

re: Where else should she have put it.

I can't find any fault with Jim S.'s suggestion of the fiber cup holder. It
was freely available at the same time and place that she got the cup.

But I have to admit I like Gerald's suggestion better.

    re: .178
    
    Mr. Bill, can you tell the difference between 140F coffee and 180F
    coffee with little effort?  Yes or no.
    
    Thank (sp?) you (sp?),
    
    -steve (sp?)

    Re: .166
    
    >I use a spill proof cup
    
    McDonald's didn't sell her one.  Not applicable.
    
    
    Re: .168
    
    >Uhmmm...  one's hand?
    
    Not while driving, certainly not in my car (manual transmission).  And
    I don't see how holding it your hand will make it any less liable to
    spill or splash than holding it between your legs.
    
    >but would make that same judgement upon herself.
    
    Fine, so she's judged herself a damn fool.  Not something you see
    people willing to admit, generally.

According to Joe (.130), she wasn't driving.

    Re: .172
    
    Once again, you fail to supply a viable alternative.

    Re: .190
    
    That doesn't address the second point -- how does holding it in your
    hand make it any less likely to spill or splash than holding it between
    your legs?

RE      <<< Note 99.186 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Are you in support of this practice?
>    
>    	Personally, this is one of the reasons the legal system is
>    	so contemptible.

  Yes I am and it is not a reason why the legal system is contemptible.

  Once again, we have the adversary system of justice in which the two sides
each compete to win and a judge and jury seek to apply the law and render a
just verdict.

  Now if you feel that the adversary system in principle is contemptible then
you have a point. However if you agree that the adversary system makes sense
then a plaintiff's attorney would be irresponsible for not taking the sensible
course of suing everyone in sight.

  George

reposted for Steve Leech.

================================================================================
Note 99.123                    Lawsuits/Litigation                    123 of 123
CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!"                              49 lines  30-MAR-1995 17:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 44.455 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary"  
    

>    And again, for the umpteenth time, the lawsuit was not about
>    her spilling coffee on herself, it was about her spilling
>    _ridiculously hot_, out of any normal temperature range,
 
    
    I disagree.  I think the temperature of the coffee is irrelevent.  I
    don't think allowing people to sue for their own breach of common sense
    (like the guy who successfully sued a lawnmower company because he
    injured himself trying to trim his hedges with said lawnmower) is in
    the best interest of law or America in general.    
    
    If it was so extremely hot, you'd think that she could tell right away
    it was VERY hot when she first picked it up.  I know I can without any 
    consentration whatsoever- regardless of container (other than a
    thermos), and would certainly not set such a hot beverage in my lap 
    (I would not set "normally hot"- whatever that is- cup of coffee in my lap,
    that's just plain stupid, IMO).
    
>    coffee on herself, that had been produced by a piece of
>    _faulty_ equipment that had not been appropriately maintained
>    and tested by the restaurant management.

    We're talking about a coffee maker,  not a peice of machinery that
    needs regular maintenance (other than cleaning, of course).  I disagree
    with the premise that because this machine was producing hotter coffee,
    that this gives any right to sue on the part of this lady.  By nature,
    coffee is known to be _hot_, thus should be handled carefully.  She did
    not handle it carefully, and burned herself.  I see this as another
    reason why many have an unpleasant view of lawyers and our current
    legal system.
    
    If I had been on the jury, I would have ruled it this way:
    
    She gets her money back for the coffee, since she was not satisfied
    with the quality, and she had a reason not to be satisfied.  I'd also
    have McDonald's pay the court costs, since technically, she wins the
    case due to poor quality of the product.
    
    I'd give her no reward for an accident that McDonald's did not cause
    directly, nor would I force McDonald's to pay her hospital bills. 
    
    Now, if she got poisoned from drinking the coffee, that would have been
    a different story entirely.                                    
    
    
    -steve

>    That doesn't address the second point -- how does holding it in your
>    hand make it any less likely to spill or splash than holding it between
>    your legs?

Those of us with an opposable thumb find the hand much more suitable for
holding things than the lap.

                     <<< Note 99.193 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>then a plaintiff's attorney would be irresponsible for not taking the sensible
>course of suing everyone in sight.

    	Like I said elsewhere, George, we just use different view-finders.

    	Are you assuming, Chelsea, that she didn't have a to-go cover
    	on the cup of coffee?

    re: .123
    
    
    Hey!  Where'd you find it?  (I did look, honest!)
    
    
    -steve

    >Note 99.189
    >OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."
    
    >>but would make that same judgement upon herself.
    
    >Fine, so she's judged herself a damn fool.  Not something you see
    >people willing to admit, generally.
    
    I'm a damn fool for taking responsibility for my own actions?  Wow.

    time to litigate a...

    SNARF!

|   Mr. Bill, can you tell the difference between 140F coffee and 180F
|   coffee with little effort?  Yes or no.
   
   No.
   
   								-mr. bill

    You added your own qualifiers, Mr. Bill (in the title). 
    
    
    -steve

    Gee, does the McD coffee lady's case mean that I can sue my son's day
    camp?  He got a second degree sunburn while in their care last summer,
    because they only ensure that 6-12 year olds reapply sunscreen once per
    day.
    
    And to think -- all I did was request a refund for the days he had to
    stay home because of the burn, and pull him out of the remaining beach
    trips last summer.
    
    M.
    

    Re: .194
    
    >Those of us with an opposable thumb find the hand much more suitable
    >for holding things than the lap.
    
    That doesn't answer the question.  (Also, "lap" implies resting
    something on top of the legs, rather than between, so your answer is
    inadequate on two counts.)
    
    
    Re: .196
    
    >Are you assuming, Chelsea, that she didn't have a to-go cover on the
    >cup of coffee?
    
    Nope.  (Of course, once you open the little "sip here" tab, the cover
    has limited effectiveness.)
    
    
    Re: .198
    
    >I'm a damn fool for taking responsibility for my own actions?
    
    No.  For driving around with coffee in an unsafe manner.

    Re: .202
    
    Actually, he stated those conditions in his original note.
    
    
    Re: .203
    
    You can attempt to sue anyone you want.  If they didn't give you your
    refund, you might have seriously considered it.

    
    I may be a damn fool, but at least I've never sued anyone because of my
    own damnfoolishness.

    Age is supposed to bring wisdom; sorry, this lady wasn't entitled
    to this type of settlement.
    
    I don't order coffee very often these days from Mickie Dee's or
    Wendy's, but when I did I never attempted to sip it as soon as it
    was handed to me.
    
    Both franchises have used several types of containers over the years;
    one can get a fair estimate of how hot the liquid is just by holding
    the container.  Reasonable test - if it starts to burn your fingers,
    put it down and do not attempt to drink it while riding or driving
    a car.
    
    Unless one is ordering ICED coffee, one should assume the coffee might
    be a tad hot.
    

    Re: .207
    
    >I never attempted to sip it as soon as it was handed to me.
    
    Bully for you.  What does this have to do with anything?
    
    >one should assume the coffee might be a tad hot.
    
    Anything hot enough to inflict third degree burns is more than a "tad"
    hot, wouldn't you say?
                                                             

    Well Chels, if she had paid attention when the cup was first 
    handed to her, she might have had a clue that putting it between
    her legs might not be the best idea!
    
    Since you insist on getting sarcastic; yes, bully for me!
    

    
    Chelsea..
    
    What exactly is your point in this discussion?
    Try stating it clearly, no matter how distasteful that may
    be to you.

    Her point seems pretty clear to me: stupidity ought to be rewarded by
    taxing the nearest deep pocket.

    
    or, people shouldn't be responsible for their own dumb actions?
    
    
    

    Did someone already suggest banning assault coffee?  
    

    
    
    I think that's why there's some litigation rally
    in Beantown tomorrow... :*)
    
    
    

    <---- thank you, I feel much more betterer now. 

    Re: .210
    
    >What exactly is your point in this discussion?
    
    My point, exactly, is that this woman's suit was not entirely a 
    frivolous, whimsical or greed-driven bagatelle, as many others are only
    to happy to believe.  My point, exactly, is that this woman did suffer,
    that her actions were hardly imbecilic (certainly not like trying to
    trim one's hedges with a lawnmower), and that McDonald's bears some
    responsibility for her injuries (because their equipment was faulty and
    their product unsafe).
    
    >Try stating it clearly, no matter how distasteful that may be to you.
    
    Drop dead.  I have expressed myself _quite_ clearly throughout this
    entire wrangle.  If you're going to try to insult me, at least pick
    some reasonable grounds.
    
    
    Re: .211
    
    >Her point seems pretty clear to me: stupidity ought to be rewarded by
    >taxing the nearest deep pocket.
    
    Since I have said nothing about the award made, you're making lots of
    assumptions on little basis.  But hey, par for the course.

>    to happy to believe.  My point, exactly, is that this woman did suffer,
     too
YVW

    RE: absolutely nothing pertinent to anyone in particular...
    
    Had breakfast at Mickey D's last Sat.  I don't drink coffee, never
    could stand the stuff.  However, my mother was with me, and she *LOVES*
    coffee, preferably very strong and very hot.  She ordered a
    cup.  It sat in the cup, with the sipper lid opened, for nearly 30
    minutes, and was still too hot for her to drink.  I had them put some
    ice in it, and the coffee became somewhat more bearable.
    
    Talk about Assault Coffee!
    
    M.
    

    Re: .217
    
    Thank you.  Have you anything to offer in the way of commentary?

No, I'm just a quiet observer in this topic. :^)

To paraphrase the famous NY Daily News headline:



Chelsea to Modica: Drop Dead

    
    Every Saturday morning, I make my way to Dunkin Donuts and purchase a
    large Dark Roast... black.. no sugar...
    
     I drive a Suzuki Samurai and there is no place to keep the cup.
    
     I always... ALWAYS ask the person for one of those paper cup holders
    (qty 4) and place my coffee in it for, oh, about 30 or so minutes or
    however long it takes me to run all my errand and whatever...
    
      I have, to this day, yet to be burned/scalded/hurt by any one of
    these Saturday coffees.. and if I do, it'll serve me right for being a
    bonehead...
    

>    Every Saturday morning, I make my way to Dunkin Donuts and purchase a
>    large Dark Roast... black.. no sugar...

Do they put sugar in it?  MzDeb wants to know.

    
    They did once.... and milk too!!!
    
     I was on my way to Boston (purchased the coffee in Nashua) and 8 or so
    hours later, brought it back to them and demanded my money back...
    
     They happily obliged....
    

    
    And if they didn't...
    
    								-mr. bill

    	Read somewhere that some guy got burned by Burger King coffee
    	(nearly similar circumstances, I believe) and is looking to
    	sue B.K.

 If I get black coffee at Dunkin' Donuts I'll usually ask them to drop an
 ice cube or 2 in it (much to the chagrin of my friend Ron).  It cools it off
 but not too much so that one can't enjoy hot coffee.




 Jim

    
    They prolly make their ice cubes with sugar as well 8^p.

 Prolly.  the biggest problem I have at DD is I'll order hazelnut and
 they'll give me the non hazelnut.  




 Jim

    
    Ban sugar.
    

    
    
    Guy in Virginia is suing his palm reader for $3,000,000.  The reason is
    that she gave him the wrong numbers for the lottery and he didn't win
    after she assured him that he would because he was chosen by God.  
    
    The reader says that she is not responsible because someone in the guys
    family put a curse on him and thus changed the outcome.
    
    
    This is not fiction. 

    Looks like a good candidate for being laughed out of court.  
    
    Fact is still stranger than fiction. 

    
    RE: .225
    
    >                -< ...YOU WOULD HAVE SUED! >-
    
    
    > And if they didn't...
    
    >                                                           -mr. bill
    
    
    No... I would have informed them that I would be taking my business
    elsewhere...
    

So, MzDeb, why don't you get your coffee elsewhere?

re: Note 99.216

	By Chelsea...
    
>    My point, exactly, is that this woman's suit was not entirely a 
>   frivolous, whimsical or greed-driven bagatelle, as many others are only
>   to happy to believe.  My point, exactly, is that this woman did suffer,
>   that her actions were hardly imbecilic (certainly not like trying to
>   trim one's hedges with a lawnmower), and that McDonald's bears some
>   responsibility for her injuries (because their equipment was faulty and
>   their product unsafe).
  
	Very good. Now that wasn't so hard, was it Chelsea?
  
>    Drop dead.  

	Oops! Then again....

>    I have expressed myself _quite_ clearly throughout this
>    entire wrangle. 

	Oh you have eh? Try rereading your notes.
	Aside from note .104 where you stated that "her pain and suffering
	were hardly trivial", the rest of your notes have meandered from
	quibbling about where to put the coffee (.126 .145 .189...),
	stating the obvious (.102), making coffee (.126), 
	and quibbling about water temps (.144 .162 .163) etc. 

	Still, we have the following gem, from the same note,
	in response to note .211

>    Since I have said nothing about the award made, you're making lots of
>    assumptions on little basis.  But hey, par for the course.

	I see. You "have expressed [your]self _quite_ clearly"
	and yet admit that you have allowed "little basis" for
	drawing conclusions about your position.
	
	Thanks for clearing that up!
						Regards

							Hank

	ps. Though I don't mind you wishing I drop dead, do be
	careful lest George include you in one of his infamous
	"pro-death crowd" diatribes.

