Proposition: Handling Safety Concerns (without additional safety-based bans)

[bigdancehawk]

Is this Relevant to Product Liability? ie: Warning Labels & Child Proof Caps.

Read your own post. You said "product liability or personal injury."

EDIT: And no, it's not relevant, but I didn't inject the topic of tort reform.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I sure hope our Felony Drunk Driver is a Good Wage Earner. And is about 25 Years old.

Because He/She is going to need to pay $125,000 a Year, for 40 Years, to pay off that $5 Million.

The cap on wage garnishments for a head of household is 10 percent. And judgments for personal injury damages are fully dischargeable in bankruptcy unless covered by insurance. However, it's my hypothetical so I get to make up the facts. The drunk is a salesman employed by Pfizer who at the time of the wreck was on his way to make a sales pitch driving a company car loaded with nicotine patches, gum and inhalers.

 

[zoiDman]

Read your own post. You said "product liability or personal injury."

EDIT: And no, it's not relevant, but I didn't inject the topic of tort reform.

Sorry for the Confusion.

My reference to Personal Injury was with regards to using a Product.

Like a Battery Exploding in a mod. Or and e-liquid Poisoning someone because there was no Child-Resistant Cap.

 

[Jman8]

The cap on wage garnishments for a head of household is 10 percent. And judgments for personal injury damages are fully dischargeable in bankruptcy unless covered by insurance. However, it's my hypothetical so I get to make up the facts. The drunk is a salesman employed by Pfizer who at the time of the wreck was on his way to make a sales pitch driving a company car loaded with nicotine patches, gum and inhalers.

And my response wouldn't change and was put up to establish that a limit could exist.

 

[bigdancehawk]

And my response wouldn't change and was put up to establish that a limit could exist.

I was responding to zoiDman.

There's no question that limits can exist and many states have them. A $20 million damage cap on personal injury claims wouldn't have a material systemic effect, as verdicts in that range are extraordinarily rare and invariably involve catastrophic injuries.

And judges have the power to reduce excessive verdicts--it's called "remittitur." For example, in the famous McDonald's hot coffee case (which everybody has an opinion about but relatively few people actually know about) the trial judge cut the verdict down to about 1/5th of the amount awarded by the jury. EDIT: The lady was very badly burned, spent eight days in the hospital, had to undergo skin grafts and required two years of medical treatment. All she wanted was $20K to settle the case. McDonald's offered $800. Arrogant and stupid.

 

[MD_Boater]

For example, in the famous McDonald's hot coffee case (which everybody has an opinion about but relatively few people actually know about) the trial judge cut the verdict down to about 1/5th of the amount awarded by the jury. EDIT: The lady was very badly burned, spent eight days in the hospital, had to undergo skin grafts and required two years of medical treatment. All she wanted was $20K to settle the case. McDonald's offered $800. Arrogant and stupid.

I still see no liability for McDonald's. If I were the judge, I would have thrown the case, and the plaintiff out of my court.

Coffee is a HOT drink, made with boiling water.

Boiling water, when spilled on skin, will do exactly what happened to that lady every single time. In other words, the product was fully compliant with its expected properties (it contained boiling water, flavors extracted from coffee beans, and in a container that would allow the user to dispense the product) when the McDonald's employee handed it to her. Her carelessness in handling the container, and her expectation that it would not burn her if she improperly dispensed it onto her skin, were her own doing.

The fact that she did not take proper precautions when handling a drink made out of boiling water is NOT in any way, shape, or form, McDonald's fault. That lady knew in advance that the coffee was going to be hot, and that she should have been extremely careful handling it so as not to get burned.

I think McDonald's offer of $800 was EXTREMELY generous. A more appropriate settlement would have been a coupon for a free lunch on her next visit.

This lady won a settlement from a business due to her own carelessness.

Say I go to Home Depot and buy a 16 pound sledge hammer. Then say that I drop it on my foot while loading it in my car in the Home Depot parking lot, and it takes $30,000 in surgeries to eventually repair my foot. Home Depot owes me NOTHING (other than a phone call for the ambulance if I couldn't drive). Heavy objects dropped on one's foot cause damage and pain every single time.

Another example of lawsuits run amok is gasoline cans. Somehow, gas can manufacturers became the responsible parties when dumb arses started pouring gasoline out of them and onto an open flame (if you don't know - that act is likely to cause fire, explosions, and/or burns). As a result, all the rest of us can buy now are gas cans that refuse to dispense the product properly unless every star in the universe is aligned properly. I have taken to using a funnel to fill my damn lawnmower because the valve in the stupid "safety spout" of the gas can allows only a trickle of gas to come out while it is dispensing per its design. Lawsuits like this reward stupidity, and penalize the rest of society. The needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many. Our government, legal system, and society, need to stop pandering to the stupid, and start working for those who exhibit at least the "average" level of intelligence.

Rant mode off...

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Simply put, lowest common denominator, we must protect the careless/stupid.

 

[Kent C]

I still see no liability for McDonald's. If I were the judge, I would have thrown the case, and the plaintiff out of my court.

Coffee is a HOT drink, made with boiling water.

Boiling water, when spilled on skin, will do exactly what happened to that lady every single time. In other words, the product was fully compliant with its expected properties (it contained boiling water, flavors extracted from coffee beans, and in a container that would allow the user to dispense the product) when the McDonald's employee handed it to her. Her carelessness in handling the container, and her expectation that it would not burn her if she improperly dispensed it onto her skin, were her own doing.

The fact that she did not take proper precautions when handling a drink made out of boiling water is NOT in any way, shape, or form, McDonald's fault. That lady knew in advance that the coffee was going to be hot, and that she should have been extremely careful handling it so as not to get burned.

...

And there were warnings on the cup... McDonalds has not lowered the temps and (wiki): "Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that burned Stella Liebeck."

The possibility of it happening now is the same as before the suit. Why? Because there was no lack of responsibility of the vendors in the first place.

 

[bigdancehawk]

And there were warnings on the cup... McDonalds has not lowered the temps and (wiki): "Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that burned Stella Liebeck."

The possibility of it happening now is the same as before the suit. Why? Because there was no lack of responsibility of the vendors in the first place.

I was merely providing an example of remittitur. The injuries were severe. I have no opinion on the issue of liability.