    
    Well, Gerald, I really do like Dunkin Donuts coffee.  And the one in
    Ayer is a drive-thru 8^).  I don't go there that often, tho, cuz it's 
    expensive 8^p.  So when I DO go, I want it to be just like I want it, you 
    know?  
    
    AND I WANT IT WITHOUT SUGAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    8^)

    re: .234 by Solvit::Krawiecki
    
    Go buy a sense of humor.
    								-mr. bill

    
    <------
    
    Yeah.. right....
    
    With your track record???  Even if you had put a smiley face in there,
    most people would have their doubts...
    

    
    deb...too expensive????  are you serious???  and you who buys that
    funky stuff at the espresso bar at the p.l.m...
    
    

    
    I think Dunkin Donuts coffee is too expensive to buy on an everyday
    basis, cuz I can make hazelnut coffee at home.  
    
    I don't make a good espresso or latte at home 8^). 

    
    
    excuses excuses
    
    
    :>
    

 I had a delightful cup of DD hazelnut this morning (with milk and sugar,
 thank you).  It was a bit hot (and I dumped a little out in the parking lot
 so as not to spill it all over me whilst driving).  I treated myself after
 dropping my poor kitty off.




 Jim

I keep hearing Chelsea babbling about a faulty coffee maker at McD's.  Was
this determined to be true at the trial?  If so, how was it faulty and did
the McD's management know about it before the incident?

Thanks,

Bob

    Re: .236
    
    >Now that wasn't so hard, was it Chelsea?
    
    You are a complete waste of genetic material, and I will have nothing
    whatsoever to do with you in the future.

    Re: .244
    
    >I keep hearing Chelsea babbling about a faulty coffee maker at McD's.
    
    No, you don't.  I have mentioned it ONCE.  Someone else brought it up. 
    It's in there, and I don't give enough of a damn about you to do your
    legwork, so you can just find it for yourself.

    Gee Chelsea, aren't you getting a little hostile?  What's the
    big deal?
    

    
    bad week Chelsea?? Lighten up already.

re: .246

You were not the person who first indicated it was faulty.  Your reply was
quoted so many times that I thought it was you.  Sorry.

Brian,

Where did you hear that the coffee maker was faulty?

Thanks,

Bob

    Well, they say caffeine bothers her...

    RE: The coffee maker... 

    Bob,

    I read about it when the trial coverage was in the papers.
    Her lawyers were able to demonstrate that the coffee maker
    was faulty, in that it was producing coffee that was
    way above the manufacturer's published specifications
    for temperature.

    Further, they were able to demonstrate that the machine
    had not undergone the routine inspection/maintenance
    schedule specified by the manufacturer.

    In my opinion, this made the lawsuit somewhat justified.
    However, I have never stated that I felt the settlement
    was justified.

    My only input all along has been that this is not the
    glaring example of a frivolous lawsuit one would hope
    for if we're determined to reform our legal system.

    -b

re: .251

Thanks Brian.

The unfortunate part is that unless somebody forks over the cash for a trial
transcript, we'll never know the answer to my other questions or other ones
that come to mind.

Wait a minute.  George.  Do you have any way of getting access to the trial
transcript without it costing anyone a lot of money?

Bob

    Re: .247
    
    >What's the big deal?
    
    The big deal is that when you're arguing a minority position, you tend
    to get pounded on a lot, and it adds up.
    
    
    Re: .249
    
    >I thought it was you.  Sorry.
    
    Apology accepted.  I'm afraid you had some bad timing....

    Re: .250
    
    >Well, they say caffeine bothers her...
    
    Yes, it causes a heart arrhythmia (I get a syncopated heartbeat), which
    is why I limit myself to one can of Coke a day.

    >I get a syncopated heartbeat...
    
    Yabbut, can you dance to it?
    

    Only if you waltz.

I remember a tune called "The Syncopated clock".

It went kinda like -

   Da DUM dum dum dum dum da DA
   Da DUM dum dum dum dadadada DA
   Da DUM dum dum dum dum da DA
   Da DA da da da - DUM da da.

    
    Don't feel bad Chelsea... my heart does either "Take Five" or
    "Blue Turk a la Ronde", depending on the amount of Coke I use,
    um, er, drink.
    
    -b

    
    .257
    
    Yes!  Yes!  Then the bridge:
    
    Da da da da da da-dada
    Da-da da da-da da daaaaaaaa
    Da da da da da da da-da
    Da dada da dada da da (ooh-wah)
    
    Gosh, I haven't heard that song for longer than I care to remember 8^).
                      

    So sue us! 
    
    
    
    :-)

    <<< Note 99.251 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>

>    I read about it when the trial coverage was in the papers.
>    Her lawyers were able to demonstrate that the coffee maker
>    was faulty, in that it was producing coffee that was
>    way above the manufacturer's published specifications
>    for temperature.

	Correct temp for brewing coffee is 180 (F). The highest temp
	that water can reach (at one atmosphere) is 212 (F). This is
	20% hotter than the norm. It would be a stretch to call this
	"way over".

Jim

    Re: .262
    
    >This is 20% hotter than the norm. It would be a stretch to call this 
    >"way over".
    
    Is this a joke?  Hell, yes, 20% is a major difference.  Would you call
    a 20% reduction in response time a "minor improvement"?

    Re .262:
    
    > 	Correct temp for brewing coffee is 180 (F). The highest temp
    >	that water can reach (at one atmosphere) is 212 (F). This is
    >	20% hotter than the norm. It would be a stretch to call this
    >	"way over".
    
    Why are you measuring from 0 degrees Fahrenheit?  That's an arbitrary
    temperature with no physical or medical relevance.
    
    Actually, water just at 212 degrees Fahrenheit has only 5% more heat
    than water at 180 degrees.  However, the more relevant figure would be
    something like its temperature above that which scalds human flesh. 
    That's something above body temperature, and the difference between
    body temperature and 212 degrees is 40% more than the difference for
    180 degrees.  So the additional capacity to scald is more than 40%.
    
    I think 140 degrees is recommended as an upper limit for household hot
    water; that's about the point where it gets to be dangerous.  Then
    boiling water is 80% higher.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

            <<< Note 99.263 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    >This is 20% hotter than the norm. It would be a stretch to call this 
>    >"way over".
    
>    Is this a joke?  Hell, yes, 20% is a major difference.  Would you call
>    a 20% reduction in response time a "minor improvement"?


	Well let's see. I notice that between my statement and your statement
	the "20%" is the same. Nothing else seems to be though.

	Given the topic at hand, we are discussing a difference of 32 degrees.
	We are also discussing whether the burn from 212 degree water is
	worse than the burn from 180 degree water. Now, boiling water will
	very likely burn you quicker, but 180 degree water will burn you
	just as badly.

Jim

    	Yeah, but it's not really worth fighting over it -- unless you
    	are the fortunate human to have it poured on you from a cup with
    	golden arches drawn on the outside...

       <<< Note 99.264 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    Why are you measuring from 0 degrees Fahrenheit?  That's an arbitrary
>    temperature with no physical or medical relevance.
 
	because it is the measurement system used when brewing coffee.

>However, the more relevant figure would be
>    something like its temperature above that which scalds human flesh. 

	If we were discussing a bathhouse, I would agree. We're not,
	so I don't.

>    I think 140 degrees is recommended as an upper limit for household hot
>    water; 

	I have yet to me anyone that brews their coffee with hot tap
	water. Of course I have yet to meet you.

Jim

    Re .267:
    
    > 	because it is the measurement system used when brewing coffee.
     
    Not in Europe it isn't.  Does water at the same temperature scald
    people differently there because they use a different measuring system?
    
    The measuring system is irrelevant; it has no effect on the
    consequences.
    
    >> However, the more relevant figure would be
    >> something like its temperature above that which scalds human flesh. 
    >
    >	If we were discussing a bathhouse, I would agree. We're not,
    >	so I don't.
    
    How do you figure that the temperature at which water scalds human
    flesh isn't relevant?
    
    >> I think 140 degrees is recommended as an upper limit for household hot
    >> water; 

    >	I have yet to me anyone that brews their coffee with hot tap
    >	water.
    
    I didn't say coffee should be brewed at 140 degrees.  I mentioned that
    140 degrees is the limit for household hot water because that's the
    temperature at which it becomes dangerous, not the temperature at which
    coffee should be brewed.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

       <<< Note 99.268 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    How do you figure that the temperature at which water scalds human
>    flesh isn't relevant?
 
	Because even properly brewed coffee will scald you if you are not
	careful. Since this case rests on the difference between properly
	brewed coffee and coffee that was above 180 degrees, the tempurature
	at which coffee (or water) scalds human flesh is completely irrelavent.

Jim

    Jim,
    
    Your statement "if you are not careful" sums it up for a lot of us.
    Whatever McD's did wrong, did the woman use a robotic arm/hand to
    take the coffee from the cashier?  Whether it is the waxed style
    cardboard containers or styrofoam, one can get a pretty accurate
    indication of just how hot the contents might be (and proceed 
    cautiously).
    
    Perhaps the woman was entitled to some compensation, but this
    award was outrageous.  It really DOES pay to be stupid at times.
    

    Boxers, please forgive this tangent but I wanted to say my
    piece to Chelsea about our recent exchanges.
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
	To Chelsea...

	I know, you're not reading or responding to my notes now
	but perhaps someone will forward this to you..
	(One of the mods...Doc perhaps?) 
	I am reluctant to send mail.

	I must admit that the acrimony in your notes directed
	toward me has been surprising.
	
	You've told me to drop dead and told me that
	"[I am] a complete waste of genetic material"
	So be it! However I have my bad points also.

	Now, allow me to tell you in no uncertain terms exactly
	what I think of you, Chelsea.....

	I think you quibble about semantics on occasion. You also often
	tend to keep your cards close the vest (so to speak) during
	debates. Hence I goaded you a bit to discern exactly what
	your position was. I readily admit I was sarcastic.
	I was however mistaken in that I thought that since you
	can dish it out with the best of them that you could also
	take it. Still, I don't feel an apology on
	my part is warranted as I can't see where my notes were
	any better or worse than others (including yours) that
	are entered into this forum.

	Having said that I'd also like to say that based on
	some infrequent mail we exchanged a few years back and
	based on reading your notes here and elsewhere, I tend
	to think that you're a fine person. I often hoped to meet
	you if I ever had the time to attend a box bash.
	From what you've written on your work experience, I also
	think that you're an asset to the corporation.

	I guess that covers it.

	I wish you the best.


					Quite sincerely

						Hank

        

    I hate it when EDP gets like this.  Jim, he's precisely quibbling over
    the "20% hotter" claim, which is incorrect, in terms of the amount of
    specific heat water can hold.  That's what he meant a bit later on in
    the same note about water actually being about 5% hotter at 212(F) than
    it is at 180(F).  It is carrying about 5% more joules of energy in
    caloric heat at the higher temp.
    
    He is pedantically correct when he nitpicks your 20% hotter claim.
    
    Even though he doesn't bother to make it clear that thats what he's
    doing, to the many who don't look too precisely at the way English and
    math are mangled in descriptions of physical concepts.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 99.272 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I hate it when EDP gets like this. 

	Nah, it's part of his special charm.

>It is carrying about 5% more joules of energy in
>    caloric heat at the higher temp.
    
>    He is pedantically correct when he nitpicks your 20% hotter claim.
 
	I'm always willing to learn. I will accept the 5% more energy
	(Obviously, since it strenghtens my position).

Jim

    Re .269:
    
    >>    How do you figure that the temperature at which water scalds human
    >>    flesh isn't relevant?
 
    >	Because even properly brewed coffee will scald you if you are not
    >	careful.
    
    That's a non sequitur.  That the temperature at which water scalds is
    140 degrees is NOT inconsistent with properly brewed coffee scalding. 
    So the latter statement doesn't demonstrate the former to be
    irrelevant.
    
    > Since this case rests on the difference between properly	brewed
    > coffee and coffee that was above 180 degrees, . . .
    
    But how do you measure that difference?  How big a difference is it? 
    The number of degrees isn't relevant.  Previously, you tried expressing
    the difference as a percentage above 0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Why did you
    do that?  Obviously, you were trying to give some meaning to the size
    of the difference by comparing it to a reference value.  Your mistake
    was using the wrong reference value -- 0 degrees has no relevance.  But
    the temperature at which water scalds _does_.  That temperature, all by
    itself, indicates _whether_ or not water can scald.  Combined with the
    amount _above_ that temperature gives some indication of _how much_
    the water can scald.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    FWIW, the hot water dispensers they have in hotel rooms (the ones with
    the big red buttons next to the bathroom sinks) produce water that's
    190 degrees.  These carry warnings.

    Article from the May 1995 Consumer Reports:
    
    Is lawsuit reform good for consumers?
    
    In February 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck of Albuqueque spilled
    scalding coffee in her lap after leaving the take-out window at
    McDonald's.  She sued the fast-food chain, and a jury awarded her $2.7
    million in punitive damages.
    
    The Liebeck case has been cited again and again in the current
    legislative battle over tort reform.  ("Tort" is a legal term covering
    claims for personal injury, medical malpractice, and defective
    products.)  As part of the Contract With America, Republican lawmakers
    have advanced a series of bills that would cap punitive damages,
    discourage "frivolous" lawsuits, and protect drug companies from suits
    involving approved drugs.
    
    At first glance these seem like laudable goals.  But, as a closer look
    at the Liebeck case makes clear, the issue is more complicated.
    
    What tort-reform advocates don't point out is that Liebeck was
    hospitalized for eight days with third-degree burns over 6 percent of
    her body.  They don't reveal that at the time Liebeck was burned,
    McDonald's already faced 700 claims from people also scalded by coffee
    there.  Nor do they mention that McDonald's served its coffee at 180 to
    190 degrees, considerably hotter than other fast-foor restaurants.
    
    Liebeck tried to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused. 
    After the initial multimillion-dollar jury award, the trial court
    reduced the punitive award to $480,000.  Liebeck ended up accepting a
    settlement for an undisclosed sum.
    
    As of this writing, Congress is considering several legislative
    proposals to change the American civil justice system.  In the area of
    product liability, many of the proposed changes under consideration
    would tip the scales of justice against consumers.  Here are some of
    those proposals:
    
    o  Punitive damage caps.  A key provision of a tort-reform bill that
    passed the House of Representatives in March would cap punitive damages
    at $250,000, or three times the amount awarded the plaintiff for
    economic injury, whichever is greater.  (Economic injury includes lost
    wages and medical expenses.)
    
    For all the fuss about punitive damage awards, such awards are very
    rare.  Nationwide, punitive damages were awarded in product-liability
    cases only 355 times during the 25-year period from 1965 to 1990 -- or
    an average of 14 a year.  That's even though consumer products, not
    including automobiles, are responsible for an estimated 29,000 deaths
    and 30 million injuries each year.  Nor are product-liability cases
    "clogging the courts," as some allege.  Tort filings represent only 9
    percent of the courts' civil cases, and only 4 percent of that number
    are product-liability cases.
    
    Punitive damages are intended to punish egregious corporate wrongdoing
    and to deter further consumer injuries.  Indeed, there is evidence that
    punitive damaages do make products safer:  In nearly 80 percent of
    product-liability cases that resulted in punitive damages, the
    manufacturers subsequently took safety measures to prevent additional
    lawsuits.  In one case, for example, a company that continued to sell a
    step ladder with braces it knew to be inadequate redesigned the ladder
    only after losing a product-liability suit and incurring punitive
    damages.  The cap on punitive damages would, in effect, allow
    manufacturers simply to budget for future fines as a cost of doing
    business, significantly reducing the law's previous incentives for them
    to make products safer.
    
    o  Pain-and-suffering caps.  A related provision in the bill that
    passed the House would cap pain-and-suffering awards in lawsuits
    involving doctors, hospitals, medical devices and drugs at $250,000 --
    an amount that would vastly undercompensate consumers injured by
    medical negligence or unreasonably dangerous drugs.
    
    o  "Loser pays" provisions.  In the name of discouraging frivolous
    lawsuits, Republican lawmakers initially proposed a "loser pays" system
    that would have required the losing party to pay the winner's legal
    fees.  That provision was later modified to what could be called an
    "even if you win, you lose" provision.  The modified version that
    passed the House of Representatives stipulates that if an injured
    consumer chooses to go to trial rather than accept a settlement offer,
    he or she could be forced to pay the defendant's attorney's fees and
    costs if the jury ultimately awards a sum less than the settlement
    offer.
    
    Obviously, many injured consumers would not be willing to accept the
    financial risk of going to trial under such a rule.  Only the very
    poor, who have nothing to lose, and the very rich, who could afford to
    lose, would be likely to press their cases.  The huge majority of
    Americans would, in effect, be gambling their life savings if they
    chose to pursue a case after being offered a low-ball settlement.
    
    o  The FDA defense.  Under proposed legislation, manufacturers of
    defective or unreasonably dangerous drugs and medical devices would be
    shielded from punitive damages if their products had been approved by
    the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Though the FDA has been
    vigilant in protecting the American consumer's interests in recent
    years, the data it reviews before a drug or device is marketed don't
    always show every problem.  Some approved drugs and devices ultimately
    have proved dangerous, such as the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device
    and Versed, a sedative.
    
    The irony, of course, is that the very political forces that want drug
    and medical-device makers off the hook once their products receive FDA
    approval have also been seeking to make it more difficult for the
    agency to police the marketplace.  The likely result if this
    legislation becomes law is a double blow for American consumers: 
    weaker oversight by the FDA and little legal recourse if a drug or
    medical device harms them.
    
    Though the tort-reform debate appears to be about frivolous lawsuits,
    what it's really about is corporate responsibility.  In the end, the
    most important question will be who -- if anyone -- can be held
    accountable when American consumers are killed, injured, or defrauded,
    through no fault of their own.

    
    
    Since when does consumer reports get into editorializing?
    

    
    Consumer Reports is a partisan organization in the vein of Ralph Nader.
    
    jeff

    Re: .277
    
    Starting this month.
    
    
    Re: .278
    
    The Republican party is a partisan organization, too.  I doubt anyone
    could read that article without realizing that the CU has a definite
    slant.  Well, not anyone I'd want to bother talking to.

re .276:

>    What tort-reform advocates don't point out is that Liebeck was
>    hospitalized for eight days with third-degree burns over 6 percent of
>    her body.

What I don't understand is, isn't the definition of a third degree burn
the flesh is _charred_?  I can't see this as possible even if the coffee
was 212� F.  It's impossible for coffee to be hot enough to do (physically)
burn flesh.

I concur, Madman.

 Read tonight that the Wendy's chili suit was was tossed out.  Judge said
 there was no negligence on the part of Wendy's.




 Jim

    	To me the extent of the injuries aren't an issue in determining
    	McDonalds' negligence.
    
    	What was said about all the past litigations regarding the
    	same thing is a big factor to me.
    
    	I'm still not convinced, though, that just because they make
    	their coffee hotter than the industry standard, they are at
    	fault for her burns.

    A 3rd degree burn implies that muscle tissue is no longer protected by the
    epidermal layers doesn't it? I don't think it requires skin to char.
    You could have 3rd degree burns from acid for example.

    Glenn

    From the second edition of "Standard First Aid and Personal Safety"
    from the Red Cross, page 147:
    
    "Third-degree burns can be caused by a flame, ignited clothing,
    immersion in hot water, contact with hot objects, or electricity. 
    Temperature and DURATION OF CONTACT are important factors in
    determining the extent of tissue destruction."
    
    Duration is why it's important to apply cold water to lesser burns
    immediately -- to reduce the extent of damage.

re .285:

Interesting.  Do they _define_ what a third degree burn is?
Same definition as .284?

    Yup.  The flesh is at least partially charred.  However, initially it
    can look pretty much like a second-degree burn.  I don't have the book
    with me, so I can't give the proper variations.

Charred by hot water?  Doesn't sound to me like the common meaning of char.

    Charring is a function of heat, not the heat source.

    Water does not char or scorch. Flames do, hot metal can, water cannot.

    Re: .290
    
    The Red Cross says immersion in hot water can cause third-degree burns. 
    I suggest you write them and tell them that they're wrong.

    Sounds like the definition's changed, (er, I mean, been modified) since
    I was in boy scouts.

    During a childhood Easter egg making session, a pot of boiling
    water was knocked off the stove and onto my bare feet. I was
    diagnosed as having third degree burns, which I recall meant
    that the skin was actually burned off.

    First degree: skin is burned
    Second degree: skin is scarred, blistered
    Third degree: skin burns off (exposing underlying layers of skin).

    Anyway, that's how I dismember it...

    -b

    
    re: .293
    
    Or as we say in the design field...
    
     It's been "enhanced"...
    
    
     :)
    

    >   During a childhood Easter egg making session, a pot of boiling
    >    water was knocked off the stove and onto my bare feet.
    
     Been there, done that. A large canning vessel full of ~ 3 gallons of
    boiling water. Poured it too fast, and some splashed out onto my leg
    and stocking feet. Immense pain ensued. Removal of socks took skin with
    it, but I would have termed it a 2nd degree burn. Wearing shoes was not
    a happening thing for days afterward.

re .287-.292:

Now I have a problem with that definition of "char".  To me "char" means
an organic substance is heated to such a point it has begun to decompose
into carbon and other gunk, and starts to turn black and carbon-y.

Water cannot get hot enough to do so (to skin), so I consider .287 as
incorrectly using the word "char".

I am perfectly willing to accept destruction of the skin layer as a good
definition of a third degree burn and accept that boiling water can do so,
just that it cannot char in the process.

Will look it up tonight.

    	I'd venture to guess that charring is only one possible symptom
    	of 3rd degree burns, and not a required symptom at that.

    I brought my Red Cross book in to the office.  What it says:
    
    The usual signs are --
    
    1.  Deep tissue destruction
    2.  White or charred appearance (At first, the burn may resemble a
        second-degree burn.)
    3.  Complete loss of all layers of the skin
    
    So, you can have a third-degree burn without charring.

Thankyou for the vivid description just prior to the lunch hour.

(blech)

    
    
    When I burned my leg with hot grease (from a deep fryer at McD's), it
    looked a bit like hamburger.  Didn't even know that I did it until I
    goy home and got my McD's uniform off.
    
    Mike  

Nice guy.

Take a day off and leave us here. Take the kids to see the museums
(BTW, _DID_ you go inside?). And then come back and ruin the lunch
hour with your tales of shin tartare.

:^)

    
    RE: .301
    
    Mike,
    
     Can you go back and sue???
    
    :)
    

    
    
    
    Good thought, Andy......hmmmmmm. :')
    
    
    Jack,
    
    We did go in one of them.  It was a scary 5 minutes. :')
    
    
    Mike

In inmate who claimed he violated his own civil rights
by getting arrested filed a $5 million lawsuit against
himself -- then asked the state of Virginia to pay
because he has no income in jail.

    Three inmates sued for an amount in excess of $10M for the "cruel and
    inhuman punishment" of being refused a midnight snack.

    Gee, people will do anything for creamed corn on a stick.

    Quoted without permission from an article by Walter Berns of
    The Wall Street Journal:


  The U.S. Senate is debating the reform of tort law this week, focusing the
  spotlight on the filing of frivolous suits.  Nowhere is this problem more
  pressing than in the prison system.

  As one federal appeal court judge said recently, filing civil-rights suits
  has become a "recreational activity" for long-term inmates.  Among his
  examples of "excessive" filings: more than 100 by Harry Franklin (who, in
  one of them, sued a prison official for overwatering the lawn), 184 in three
  years by John Robert Demos, and more than 700 by Clovis Carl Green Jr.

  Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that prisoners are not subject to many
  of the constraints that deter litigiousness among the population at large.
  Most prisoners qualify for `in forma pauperis' status, which entitles them
  to begin an action "without prepayment of fees and costs or security there-
  for", and all of them are entitled to free access to law books or some other
  legal assistance.  With time on their hands, and with much to gain and
  virtually nothing to lose, prisoners "litigate at the drop of a hat."

  Since almost any disciplinary or administrative action taken by prison 
  officials now can give rise to a due-process or cruel-and-unusual-punishment
  complaint, the number of these suits is growing, from 6,606 in 1975 to 39,065
  in 1994 (of which "only" 1,100 reached the Supreme Court).  Of the 1994 
  total, 37,925 were filed by state prisoners under a section of the so-called
  `Ku Klux Klan Act' of 1871, which permits actions for damages against state
  officials who deprive "any citizen of the United States or other person under
  the jurisdiction thereof, [of] any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
  by the Constitution and laws."  Today, the statute is used mostly by
  prisoners who, invoking one or another constitutional right, complain of
  just about anything and everything.

  They invoke the `cruel and unusual punishment' provision of the Eighth
  Amendment when shot during a prison riot, or when required to share a cell
  with a heavy smoker, or when given insufficient storage locker space, or
  when given creamy peanut butter instead of chunky.  Mr. Demos sued one prison
  official for not addressing him by his Islamic name.

    
    McDonalds is getting sued again and once again it's for hot coffee
    spilled on a lap.  The person filing the suit claims that the lid was
    not on tight.
    
    
    

    Why does this not surprise me?

And to think that I got a McDonald's coffee this AM (first time in ages)
and didn't even try to spill it on myself . . . 

 I can use a few hundred grand..maybe I'll stop at MacDonald's tonight.
 





 Jim

    I hear they have hundreds of hot coffee claims.

    
    
    	If that's the story I caught the tail end of last night,
    	the plaintiff got $600k
    

    While waiting for new tires to be put on my car last Thursday
    morning, I walked over to the Northshore Mall food court and
    got a cup of McDonald's coffee to sip while reading over the
    latest PC Mag to see how we're going to be shafted by Windows
    Ninetysomething.
    
    Like Jack D. in .311, this was my first McD coffee in years.
    I was going to spill the coffee on myself, but then I looked
    at the cup and saw "Caution!  Contents HOT!", and immediately
    thought better of it.  Thank God they put that warning on there,
    because who knows what tragedy may have ensued, had I followed
    my natural inclinations!
    
    But I want to sue them anyway, for giving me the weakest cup of
    coffee I've had in years, not to mention the surly counter droids.
    
    Chris

    
    NO!!  I DO NOT WANT FRIES WITH THAT!!  IF I HAD WANTED FRIES, 
    I WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR FRIES!!
    

    I hope you're not psyching yourself up for a new job there John.

    
    Would you like the `Big Mac Combo'?
    

    
    
    did i ask for one????
    
    

    Anybody going to Macdonalds!!! Don't throw away your Monopoly game
    pieces, interoffice mail them to me!!! :-)

>    Anybody going to Macdonalds!!! Don't throw away your Monopoly game
>    pieces, interoffice mail them to me!!! :-)


  I'm afraid that is against company policy..

    McDonald's.  NNTTM 

    Well, McDonald's could solve the litigation problems quite easily,
    close the drive-thru windows :-)  Force the klutzes of the world
    to walk inside for the dangerous brew!!
    
    BTW, a woman who was on the jury that granted the original settlement
    (upon hearing it had been reduced) said she'd still be more than will-
    ing to give the woman twice the original award.  She said McDonald's
    could afford it!!
    
    

    
    Last summer... on my way to a recording session at a place
    that costs obscene amounts... I won't even tell you what
    it costs for one day of recording there... suffice it to
    say the hourly rate is such that I did _not_ want to be
    late...
    
    Anyway, I made the mistake of stopping at the McDonalds
    on RT 20 in Worcester Mass. Took me twenty, count 'em TWENTY
    minutes to get to the drive-through pickup window... when there
    were five... FIVE... cars in front of me.
    
    Then, the pimply faced little testicle fondler at the window
    asked me three times... count 'em THREE times if I wanted
    cream and sugar. All the while, putting things in the bag,
    taking them out again, putting them back in, taking them
    out... I have no idea why. The fourth "do you want cream
    and sugar" made me go postal. I yelled at the kid: JUST GIVE
    ME THE  EFFIN' BAG!!!! Grabbed it and I was finally on my
    way... but had to wait until I got to the studio to get my
    cream and sugar, of course...
    
    I wonder if I threw the coffee at the kid if he would have
    sued McDonalds...
    
    -b

    
    
    -b,
    
    
    Man, you was never young, eh?  What an old fart. :')
    

    
    Mike,
    
    Oh I was young once. It's just that even with a great deal
    of evidence to the contrary, I like to think I wasn't
    that stupid... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    
    
    
    
    Ahh, the old "when I was a kid" thinking, eh? :')
    
    Mike

    re: .316
    
    Do you want fries with that? :)
    
    ...Tom

    
    To show how wonderful our criminal justice system is.  A 82 year old
    man was jailed for 2 days for not shovelling his walk.  He was given a
    $42 fine and agreed to pay it at $1 a week until it was paid off.  The
    judge said no way and put him in jail for 2 days........
    
    
    

 Hey, let's get tough on those criminals, eh?

    
    I read that too Mike.
    It should be noted that the elderly man uses crutches.
    
    In another somewhat related story, an 80 year old woman
    in Brighton Ma. was served eviction papers for owing, get this,
    $7.00 in back rent.

    Re .329:
    
    Where?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Middle Borough (?) New Jersey, he refused to pay someone to do it and 
    basically decided that he paid enough in taxes, the city could shovel it 
    for him.  The man is on crutches, physically unable to shovel the walk.  

    We don't have a justice system anymore.  It's a legal system.

    Yup, that's my take on it, too.

What's the constitutional basis for the various tort reform bills' ability
to affect suits in state courts?

    On the way radio last night, amongst other things Howie Carr was
    discussing a case in Des Moines, Iowa, in which a woman is suing
    a car dealership for "mental anguish" or something similar that
    she allegedly suffered as the victim of a prank, which is apparently
    not all that uncommon (?):
    
    The salesman was showing her the various features of the Chrysler
    Concorde.  He opened the trunk and pointed out how large and roomy
    the trunk is, and invited her to climb into the trunk so that she
    could see for herself how much room there is in there.  So she
    climbed in.
    
    Then the salesman slammed the trunk lid shut with her inside,
    pounded on the trunk, and bounced the car up and down a few times.
    When he opened the lid to let her out, several salesmen were
    standing around laughing.
    
    After she got out, she stayed around for about a half hour, haggling
    over the price of the car and such.  Some time later, she decided
    to sue.
    
    How much should she get?
    
    On the one hand, she was pretty stupid IMHO to climb into a car
    trunk in the first place.  On the other hand, they did do this
    prank on a total stranger, and it's pretty weird.  Ultimately,
    though, she climbed in, so I'd toss the case and charge her for
    court costs or whatever.
    
    Chris

Did she buy the car?

    She's probably hoping they'd give it to her as a settlement...
    
    I can't believe I started .337 with "On the way radio last night,".
    I need a loooooong vacation.
    
    Chris

    	She'll win the lawsuit because they laughed at her.

    	She'll win the lawsuit because they laughed at her.  Or the
    	dealership will settle out of court.

    She'll win the lawsuit because:
    
    	1.) They laughed at her;
        2.) She was shut in the trunk without her consent;
        3.) No one likes car salesmen anyway.
    
    

 I think the fact that she hung around for half an hour haggling over the
 price should bring about dismissal.  Then the hambone who locked her in
 there, and his fellow hambones should be fired.




Jim

    Although I hate frivolous lawsuits, wouldn't shutting her in the
    trunk fall into some category of restraining someone against their
    will, i.e. hostage?
    
    I'd like to think I'm not among the humor impaired, but I find this
    stunt particularly UNfunny :-(
    
    

    
    They broke the cardinal rule of car salemanship:
    
    
    
    Namely, don't open the trunk until the customer signs the
    purchase and sales agreement...
    
    -b

     There should be no damage award. The dealership ought to fire the
    salesman involved, offer a heartfelt apology and give the the car
    significantly below cost. (Like, a $20K car for $12k or something.) The
    dealership ought to be proactive about this.

    Mark,
    
    I think your solution is a great one!!  I think if she woman wins
    the suit there has to be a damage award, but it could be $1.00 and
    a deal on a car.
    
    It wasn't mentioned so it probably wouldn't apply, but what if
    this woman (or others who had previously suffered with this prank)
    were claustrophobic?  Recently I accompanied my best friend while
    she was to have an MRI (I'm a veteran of MRIs).  I knew she was
    claustrophobic, but I'd never witnessed any incidents.  Her doctor
    prescribed a tranquilizer in advance for her to take, the tech
    doing the MRI allowed me to be back with her (so Sandra could here
    my voice if need be).  My friend didn't even last a full minute
    in the cylinder; she panicked and was screaming to get out.
    
    There was no attempt to talk her through the procedure; the tech
    left her out and had to summon help because Sandra then went into
    a horrible anxiety attack.  If I hadn't witnessed it myself I
    wouldn't have believe it.
    
    The initial report I read on the car trunk incident indicated that
    this was not the first time this stunt had been pulled.  Didn't
    a group stand around laughing as the woman screamed to get out?
    
    Could be this woman IS using the episode to enrich her bank balance;
    but after seeing my friend panic I can't imagine what would happen
    if this practice was allowed to continue.
    
    

    	I wonder if the dealership would be suing had the woman decked
    	the salesman once he let her out.

 ..and give her a free cup of McDonald's coffee and a bowl of Wendy's Chili.

    Henderson, you're bad,
    
    funny, but bad :-)
    

I can't believe that she actually stuck around haggling for half an hour
after being let out and then decided to sue as "an afterthought". This
alone ought to get it thrown out, regardless of what happens to the
salesman.

    
    
    
    it should get thrown out...but then again, the women did win her hot-
    coffee-between-the-legs suit...
    
    
    

    Toss it out of court.  No one was hurt, and she DID climb into the
    trunk (dummy) and she DID stay for a 1/2 hour
    to haggle with the salesman.  It was a joke.  Stupid and insensitive,
    but a joke nontheless.  
    
    Punishment enough would be to have the dealership's name in the paper 
    regarding this incident, which would almost assuredly be followed by 
    the firing of said salesman.  Said salesman would be hard pressed to find 
    another job selling cars after being booted.  Wouldn't this financial 
    repercussion be enough punishment for one stupid joke?
    
    Now, if they'd locked her up for a few days...
    
    
    -steve                                     

    the firing of said salesman.  Said salesman would be hard pressed to find 
    another job selling cars after being booted.
                                         ^^^^^^

The customer was booted, not the salesman.

    What should this woman have done?  Run crying and screaming from the
    showroom?  Perhaps she decided that she wasn't going to let them
    intimidate her -- and she wasn't going to let them get away with their
    extremely unprofessional behavior.
    
    Still, I think the first strike is to complain to the manager.  Not a
    bad bargaining tactic, either, but it's hard to be really sneaky when
    you've just been shaken up (literally and otherwise).

She could have climbed out of the trunk when they opened
it and calmly left the premises to file a complaint. No
intimidation. Remaining there, and continuing to "do
business" only to "change her mind later" simply isn't
sensible.

    	I can buy the "I'm not going to let them intimidate me" defense.
    
    	There are lots of ways she could have reacted -- some better than
    	others.
    
    	I wonder what the salesman says her initial reaction was.  She
    	very well may have gotten a kick out of it herself, or at least
    	given the indication that she did.  There is too much missing
    	detail for us to justifiably say what's what here.  That doesn't
    	mean we can't take guesses or make predictions of outcomes, but
    	it does mean that they are only guesses and opinions.

    re: too much missing detail
    
    I agree; I'd been hoping for more from the radio show, but none was
    forthcoming.  I think they said that the story had been in the
    Wall Street Journal earlier in the week.
    
    Funny, the claustrophobia concern mentioned earlier is something I'd
    also thought of when I first heard this story, but then I figured
    if she was claustrophobic, she probably would have declined to get
    into the trunk in the first place.
    
    If this had happened to me, I'd have milked it on the spot; go right
    to the manager, have a screaming fit, and demand the car for half price
    or I was going to file complaints, call the media, take them to court,
    and so on.  Of course, recalling my experiences with dealers, the
    manager was probably one of the ones standing around laughing as she
    was being released.
    
    Chris

    Re: .357
    
    >simply isn't sensible.
    
    I think being sensible might be a bit much to expect under the
    circumstances.  She got locked in the trunk for several minutes,
    probably wondering what the hell was going on.  It's a surreal
    experience, I expect.  And then the salesdweebs probably acted like
    everything was normal when they let her out.  Going from surreal to
    normal, it's not unnatural to play along with the "normality," by
    autopilot if nothing else.
    
    I'm trying to figure out how y'all thought this played out.  Was she,
    in fact, simply not distressed by being locked in the trunk, and
    therefore she didn't suffer any damages that require compensation?  Or
    was she scared in the trunk, but then entirely calm and calculating
    once out of the trunk?  If so, how did she manage to flip a switch on
    her emotions like that?

    How long was she in there anyway, does anyone know?
    
    Chris

    
    	Those fold-down seat latches probably give pretty easy when you
    	kick them with all you've got.  Then see who keeps laughing.  8^)
    
    	RE: Hot coffee
    
    	I ALWAYS re-tighten the lid whenever I get a coffee "to go" no
    	matter where I get it from.  It seems that the lids are never on
    	tight, or completely, and I don't want coffee stains on my car's
    	seats [especially the light brown seats in the Duster].
    

 I'm gonna sue next time I order hazelnut and get regular coffee.  The emotional
 distress is unbearable.




 Jim

    
    I got an iced coffee at the Ayer Dunkin Donuts Sunday afternoon,
    specifying NO SUGAR, and guess what happened...
    
    Is there some kind of code word I need to know?  I mean, I know that
    "black" means no cream no sugar and "regular" means cream and sugar. 
    Is there a code word for cream no sugar?

    
    >Is there a code word for cream no sugar?
    
    	How about "YUCK!!"?
    
    	8^)
    
    	Black, no sugar is the way to go.  8^)
    

    	If they insist on giving you sugar, suggest that they do so
    	in packets on the side.  Or request it black, and ask for
    	little cream packets on the side.

    You deserve whatever you get ifyou order iced coffee.....

    Deb, honey, just punch the person in the face and say 'If you give me
    sugar I'll do it again'. Works for me :*)

    
    Jack suggested that I ask for it black with cream 8^).  I'll give that
    a try sometime.  Otherwise I may have to boycott them 8^).

    
    >Is there a code word for cream no sugar?
    
    Try: "...and don't put any ***damned sugar in it!!"
    

    she can say effing can't she?

    
    effing...yes, effing sugar is good, too!
    

    
    I've never effed sugar.
    
    
    Anyway, I think that's a plan - lean through the window, grab the
    counterperson by the collar, and say, "If you put any effing sugar in
    my coffee, I'm going to have to come inside and hurt you".

    What if they say, "We only have white sugar and sweet n' low, we don't
    have effing sugar." ?

	Deb, next time that happens, tell them they just pissed off a Babe. If
that doesn't make them bow down and kiss your feet, AND give you a coffee
without sugar, then nothing will. If that rare case should happen, take the
cover off, toss the coffee back at them screaming, "I SAID NO EFFIN SUGAR!!!" 


Glen

    
    
    	Just order it 'light' mz_deb.....
    
    
    

    
    I've tried that, Karen!  I think their default == sugar.
    
    No, no, the threats are the way to go.  I'm practicing my evil grimace
    and right hook as we speak.

	Isn't the grimace the guy from those McDonalds commercials? Are you
trying to be his evil Sugar Twin sister??? :-)  

    	I was in a minor automobile accident in February.  Cosmetic
    	damage to both cars.  No injuries.
    
    	I received a call yesterday from some "medical group" asking if
    	I was treated for my injuries stemming from the accident.  I
    	told them there were no injuries.  They asked, "Well, were you 
    	checked by any medical personnel for injuries?"  No.  "Then
    	we would like to schedule you to be checked out at our offices
    	for spinal, skeletal, or soft-tissue injuries..."
    
    	Go away!
    
    	Now, not only are the lawyers chasing after this stuff.  The
    	medical industry is too!

    I was cleaning my cup earlier in the sink, when the boiling water
    distiller (which is situated above the sink, dripped a boiling 
    hot drip of water onto my wrist. It has left a nice little burn 
    now, and I've decided to sue!
    
    Yeah Right - But I bet somebody would.

	Well Martin, you might want to wait a little longer until DEC shows
major profits. Otherwise, go to McDonalds!  (do they have them over there?)

Hey, I have a crucifix shaped scar on my wrist from a blob of solder that
landed there in electronics class in high school...

Now the question is, do I sue the school, the state, the church, Pontius
Pilate, or God?

    you're likely to get a default judgement against God, but try getting
    him to pay... ;-)

    
    re: .385
    
     Cut off the arm.... mount it in a glass case and proclaim it as a
    sign/image from God....
    
      Charge admission....
    

    from the Jerky Boyz - "sue everybody"

   Re: Note 99.382 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"
   

�    	Now, not only are the lawyers chasing after this stuff.  The
�    	medical industry is too!

   Not necessarily.  Check them out.  You might find an "unofficial"
   connection between the medical place and your local ambulance-chaser.
   
   There is a chiropractor in this town that is very wealthy because the
   best-known law firm in town sends accident victims to him and pays
   the bills to boot.
   
   Senerio:
   
   Joe gets into an accident.  He decides to call this law office (they
   advertise everywhere).  They immediately send him to this
   chiropractor for about 40 visits worth of treatment.  They submit a
   lawsuit.  When they get to court one of their arguments is "Look at
   the medical bills my client has accumulated!"  The judges know this
   is SOP, but if it gets to a jury, guess what, it's a new jury each
   time.

In Massachusetts, you can't sue for pain and suffering unless you've
accumulated $2000 worth of medical bills.  Some lawyers send their
clients to cooperative chiropractors who end up billing them for just
over $2000.  In some cases, they bill for non-existent services.  One
such crooked chiropractor was recently convicted of fraud.

> From New York: Tell 'em Dave sent you ... it's THE TOP TEN
  LIST for Tuesday, May 2, 1995.  And now, a man who just
  doesn't care for cilantro ... David Letterman!
 
> From the home office in Sioux City, Iowa ...
 
TOP TEN OTHER REASONS PEOPLE ARE SUING MCDONALD'S
 
10. One in every 50 McNuggets has a pink, cord-like tail
 
 9. Filet-O-Fish actually just deep fried plywood
 
 8. You know those fancy French fries? Them boys ain't exactly
    coming from France
 
 7. A woman from Delaware ate three Big Macs at one sitting, &
    her ass inflated so rapidly that her car turned over
 
 6. Mayor McCheese vidoetaped in hotel room smoking ketchup-
    flavored crack
 
 5. Red clown hairs in the fries
 
 4. Grimace keeps breaking into furniture stores and trying to
    mate with the bean-bag chairs
 
 3. Found a McNail in the McNuggets
 
 2. When asking "Would you like fries with that?", counterperson
    forgot to add, "Mr. President"
 
 1. That ain't special sauce
 
                [Music: "Java" by Al Hirt]

From WhiteBoard News:

A proposed settlement of a class-action suit against
General Electrics Company's GE Capital Mortgage on
behalf of 340,000 homeowners with mortgage escrow
accounts says the payout will be "less than $1 and no
more than $2" each.

The payout to plaintiff lawyers?  "No more than
$500,000."

    5 is right out, I would imagine.

Several years ago I got a questionaire about my air travel history, related
to ongoing legal action against a number of the major airlines regarding 
price-fixing. Having bought a large number of plane tickets during the period
in question, I had heard that we might expect some sort of "refund", as in 
free tickets of mileage added to our accounts.

I have not heard anything about this lately. Anyone know whatever happened?

    
    Just a couple of months ago I received some "vouchers" for money off of
    airline tickets as a result of that lawsuit.  It was so many years
    after the original request, tho, that I'd practically forgotten all
    about it.
    
    Maybe that's what the airlines are hoping for 8^/.
    
    
    I'll take a look for them and see if there's anywhere you can contact
    about yours.

    I'm sure I'm not remembering all the details about this story, but
    here goes anyway:
    
    Last year a woman went into a restaurant with some of her family to
    have lunch.  This woman had severe life-threatening allergies to some
    nut products.  She asked the waitress what ingredients were in the
    chicken pesto sandwich, and was told various herbs, spices, and
    so on.  The waitress did not know that the pesto sauce contained
    pine nuts and other nut products, because the restaurant had
    removed the secret recipe from their waitpersons' training guide.
    
    The woman ordered the sandwich, and after eating a few bites,
    proceeded to die horribly in front of her daughter (who's still
    apparently quite mentally scarred from the incident) and her mother.
    
    The family is suing the restaurant, as one would expect.
    
    For possibly the first time, I'm undecided on a litigation like
    this, in that I can see both sides.  The restaurant should make
    their ingredients known to their customers, especially given that
    the severe nut-related allergies aren't all that uncommon.  On the
    other hand, if I had such allergies, I wouldn't trust my life to
    a waitress' knowledge of the recipes and ingredients.
    
    Opinions from the 'box paralegal minds out there?...
    
    Chris

    
    a very righteous lawsuit. no question in my mind. you cannot
    deny ingredient information to the consumer buying products
    in a store, but you can to the consumer buying food in a
    restaurant?

    add to that that nuts and shellfish are probably the two
    most common food allergies, and in many people they are
    deadly allergies, and for a company to not only proceed
    with this knowledge but to willfully withhold it from
    employees and customers is most definitely negligence,
    and if i was on that jury, whoa nelly would the family
    be getting a big wad o' cash.

    -b

Nuts are a normal ingredient of pesto.  According to the woman's husband,
the waitress was asked if there were nuts in the sauce, and she said it
didn't.  If you're deathly allergic to a food, it's pretty stupid to take
a waitron's word for what's in a dish.

Many years ago there was a similar case involving chili with a "secret
ingredient" -- peanut butter.

 The woman's lawyer on 'RKO this morning presented several recipes for pesto
 from various cookbooks that did not contain pine nuts.



 I'm undecided on this myself, however leaning towards the plaintif, though
 I believe $10,000,000 is a bit steep.



 Jim

Snarf

    Pesto almost always xcontains pine nuts. I mean, not putting in pine
    nuts would be like not putting in basil. I think they share blame for
    the incident. 500K. Next.

The restaurant is Bertucci's.

Joey Crugnale can afford $10,000,000.

I'm assuming he's still the owner.  He started out with a little ice cream
shop called "Joey's" in Teele Square in Somerville, and purchased "Steve's"
from Steve Herrell when Steve decided to go west.  Joey then expanded and
franchised Steve's all over the place, finally selling it out to some food
conglomerate.  About this time he started doing the same thing with Bertucci's,
which he started right next to Steve's in Davis Square.

/john

>The restaurant is Bertucci's.
>
>Joey Crugnale can afford $10,000,000.

Irrelevent.  Besides, Bertucci's quarterly income fell from $1.2 million
to $525,000.  Revenues are up, but that's only from expansion.  Sales
fell 1.4% in outlets open more than a year.

    I vote against the woman.

My niece has an alergy to various nuts, walnuts being the most common.
She carries with her the appropriate medication in case of exposure.

Doug.

 The question about medication came up on RKO this morning the attorney
 said "it would not be appropriate to respond to that question".





 Jim

I have mixed feelings about this, but I lean toward the restaurant.
First, in an *upscale* restaurant I'd expect the waiter to be able to
discuss today's special and maybe most of the menu items -- which will be
limited in number. On the other hand, in a fast food chain place (like
Bertucci's) I expect the waiter to know if a dish is hot or cold, white
or red... you get the picture. So, I think it is UNreasonable to expect
to get a medically accurate answer from that waiter, and my common sense
would make me avoid a menu item about which I'm not sure. 

Also, can you confidently ask anyone what's in Colonel Sander's Eleven
Herbs and Spices? Or in Coca-Cola - and expect to get a full answer? Early
in the day of the announcement of the Bertucci suit one spokesperson said
that the exact ingredients are a trade secret, so wait staff would NOT
have full information. That would shift the burden of decision to the
customer, not the waiter or the restaurant management.

One thought leads me to think that maybe staff should be trained on the
side of conservatism. Which means, if a customer asks what's in the XYZ
dish, because "I'm allergic to nuts" - then the waiter should either go
ask the chef OR be trained to say "There *might be* something in the dish
to which you are allergic, perhaps you should order something else."

    	Most likely the business and/or the owner will not end up paying
    	any award.  Insurance will.
    
    	There is plenty of blame in this for all parties to get some --
    	especially the deceased woman.

Bertucci's is an upscale fast food place.

 >> The question about medication came up on RKO this morning the attorney
 >> said "it would not be appropriate to respond to that question".
    
    "I am not programmed to respond in that area."  Interesting...
    
    My wife mentioned something about medication as well.  Apparently
    people who have this allergy carry around a "kit" with them,
    that they can use if they should start to show symptoms.
    
    She knows someone whose young son has this allergy, who always
    carries around such a kit.  Further, the mother has contacted
    the management of all of the restaurants and prepared-food
    companies that they would use, to get ingredients and ensure
    that they don't contains the various kinds of nuts.
    
    re: details of restaurant and woman's death
    
    Thanks for the info... I'd known the restaurant (I didn't mention
    it because I wasn't sure about the "don't say naughty things about
    businesses" rule), but was unclear about how and where she'd died.
    The article I'd read said that her tongue had swollen and she'd
    gone into convulsions while still at the restaurant, but it was
    ambiguous about the rest.
    
    In any event, while technically I'd side with the woman, I have
    to say that if I had such a life-threatening allergy, I'd be pretty
    scared eating out at all (or prepared foods), and I'd eat only
    stuff I'd made myself from basic ingredients.  And I'd certainly
    be carrying my little medi-kit around with me.
    
    Chris
    

    
    > Most likely the business and/or the owner will not end up paying
    > any award.  Insurance will.
    
    Yeah, but the business and/or the owner will wind up with higher
    premeiums.  All premiums will wind up going up to off set the cost. 
    There is no way that insurance companies are going to lose money on
    this deal.
    

 Lot of new warning labels will come out of this, that's for sure.






 JIm

    	re .413
    
    	True.  I entered what I did to address the statement that
    	<owner> could afford the award if he lost.
    
    	re .412
    
    	Common sense, pure and simple.  Unfortunately common sense
    	is not often a factor in these media-frenzy cases.

    If the woman was stupid enough to be out with medication, I vote 
    against the woman.  If you have life threatening food allergies, 
    you try and make real sure you know what you are eating.  Many 
    people with nut allergies are asthmatics. I'm allergic (asthmatic) 
    to walnuts, almonds and cashews.  I would never order a brownie 
    in a restaurant since no one ever knows whether they've got walnuts 
    in them or not, but they usually do, so I avoid it.  Similarly 
    you can make pesto without pine nuts.  I do.  But traditional pesto 
    HAS pine nuts so I don't order it anywhere.  Also, when I ask about
    a menu item, I make real sure I preface my questions  with, "I am an
    asthmatic and am allergic to....." Waitstaff will go out of their
    way to get you ingredients if they understand the situation. And 
    I never, ever, go ANYwhere without my mediciation.  If you choose 
    not to take your illness seriously, it will kill you.  That's
    your responsibility,not the restaurant's.  So you make intelligent 
    choices about what you eat, and you carry medication with you in 
    case of an emergency.  
    
    Mary-Michael

The Lieyer (thankyou, Dick) on RKO this AM was a true scumbag, indicating
that all he was after was to get the public aware of the dangers of restos
not being honest about ingredients. I'm sure that once he pockets his
$3.3M he'll rest assured that he done good.

If you know anything about pesto, you normally know that it's prepared with
nuts. His claim is that due to one statement on page 139 of Hazen's
Classics of Italian Cooking there is reason to expect that pesto is NOT
normally prepared with nuts. Oddly, he ignores the fact that most of the
Pesto recipes in that book (and others) do include them.

    The answer is simple. Ban Pesto, Pinenuts and Restaurants.  :-)
    
    ...Tom

 Re .417 and Lucky...




 I got that impression of that lawyer, m'self.





 Jim

I have a pretty bad allergy to shrimp. I know within about 30 seconds if I've
consumed any. The old bod deals with it in the obvious way - I vomit.

This has happened twice when eating food that should have contained no
shrimp. I didn't sue. The restaurant isn't responsible for every tiny stray
speck of shrimp, nor for my allergies.

    
    <-- why thank you for sharing, mr. creosote randolph.
    
    -b

    
    re: .420
    
    There ya go!!! Going back to that old standby of personal
    responsiblity!!
    
    Expect a call from my lawyer!!!
    
    

Update to my .417

Marcella Hazen has written (at least) 4 Italian cookbooks. The only one
I happen to have is Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking. (Others are
The Classic Italian Cookbook, More Classic Italian Cooking, and
Marcella's Italian Kitchen.) I'm not sure which book the Lieyer referred
to, but, while I specifically noted his mention of page 139, that
wouldn't appear to apply to my book. However, on page 175 of my volume,
the discussion of pesto indicates -
    "Olive oil, garlic, pine nuts, butter and grated cheese are the only
     other components [aside from basil]."
The next two pages have pesto recipes which call for pignolas.

An _excellent_ Boston resto.

    
    
    RE: .427  BRAVO!!!!!!!

It's pretty amazing that a race car driver would be stupid enough not to
wear a safety belt.

    SHoulder harness, not safety belt. It's tempting to leave the shoulder
    harness loose or off altogether to be able to reach the whole panel.

    >>   A tuo servizio
    
    Sounds like Ed Sullivan introducing a plate-spinning act...
    
    Chris

    re: .427
    
    A breath of fresh air!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Amazing, a judge that actually knows his * from a hole in the ground.
    
    Bob

    As much as I admired Davey Allison, he should have known better.
    
    .427  Da judge done good!!
    
    

    
    i've thought about the "snuffed it due to pesto sauce" lady
    and i've changed my mind: she done effed up. give her family
    enough money to replace her with someone with a brain.
    
    next...
    
    -b

>    <<< Note 99.434 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>

  >>she done effed up.

	how so?

    
    re: .412
    
    A self injecting medication is available under the name Epi-Pen. 
    Prescribed by a doctor this medication is injected into the patients
    thigh.  It contains adrenaline and epinephrine to counteract allergic
    reactions.
    
    I carry one with me at all times because of severe allergies to bee
    stings.  Two weeks ago I stung in the neck while playing with the kids
    in the pool.  Thanks goodness the hospital was only five minutes away. 
    By the time I arrived full respitory arrest had set in.  Nurses and
    doctors were fantastic.  Within 2 minutes they had injected two blasts
    of adrenaline and had the heart monitor and oxygen going. 

    >	how so?
    
    as others in this forum pointed out to me:
    
    - she trusted a waitron with life-saving information,
    - she ordered something that almost _always_ has nuts in it,
    - she had no medication with her for her allergy.
    
    that about sums it up for me...
    
    -b

    
>>    - she ordered something that almost _always_ has nuts in it,

    i haven't read any articles about this whole thing, but have
    been wondering if she knew what pesto was.  a lot of people have
    no idea what it is.

>>    - she had no medication with her for her allergy.

    that would have been a good idea, but it's pretty easy to understand
    how she could have been without it, at least for me.

    >> Two weeks ago I stung in the neck while playing with the kids
    >> in the pool.  Thanks goodness the hospital was only five minutes away. 
    >> By the time I arrived full respitory arrest had set in.
    
    Wow, that must've been scary stuff.  Congrats on your recovery...
    
    Whatever happened to "they only sting you if you're bothering them"?
    It seems they're getting a lot more aggressive in recent years.
    One of my wife's friends carries around this Epi-Pen that you
    mentioned for this reason.
    
    Chris

    A crude analogy:
    
    "Excuse me, sir...does your dog bite?
    
    "No."
    
    Person goes up and pets dog, dog removes three fingers for lunch.
    
    "I thought you said your dog didn't bite!"
    
    "That's not my dog."

    
    lady di,

    the amount of food products with one form of nut or another are
    staggering. with a severe allergy, to attempt to eat any restaurant
    food without the appropriate medication handy is equivalent to
    playing russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol. if it's
    loaded at all, you win the prize...

    -b

    A nut allergy is extremely dangerous and life threatening, and people
    who know they have one must exercise due diligence to avoid succumbing
    to the inadvertent ingestion of such an allergen. Consuming food at a
    restaurant in the absence of strong reassurance that the dish does not
    contain any allergenic ingredients without having the means to counter
    a reaction at the ready does not qualify as due diligence, IMO.

    
    re: .439
    
    >Whatever happened to "they only sting you if you're bothering them"?
    
    Many times, it's simply a case of the insect running into an immovable
    object (you)... it's purely an instinctive reaction.
    

    I agree she didn't exercise due diligence.
    I can understand how it happened, if she didn't know what pesto is.
    I don't think there should be a lawsuit.

    

     re: 433
    
    Thanks Chris.
    
    re: 433 and .439
    
    I later discovered that there was a bee's nest under the edge of the
    pool.  (It's an above ground.)  As we were merrily splashing in the
    pool the clorinated water was soaking the nest.  This equation created
    several pissed off bees.  Luckily only one got me. 

The bee stings in life are free.

    
    
    good one, gerald...
    
    

    
    groan.
    

re .439:

>    Whatever happened to "they only sting you if you're bothering them"?

Depends on the "bee".  Real bees this is mostly true, honeybees often put
up with a bit of abuse.  Something like a yellowjacket which aren't bees
but most people consider to be bees are as likely to sting as look at you.

    >Something like a yellowjacket which aren't bees
    >but most people consider to be bees are as likely to sting as look at you.
    
    Really? Aren't yellowjackets those bee type little creatures that hang
    around sweet food at a picnic. I've seen plenty of them around and they
    have always left me alone. Got stung by one once while I mowed the
    lawn. But, I think it was because I encroached.

> YellowJackets are a type of wasp ...

See http://bulova.zko.dec.com/group/covert/Buzz.gif    (Copyright GaTech)

/john

>See http://bulova.zko.dec.com/group/covert/Buzz.gif    (Copyright GaTech)
>
>/john

That "Forbidden by rule" error seems to happen when you type HTTP: instead of
http:

/john

        The Legal Mosh Pit
       --------------------
        by Ned S. Goldstein,
        senior vice president and general counsel, Ticketmaster Corp.

  Mosh pit!  For the uninitiated, here's what to do next time you hear these
 words at a concert: Somewhere up near the stage there will be a large,
 writhing mass of human bodies.  Throw yourself in, wallow around, let
 yourself be passed over other people's heads.  If you should get hurt,
 don't sweat.  Just sue Ticketmaster for all your damages.  Lawyers and
 courts will figure out a way to hold us responsible.  And don't worry if
 we didn't even sell you your ticket.  They'll still figure out a way to
 make us pay.

  This is all thanks to the legal mosh pit known as joint and several
 liability, which encourages plaintiffs and their lawyers to perform daring
 twists and gyrations and stretches of the truth in a quest for deep
 pockets and someone to blame.  Under joint and several liability, there
 is no such thing as innocence or guilt.  In fact, the only bad decision
 you can make is to be in business, or worse yet, to be successful.

  Ticketmaster was founded in the late 1970s.  We are not to be confused
 with the now defunct Ticketron, although this is a distinction the courts
 fail to make on a regular basis.  With about 4,000 employees, half of
 whom are telephone operators, we are not a huge company, but because many
 people perceive us to be one, we get sued.  We get sued a lot.

  A teenage boy is injured in a mosh pit at a concert.  He sues Ticketmaster.
 A guy buys a ticket to a Chavez fight, gets drunk, gets into a fight, falls
 down a flight of stairs and dies.  His family sues Ticketmaster, along with
 the fight promoter, the venue and any vendor unlucky enough to sell products
 at the event.  A man receives a gift certificate for tickets but fails to
 redeem it before it expires.  He hires a lawyer, files a class action
 lawsuit against Ticketmaster, and the courts permit the suit to go forward
 under the theory that expiration dates are an "unfair business practice".

  No one, it seems, is required to take responsibility for his own actions.
 One man was so anxious to buy tickets to a concert that he decided to sleep
 in the street next to Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan for three days so
 he could be the first in line when the tickets went on sale.  He was mugged,
 and four years later he sued Ticketmaster.

  A woman in Colorado held a concert at an Indian swap meet and decided to do
 the ticketing through Ticketmaster, even though this is the kind of event
 where people generally wait until the actual day of the performance before
 deciding whether to attend.  Then she advertised the event at a non-existent
 venue and signed up obscure artists to take part.  On the day of the event
 the temperature soared to 104 degrees.  So what did she do ?  She sued
 Ticketmaster to the tune of $300,000.

  Contracts don't mean much under the current system.  When Ticketron went out
 of business, Ticketmaster picked up some of its assets.  One we specifically
 did not buy was the account with an auditorium in Los Angeles.  In fact, our
 contract explicitly excluded this venue.

  Nevertheless, when the auditorium suffered low ticket sales to an event
 featuring Russian dancers, the promoter and venue sued Ticketmaster.  Every
 contract we sign explicitly states that we do not guarantee any minimum
 ticket sales.  Every contract we sign also explicitly limits liability, a
 factor of no seeming consequence in case after case.  The judge in the L.A.
 auditorium case decreed "yet you must have assumed liability", contract or
 no contract.

  Businesses all over this country are taking the fall for flukes of nature
 and the stupid decisions and reckless behavior of others.  By this logic,
 why not sue Madonna for recording CDs sold in the mall where someone trips
 and twists an ankle ?  Or why not sue the Spanish royal family, who once
 owned the land in Texas where lightning strikes and starts a fire ?

  These are extreme examples, but the current system invites such stretches
 of the imagination.  It rewards irresponsibility.  It punishes those who
 have done nothing wrong but who have the ability to pay.  It disregards
 legal agreements and contracts.  It allows one company to be sued in place
 of another, as if the identity of the defendant were an impenetrable
 mystery requiring months of procedure.  It turns the entire concept of
 right and wrong on its head.  And it is the law of the land.

  These lawsuits are part of a much bigger story.  What happens when you
 total the costs of what amounts to a national liability tax ?  This is, of
 course, extremely difficult, as many of the costs are indirect; how can you
 quantify lost business ?  A study by the actuarial consulting firm,
 Tillinhast, Nelson, & Warren, Inc., estimates the DIRECT costs of the tort
 component of the civil justice system at $132 billion in 1991.  That's
 60% of what the U.S. spends on public education for kindergarten through
 12th grade, and two and a half times what we spend nationwide on police
 and fire protection.

  For Ticketmaster, such lawsuits needlessly increase the costs of doing
 business.  They also carry social costs for communities in which we operate.
 Our fees are negotiated with the venues we serve and are set out in
 contracts.  Unlike other businesses (e.g., those artists and performers
 who have caused ticket prices to escalate so greatly), we cannot pass our
 costs along to consumers.  We must internalize increased costs by curtailing
 some of our charitable and civic activities and cutting back on certain
 hiring programs.  Many of our employees are inner-city youths who obtain
 computer training and their first jobs from Ticketmaster.  When we pay more
 to defend frivolous lawsuits, we spend less on such programs.

  As for the lawsuits against us mentioned above, some were tendered to
 insurance companies (the fight case) and dismissed (the mugging case) or
 settled for modest amounts with either nothing (the gift certificate case)
 or de minimus amounts (the auditorium case) going to the plaintiff's
 lawyers.  Despite such "successes", it must be remembered that the time
 and money consumed in defending these suits were substantial; they were
 not without costs to Ticketmaster and the people who work for us.

  We will continue to fight frivolous claims.  We pledge to support
 legislators willing to fight the trial lawyers' lobby and stand up for a
 fair legal system.  We challenge bar associations and attorneys to
 institute and practice a system of self-regulation, restraint and
 responsibility that is so desperately needed to return the legal profession
 to one of dignity.

  It is time to drag the liability system out of the mosh pit.

    re: .456
    
    Gee, are they just figuring this out?
    
    Bob

    
      Yesterday a jury awarded a Bronco owner $62.4 million, because
     his Ford overturned.
    
      bb

Last night on PRI I heard that the $62m jury award in TExas was to 2
women, not one guy, FWIW.

Pete

    
    	Well, what happend to make the Bronco overturn?  Was it doing
    	110 on an exit ramp?
    
    	[Besides that the tires were no longer making contact with the
    	 pavement, of course.  8^)]
    

    
      For 62 megabucks, I bet I could turn over any car you name.
    
      bb

    The story behind the overturning Bronco (As I recall it from the Wall
    Street Journal)
    
    The male driver was trying to pass another car when he noticed another
    car in the oncoming lane.  Rather than slow down behind the original
    car, he sped up and the rear tire rack clipped the front bumper of the
    car he was passing.  I don't remember who all was killed and/or
    injured, maybe someone else has this info.  The driver claims the truck
    was unstable after the rapid left/right manuveur, and was out of
    control before he even hit the other car.  They claim that Ford was
    aware of this control problem and could have solved it by spending
    another $85/truck but instead rushed the Bronco II to market to beat
    GM.
    
    The jury said that ~$2 mill was for injuries and the rest was to punish
    Ford.

    Passing, car coming, he caused an accident leading to death (?), and
    now is suing Ford because they should have taken his stupidity and
    recklessness into account?  Jury should have had him shot instead.  
    

    "Ford's a big company. They can afford it."
    
    (two days later, a juror is on a car lot, looking at the sticker prices
    on new Ford products."
    
    "Gee, how come these are so expensive?"

    
    	So, we have:
    
    	Driving to endanger
    	Failure to use care in passing
    	Negligent homicide
    
    	And he made $2M/violation.
    
    	Why does it COST me $100/violation?  What am I doing wrong?
    

    You've gotta hurt somebody.

    
    	NOW you tell me.
    
    	I could have been rich by now.
    

    re: Note 99.465 by DECLNE::REESE
    
    } And we're told to believe in the jury system?
    
    Don't forget, this a civil case, not a criminal case.
    Bitch about the civil code, not the jury.  The jury is the only
    thing standing between "the people" and "the government".
    
    MadMike

    Mike,
    
    I'm well aware this was a civil case; a jury still handed down
    the decision.  IMHO it was a stupid decision made by some folks
    who are clueless, i.e. "the insurance company" can afford it?
    
    
    
    

    >Bitch about the civil code, not the jury.
    
     Nonsense. The civil code affords the jury a lot of power because
    sometimes it is necessary. This jury was reckless with that power, and
    is thus richly deserving of scorn.

    I have a question:
    
    I was injured at a resort hotel over the summer.  They ambulanced me
    out of the hotel and paid the ambulance.  They were supposed to pay the
    hospital emergency bills, but did not.  
    
    Since they paid for the ambulance, did they in court of law implicate
    themselves at fault for the injury?
    
    Nancy

    Call a lawyer, of which you will find darn few with degrees and bar
    assn here.
    
    

re:    <<< Note 99.472 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

My suspicion is that the actualities of legal responsibility depend on local
law. I would think that either edp or George Maiewski might be able to provide
more advised opinions than most of us.

    Re .472:
    
    > Since they paid for the ambulance, did they in court of law implicate
    > themselves at fault for the injury?

    If somebody gives you a free lunch, are they legally bound to give you
    a free dinner too?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    -1 sounds like Sienfeld episode...

    That was a free jacket though.

    
    
    Don't talk to the hotel, talk to the insurance company.  The hotel and
    the employees are told to deny any fault or responsibility.  When
    speaking to the insurance comapny, tell them you'd rather do this
    without a lawyer but you will get one if that's what they want, but it
    would be more expensive to them.  WAS the accident due to negligence on
    their part?
    
    
    Mike
    

    .478
    
    I think we may safely assume, Mr. Wannamonkey, that the accident was
    not due to negligence on the insurance company's part.

    The accident was due to negligence on their part, yes.
    
    However, since entering this note, the insurance company DID return my
    call after 7 days by the person who I was told no longer worked there.
    
    They not only are paying all the bills, they will also straighten out
    the credit mark against for non-payment of bills.
    
    Nancy

	Good news, Nancy! Glad things worked out for you!

    Call James Suckemdry.  If they take your case, you have a winnah. 
    Barring that, I am glad you were able to work out an equitable
    solution.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    That's why, Mr. Blinder.

    Re .480:
    
    > They not only are paying all the bills, they will also straighten out
    > the credit mark against for non-payment of bills.

    Don't bet on it.  The insurance company has no access to the records
    maintained by TRW or the other credit history agencies.  If you're
    lucky, the insurance company might send an explanatory letter to your
    creditors.  There's no guarantee those creditors will notify the credit
    history agencies or that the credit history agencies will enter
    anything in your record because of it.
    
    If all you got was a phone call from the insurance company, you're not
    done yet.  Demand they send you a written apology acknowledging they
    paid late.  Keep that in your records for when the time comes that some
    credit grantor denies you credit.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                     

    .483
    
    Huh?

         How Much Is a Subway Ride ?  Ask the Judge
      ------------------------------------------------
    by Melanie Kirkpatrick, assistant editor, Wall Street Journal, 11/15/95

    The subway isn't exactly New York City's most beloved institution.
  It's been called many things, not a few of them unprintable.  But now a
  preposterous new charge is being leveled against it.  The subway, it seems,
  is racist.

    At least that's the considered view of U.S. District Judge Robert P.
  Patterson Jr., who last week issued an injunction blocking a 25 cent
  boost in subway and bus fares, raising the cost of a ride to $1.50.
  The proposed increase, he announced, would appear to have a 
  "disproportionate impact" on minority riders, who make up roughly 60%
  of the system's riders.

    Judge Patterson's ruling is in keeping with a bizarre, race-based,
  legal philosophy that is based on a perversion of the Equal Protection
  Clause of the Constitution.  Its sole standard is equality of results.
  Under this philosophy, it doesn't matter who did what to whom and for
  what reason; all that matters is outcomes.  A leading light of this
  philosophy is Lani Guinier, who has taken it to its radical extreme in
  demanding a race-based electoral system.

    Equal Protection activists argue that any government policy that does
  not deliver racially proportionate outcomes is automatically
  unconstitutional.  A favorite current target is the tough federal sentences
  for crack offenders, who are heavily black, compared with lesser sentences
  for powdered cocaine offenders, who are mostly white.  The "environmental
  racism" suits that are sweeping the country rely on a similar logic;
  desperate for a legal gimmick, opponents of a dump or an incinerator or a
  landfill claim that minorities would suffer unduly.

    "Disparate impact" cases haven't passed muster with the Supreme Court,
  which has ruled that intent is crucial in deciding whether a government
  program is discriminatory.  But like its decisions on affirmative action,
  the Supreme Court's equal protection rulings have left "wiggle room", says
  Robert George, a Princeton professor who specializes in legal philosophy
  and civil liberty issues.  "what happens when you have wiggle room," he
  says, "is that you have lower courts deciding all over the place."  And
  so equal protection activists keep bringing suits - and keep finding
  judges like Robert Patterson who prefer to pamper their liberal sensibilities
  and ram through the crack in the door that the Supreme Court left open.

    The New York subway lawsuit was brought by the Urban League and a
  grassroots subway organization that wouldn't have a prayer of fighting a
  fare hike on any other grounds.  It argues that the fare increase violates
  the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The increase is discriminatory, because
  the Metropolitan Transit Authority wants to raise subway and bus fares by
  20%, compared with an average fare increase of only 9% for the mostly white
  commuter trains.  Some 60% of subway and bus riders are black, Hispanic,
  or Asian compared with only 20% of those who ride commuter trains.

    In his ruling barring the fare increase, Judge Patterson buys their
  argument.  He cites as further evidence of discrimination the fact that,
  with the increases, subway and bus riders will shoulder roughly 60% of the
  costs of their ride while commuters will pay only 40.8% or 49.6% depending
  on which train line they take.  In both cases, the state picks up the rest
  of the tab.

    All this, of course, ignores any practical business reasons for the fare
  increase.  Judge Patterson sweeps away transit officials' arguments that
  if they can't raise fares they will have to cut service.  They point out
  that the state has slashed aid to the city transit authority while
  increasing subsidies for the commuter trains and that, in addition, the
  subway and bus budget is already heading for the red.  No matter, the
  judge's ruling says.  If the state and the M.T.A. had made different
  decisions on financing, then "there would be no year-end deficit and no
  increase in fares would be required at this time."

    This isn't the first time a judge has tried to run a city transit system
  on the basis of race.  In Los Angeles last year, U.S. District Judge
  Terry J. Hatter Jr. issued an injunction prohibiting the county from
  raising bus fares and eliminating discount monthly passes.  His ruling
  was in response to a suit alleging that the county transit authority
  spends a disproportionate amount of its budget on building rail lines that
  benefit mostly white suburbanites at the expense of minorities, who make up
  the bulk of bus riders.  Five months later, in an interim settlement that
  is in effect until the outcome of the suit, the fare increase was reinstated
  but the monthly passes were saved.

    Government officials in both Los Angeles and New York have defended their
  spending decisions as rational.  The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit
  Authority says it needs to build more rail lines in order to get more
  commuters off the roads and address L.A.'s horrific traffic problems.  In
  New York, the M.T.A. points out that the city benefits from the bigger
  subsidies to commuters in the form of less traffic and less pollution.
  Supporters also cite jobs, since one of the reasons businesses locate in
  the city is to draw on a wide pool of wotkers.

    In any event, the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments are best
  left to voters, not the courts.  If voters don't approve of legislators'
  decisions, they can boot them out of office; it's not the role of the
  courts to make such economic decisions.  There's nothing in the civil
  rights laws that says what the price of a subway ride ought to be.

    New York's subway system for its part seems to attract bizarre legal
  battles.  A couple of years ago a New York court made a mugger a millionaire
  when it upheld a $4.3 million jury award to a man who had been shot and
  paralysed by a cop after he had beaten up an elderly man in the subway.
  Then there was the notorious decision by U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand,
  who struck down the M.T.A.'s ban on begging in the subways, holding that
  panhandling is a form of free speech.  This was eventually reversed by the
  Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

    This week, that same court is considering Judge Patterson's injunction
  against the fare hikes.  It has already acted quickly to reinstate the
  fare increases, which went into effect Sunday - but ordered the M.T.A. to
  develop a refund plan in case it decides to reinstate the injunction.

    Whatever the appeals court decides about the injunction, Judge Patterson
  almost certainly will get to hold a trial on the civil rights case - and
  New Yorkers will get to watch the fare wars for months to come.  Along the
  way, the case that was brought in the name of racial fairness is likely
  instead to encourage racial resentment.

    Consider the "solution" proposed by one disgruntled New Yorker : Install
  two sets of turnstiles, he grimly suggests, and label them "Blacks Only"
  and "Whites Only".  After all, how much difference is there between
  "disproportionate impact" and "separate but equal" ?

    

    What idiots!  What a bunch of BS!
    
    Bob

    
    So, uh...if the transit authority has to cut back service to the
    subways because they can't increase the fares, how much do you want to
    bet the Urban League will call *that* racist?
    
    How ludicrous.
    
    

    
    The nice thing about the assistant editors of The Wall Street Journal,
    they never feel the need to tell the truth.
    
    For example, how many of you read carefully enough to see that the
    fares did indeed increase, on schedule, Sunday?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Yes, the fares did increase - but the MTA will have to pay out refunds
    if the increase is struck down.  (How they'll do that I don't know.)
    
    My argument is against calling such an increase racist.
    
    

    .490
    The pay back will be ever 7 days purchased you will receive two free
    ones. Now how they handle that is another story. 	 think the
    discrimination issue comes because of the other two methods of
    transportation in N.Y. pay less and the inner city pays much more.  

You don't buy days, you buy tokens.  I've never seen anybody get a receipt
for subway tokens.  You can go to any token booth and turn in a token for
cash, so if they give out receipts and rely on them to determine who gets
a refund, it'll be possible to buy lots of tokens at the new price, turn
them in at the new price, and get a refund based on your turnover.

    Re .489:
    
    > The nice thing about the assistant editors of The Wall Street Journal,
    > they never feel the need to tell the truth.
    >
    > For example, how many of you read carefully enough to see that the
    > fares did indeed increase, on schedule, Sunday?

    Contrary to your first paragraph, they did tell the truth -- you admit
    in the second paragraph the truth is in the story.  Aw, is it not
    prominent enough for you?  Nobody in New York is confused about how
    much the fare is now; the person in the booth will tell them when they
    purchase.  That's not what the story was about.  The story was about
    the legal ruling that had been made.  That's a significant item, and it
    deserves a story of its own even if you don't like it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Interesting (to me, anyway) to see how the legal action is fleshing
    out in the wake of the Toronto Transit Commission subway crash back 
    on August 11th.
    
    The TTC is (apparently) facing over 100 different suits, including one
    class action suit filed on behalf of *everyone* who was on the two
    trains that evening (injured or not).  The TTC, perhaps worried about
    their public image, has just plain admitted liability and has started
    paying out to plaintiffs even though the suits are still pending before
    the courts.  One man, who lost his wife and his legs, was just paid
    $250,000 to cover his immediate needs.  The man's lawyer said: "There's
    been no reasonable request to this date that has been refused by [the
    TTC]."
                                          

    Well, that's Canada for you eh? Giving the money to the people instead
    of the lawyers. A bad thing happened, they were liable, they're helping
    those who have been hurt.

    
    
    This in no way will influence the ones who weren't hurt to NOT join in
    on the feeding frenzy....
    

    Doesn't sound to me like it's a feeding frenzy. If this had happened
    stateside, a judge would be awarding damages in the multimillions.

Lawyers swarm to site of toxic gas exposure

By Jesse Katz

LOS ANGELES TIMES

BOGALUSA, La. - Even as a toxic orange cloud hovered over this rustic factory 
town last month, forcing thousands of residents to flee, another calamity, one 
of potentially more disastrous proportions, was in the making.

  Dozens of lawyers - some of them local, others from Louisiana's bigger cities 
and a few from out of state, including Johnnie Cochran Jr. - came swooping 
down on Bogalusa, seeking out prospective plaintiffs with a zeal that most 
folks here consider nothing short of vulturous.

  Lawyers drove campers onto vacant lots, designating them as mobile law 
offices. They transformed motels into personal injury centers, providing 
in-room consultations with medical experts flown in from around the country.

  They plastered the local newspaper with full-page ads, offering free hot 
lines (1-800-99-TOXIC) and legal seminars ("Learn the truth about toxic gas 
exposure!"). They deluged residents with personalized mailings, including 
prepaid business reply cards: "Yes, Morris, I want you to be my lawyer."

  So far, at least 45 lawsuits on behalf of several hundred victims have been 
filed, the first coming from an attorney who was at the courthouse, waiting 
for the doors to open, the morning after the eruption. Nobody was killed or 
critically injured in the Oct. 23 accident at Gaylord Chemical Corp., but 
nearly 5,000 people - almost one-third of the city - swarmed Bogalusa's 
hospitals after spotting the vaporous ball of nitrogen tetroxide.

  Most of the lawsuits cite nausea, burning eyes and shortness of breath - the 
same symptoms that lawyers repeatedly named in their advertisements and, in 
some cases, inserted into legal contracts before even interviewing their 
clients. Another group of attorneys, including Cochran, has raised the 
specter of "environmental racism," alleging that black residents were not 
evacuated until white residents had been escorted to safety.

  What makes this skirmishing such a dilemma for many Bogalusans is the 
nature of the target, which is anything but a far-off, faceless corporation. 
The Gaylord facility, which has existed in one form or another since 1906, 
single-handedly created Bogalusa, carving out a company town from what was 
once virgin pine forest.

  After nearly a century, it remains Bogalusa's economic lifeblood, employing 
nearly 1,000 people with a payroll of more than $40 million annually.

    
    
    You can apologize all you want, mate, but it still don't count...
    

aw, bollox...

    
    	So how much will these people be paid for the hell they've been
    	put through?
    
    	I couldn't imagine the horror of temporary shortness of breath,
    	burning eyes and nausea.  I'd be scarred for life.
    

    
    
    	
>    	I couldn't imagine the horror of temporary shortness of breath,
>    	burning eyes and nausea.  I'd be scarred for life.
    
    	Sounds like me after a typical run during a high pollen count...:*)
    
    
    

    
    	Were you anywhere near Louisiana recently?
    
    	Didn't you say you had some bills to pay off?
    
    	8^)
    

    
    
    	you may have hit upon something here Shawn!
    
    ;*)

Hey, it's not just the U.S.  Can one of you Canajuns type a few words about
Mulroney's lawsuit?

    
    The Canadian federal justice department alleges that former Prime
    Minister Brian Mulroney was paid $5-million as a result of Air Canada's
    purchase of planes from Airbus Industries.
    
    Mulroney has filed a $50-million libel suit against the government and
    the RCMP.
    

    
    
    Hmmm... there must be a "commercially racist" angle in there
    somewhere!!
    

    
    Interesting little lawsuit going on here in Ontario right now.  A woman
    has launched a palimony suit against Transportation Minister Al 
    Palladini (with whom she had an affair while married to another man),
    alledging that he is the real father of her daughter.  However, when she
    separated from her husband some time ago, she signed an affidavit
    swearing that her husband was the real father.  Subsequently, the
    husband has been paying child support.  NOW she says Palladini is the
    father, and is seeking $2000/month in support, claiming her living
    expenses total over $6200/month, including $1570 for accomodation, 
    $2000 for clothing, and $450 for food.
    

        <<< Note 99.510 by TROOA::COLLINS "Just say `Oh, all right'." >>>

	Sounds like the kid is quite the clothes horse.

Jim

    
    Is this a French thing ?
    

    
    	What a jerk, eh?
    
    	Wonder if she'll be forced to give all that money back to her
    	ex-husband.
    
    	And I wonder if the court will shut her funds off completely
    	for being deceitful.
    

    
       Gosh!  I wish I HAD $2000 to spend on clothes in a year!
    
       Rosie

    I would spend the money on boob cakes.
    
    Well, maybe not.

    
    	{pinch}

    Youch!

    
    	You had it coming, really, you did!
    

I know I'll be sorry, but please explain:

    I would spend the money on boob cakes.
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


				WHAT????

    
    	You missed the conversation. There was quite the heated discussion
    over the appropriatness of bringing a boob cake to a gathering of
    Digital folks, even tho' said gathering was not on DEC property.
    
    	It was a grand little expedition....
    
    
    jim

    Hhere we go, another trip down mammary lane.

    I thought we already milked this discussion for all it's worth.

    
      This exchange of replies sucks.
    
      bb

    <--- But I bet some find it titilating.

    titillating. nnttm

    
    	I, for one, will not.
    

    
    
    
    what is tat and where can I get a truckload??
    
    Chris
    :)

    Who is Tat is what I want to know.  Sounds almost but not quite as
    Lucky as that walking good luck charm from Mont Vernon.

    >> what is tat and where can I get a truckload??
    
    Ask Tweety Bird... he (she?) is always talking about seeing
    a "puddy tat".  Maybe he/she is hoarding it in the bird cage...
    
    Chris

    
    
    
    re -1
    
    
    tat's ridiculous!!
    
    Chris
    :0

"My entire life has changed from joy and happiness to sadness and depression,"
says Ruby Campagna of Roanoke, Va.  She enjoyed watching baby birds in a nest
outside her apartment window.  But the apartment manager, Judy Woody, made a
practice of removing bird nests from the property.  Campagna filed suit when
Woody removed the nest by her window.  Woody, "a malevolent scowl on her face,"
knocked the nest down then stepped on it "in order to mutilate and mangle their
tiny bodies," her suit said. Woody says she didn't know there were baby birds
in the nest when she knocked it down, but a Roanoke Circuit Court jury awarded
Campagna $135,000 for her "emotional distress and medical bills". (AP)

    
    	$135,000!!
    
    	Sure beats working for a living.
    

    Although I certainly sympathize with her anguish over the baby birds, I
    think that she is the one that should have been knocked out of a tree
    and stepped on. 

    How nice.

    
    	Stepped on REALLY hard, too ... mooshed right into the ground,
    	and THEN maybe she'd be entitled to some compensation for pain
    	and suffering.
    

    <--- exactly.  That's the only way I can see awarding her $135,000. 

   -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------      
The following questions from lawyers were taken from official court
records nationwide:

1) Was that the same nose you broke as a child?

2) Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in
most cases he just passes quietly away and doesnt know anything about it
until the next morning?

3) Q: What happened then?
     A: He told me he has to kill me because i can identify him.
     Q: Did he kill you?

4) Was it you or your brother that was killed in the war?

5) The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?

6) Were you alone or by yourself?

7) How long have you been a French Canadian?

8) Do you have any children or anything of that kind?

9) Q: I show you exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture.
     A: That's me.
     Q: Were you present when that picture was taken?

10) Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?

11) Q: Now, Mrs Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?
        A: By death.
        Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

12) Q: Do you know how far pregnant you are now?
        A: I'll be three months on November 8.
        Q: Apparently then, the date of conception was August 8.
        A: Yes.
        Q: What were you doing at that time?

13) Q: Mrs. Jones, do you believe you are emotionally stable.
        A: I used to be.
        Q: How many times have you committed suicide?

14) So you were gone until you returned?

15) Q: She had three children, right?
        A: Yes.
        Q: How many were boys?
        A: None.
        Q: Were there girls?

16) You don't know what it was, and you didn't know what it looked like,
but can you describe it?

13) Q: You say that the stairs went down the basement?
        A: Yes.
        Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?

18) Q: Have you lived in this town all your life?
        A: Not yet.

19) A Texas attorney, realizing he was on the verge of unleashing a
stupid question, interrupted himself and said, "Your honor, I'd like to
strike the next question."

20) Q: Do you recall approximately the time that you examined the body
       of Mr. Edington at the rose chapel?
    A: It was in the evening. The autopsy started about 8:30 p.m.
    Q: And Mr. Edington was dead at the time, is that correct?
    A: No, you stupid, he was sitting on the table wondering why I
       was doing an autopsy!

    
    
    	This 1 cracks me up every time I read it:
    
    
>18) Q: Have you lived in this town all your life?
>        A: Not yet.
    

    	From "News of the Weird" ... finally, a technicality is used to
    	dismiss a stupid lawsuit instead of clinch it:
    
    
* An October decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals said the
trial court was right to dismiss a slander lawsuit against the
Franklin County (Ohio) Board of Elections chairman Terry
Casey.  Casey had called Federal Elections Commission official
Gary Greenhalgh a "lying asshole," but the Court said that phrase
is merely rhetorical hyperbole.  Casey could not have meant, said
the Court, that someone's "anus was making an untruthful
statement." [National Law Journal, 10-30-95]

    
[Boston Globe][Metro]

     Weld says he'd veto lawsuit bill

     By Michael Grunwald, Globe Staff, 03/06/96

     Gov. William F. Weld, a 1970 graduate of Harvard Law School, yesterday
     took a stand against his fellow members of the bar.

     Weld said that if a bill that would make it easier for people who fall
     on snow or ice to file lawsuits ever reaches his desk, he plans to
     veto it. The bill, which passed the House and is now in a Senate
     committee, has the strong support of the Massachusetts Academy of
     Trial Attorneys and the Massachusetts Bar Association.

     ``That would mean more lawsuits, and I don't think that's the
     direction we should go,'' the governor said. ``I'm not saying every
     snow-and-ice lawsuit should lose. I just think the pendulum should
     swing the other way.''

     The bill would eliminate the so-called natural accumulation defense,
     which protects homeowners and businesses from personal-injury suits
     unless they somehow worsen the snow and ice hazard on their
     properties. The bill has faced strong opposition from insurers and
     real estate groups, who call it an underhanded maneuver to promote the
     legal industry.

     In fact, the six legislators who cosponsored the bill are lawyers. But
     Weld, who supports tort reform legislation pending in the Legislature
     and in Congress, was relatively mild in his opposition to a bill some
     are calling a legal snowjob.

     ``I wouldn't impugn the motives of the proponents,'' he said. ``I'd
     just veto the bill.''

     The bill, which was featured on the front page of yesterday's Globe,
     was written by Rep. James Vallee (D-Franklin). Yesterday Vallee said
     he would not try to override a gubernatorial veto.

     ``This is one of 500 issues that are important to me,'' he said. ``I
     think there are other issues that matter more to my constituents.''

     This story ran on page 23 of the Boston Globe on 03/06/96.

    
      According to the Globe, Law School applications are down 11%, the
     biggest drop ever, following 3 straight years of small declines after
     the long big rise in the legal population.
    
      One reason cited : low esteem of the profession.
    
      bb

There's also massive unemployment among lawyers.  You have to go to a
prestigious law school to get a job as a lawyer.  New graduates of third-tier
schools are lucky to get jobs as paralegals.

    > There's also massive unemployment among lawyers.
    
    {sarcasm bit set}
    I feel so badly for them..
    {sarcasm bit off}
    
    q: why did the sharks leave the lawyer swimming in the ocean alone?
    a: professional courtesy.

    Tom Paxton's old song "One Million Lawyers" is still funny.
    
    In ten years we're gonna have one million lawyers,
    One million lawyers, one million lawyers,
    In ten years we're gonna have one million lawyers,
    How much can a poor nation stand?
    

As the years go by and subjective/political policy laws become a thing of the
past, fewer lawyers will be needed.

    
    
    Seems to me from personal observation only that there are a lot
    of people out there with law degrees and that have passed the
    bar exam that are not practicing law. 
    
    
    		Anyone know the stats?
    
    
    			DAC
    

    
      Well, F Lee won't be for six months.
    
      bb
    

It seems the lovely city of Worcester, Ma, had a little problem in their
water supply last fall. A virus called something close to "crypto sporidium"
spread throughout the Worcester water supply. Symptoms are similar to food
poisoning. Estimated 22% of the population of Worcester was affected.
Worcester Water Dept. covered this up at the time, it's only all becoming
known recently.

It's only a matter of time now.

I can't say I feel a bit sorry for the Water Dept., after going without water
for 3 days a couple of months ago. They didn't even send someone out to look
for the problem until after dark. Some guy in a pickup then drove up the
street and back down, with his little yellow light flashing. That's all that
happened until the next morning... Unbelievable, a classic bureaucracy in
action.

Parents of a former Brookline (MA) high school student are suing the town
for almost $360,000.  They say their daughter was traumatized by her
social studies teacher's announcement that she (the teacher) was a lesbian.

    re: .549
    
    I think that filers of such lawsuits should be caned. Both the
    plaintiffs and their lawyers.

>     <<< Note 99.550 by MILKWY::JACQUES "Vintage taste, reissue budget" >>>
>    Tom,  what makes you think the water dept cares?

Oh, I know they don't. My wife and I called them several times over the 3
days to get updates and whatnot. One guy picked up the phone and offered the
cheerful greeting: "Don't tell me - the water's out on Dawson Road". We
packed bags, hit a hotel, and took our first showers in 2 days. You know it's
gonna be a while when they flaunt an attitude like that...

For 2-3 weeks after all this, the water turned black as tar every evening for
a little while. Their response? "Not really anything we can do for you."

    
    re: .551
    
    yeah Doc... I agree... but What goes around, comes around...
    

Sunrise, Fla. (AP) -- A police officer who was hailed for saving a woman
from her estranged husband now is suing the woman, saying she is partly
to blame for the attack that left him with an injured hand.

In April 1994, police Sgt. Mark Byers smashed through a glass door to
save Jane Liberatore.  Her estranged husband, Anthony, had already shot
her boyfriend to death.

"I was floored when I got the papers," Mrs. Liberatore said Wednesday.
"I just want people to know that if they get help from the police they
can expect to be asked to pay for it later."

Byers' suit against Mrs. Liberatore and her now-imprisoned husband seeks
unspecified damages.  Despite reconstructive surgery for injuries to his
hand, Byers, 35, contends he can no longer fire a gun, forcing his
reassignment to a desk job.

Charles Morehead, Byers' attorney, said Mrs. Liberatore was being sued
because she knew her husband was on his way to her home with a loaded
shotgun but did not call police until he was at the house.  Besides,
he said, she was unfaithful.

"When you cheat on your husband and create the potential for murder or
aggravated assault and a police officer is injured as a result, you make
your own bed and you have to sleep in it," Morehead said.

Mrs. Liberatore said she did not know her husband was on the way to her
home with a gun.  She declined to comment on allegations that she was
cheating.

"I just feel like I'm being victimized once again," she said.

Anthony Liberatore was sentenced to 23 years in prison for killing the
boyfriend, Harry Schwartz.  When Byers arrived, Schwartz was dead and
Jane and Anthony Liberatore were fighting for the shotgun.

Heh, pretty good... Not only do they not have to protect you (see SCOTUS),
but they can sue you for doing so. This will be interesting whichever way it
falls.

All the more reason for a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, if you
ask me.

    I'll bet if she had called the police and told them her ex was on the
    way over with a shotgun, they would have told her to call back if he
    got there.
    
    Bob

    
      The former Bulls cheerleader (Chicago Cow ?) has been awarded
     $313,000 in her suit against the Famous (formerly San Diego)
     Chicken, for recklessly dancing with her on the basketball court.
     She claimed loss of her job, despite videotapes showing he doing
     backflips and somersaults weeks after the incident.  The Chicken
     vows he will appeal.
    
      bb