Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:35:16 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> 
>>> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it
>>> still has to be somebody's *fault*.
>> Yep - your own :-P
> 
> I wish more people would realise this.  But the trend over the last 
> several years has been to blame someone else in order to hit the 
> "jackpot" with a sizable judgment.  The most famous was Stella, who won a 
> judgment against McDonald's because she put a hot cup of coffee between 
> her legs and got burned.
> 
> All things about the proper temperature to serve coffee at and whatnot 
> aside, *she* decided to put a cup of hot liquid there.  McDonald's didn't 
> make her do that.
> 
> (The judgment she won was reduced significantly upon appeal - that fact's 
> not often discussed by people who site this case).
> 
> I'm not a big fan of McD's, but the result was that they also had to put 
> a warning on the cup that states that the contents are hot.  As if it was 
> impossible to tell that.
> 


Only in this case, it really might have been McD's fault. Coffee should 
be served at a drinkable temperature, maybe a bit warmer to keep it warm 
in the cup for a while. That temperature would not have resulted in the 
burns the woman got. The coffee had to be at a much higher temperature, 
in which case someone at McD's had either fiddled with the machine or 
ignored it's maintenance. If she had sipped it instead of spilling it 
first, she would have got burns through her mouth and throat instead.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:45:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> Except that it's self-reinforcing. People win giant lawsuits *because*
>> of the liability laws. People wouldn't sue if they could only get
>> recompense for the actual damage done, and I expect most wouldn't sue if
>> they'd done something stupid if they would lose because they did
>> something stupid. But because the laws are there, companies buy
>> insurance and bump their prices, and because of this people *do* sue.
> 
> Yep, it is a vicious cycle, no doubt about that.
> 
> The whole system is fundamentally broken, I think, at least as regards 
> liability.  There is a place for liability, of course, but we're at a 
> ridiculous place now.  Just ask any doctor about malpractice insurance, 
> especially in fields that are still considered experimental.
> 
> Jim

The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though. If 
you make it so that doctors are not liable for more then lets say 
100grand, what happens to the person that they really screw up? My 
cousin is suing a doctor, it's been in the local paper several times so 
I don't mind mentioning it, because he royally screwed up. Other doctors 
looked at his notes, said they were wrong, they checked the surgical 
site and pointed out all he did wrong. She had a good job, and the jury 
found that, between lost wages and further treatment, with minimal pain 
and suffering, they awarded over 3 million. The state doesn't allow for 
that much. So, instead of taking the money from the doctor, she gets to 
take it from the state in the form of state health care and subsidies: 
also called taxes.

Anyone disabled puts a sink on the economy, in some way. It's mitigated 
by various means. But the current trend of limiting state health care 
due to malpractice while at the same time limiting malpractice law suits 
is just asking for trouble.

I mean, what do you call the student who graduated last of their class 
from med school?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, lots of stories like that.  Guy breaks into a house, gets himself
> locked in the garage with only some dog food to eat.  For a week, because
> the homeowners were on vacation.  Sues the homeowners (and IIRC wins)
> because they failed to provide him an escape route and he nearly starved
> to death.

What the O_O

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though.

The problem is more that something like 25% of all doctors get sued for 
malpractice in their first five years. If "malpractice" is something so 
bad even a layman can understand how bad it is, then either way too many 
people are suing for malpractice or the medical schools are turning out 
complete morons.

Not that there aren't good situations for malpractice, but the doctor 
failing to cure you isn't necessarily a malpractice case.
-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:06:31 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:35:16 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it
>>> still has to be somebody's *fault*.
>>
>> Yep - your own :-P
>
> I wish more people would realise this.  But the trend over the last
> several years has been to blame someone else in order to hit the
> "jackpot" with a sizable judgment.

Well if the media publicise the 'Judge orders company to pay $X in  
compensation" over the "Judge clears company in court case" then what  
anyone expect?

>  The most famous was Stella, who won a
> judgment against McDonald's because she put a hot cup of coffee between
> her legs and got burned.

Darren talked about this in a much earlier thread. He pointed out that  
McDs knew the coffee was over temperature and did nothing about it, but  
that the only way this was discovered was because Stella sued and got hold  
of the literature documenting this.

>>> Yeah, but that requires thinking on the part of the school
>>> administration, and we can't have *that* going on in our schools....
>>
>> Two independent thought alarms in one day! But yeah that would require
>> making a judgment call for which you can be sued later.
>
> LOL

Heh as per the photograph taking you can't be done for obeying the rules,  
your employers/company can be but you're safe.

>>> But there's also (in some schools) a double-standard.  Students have ZT
>>> applied to them, but let a staffer do something that is a *fireable*
>>> offense and those same non-thinking administration people are willing
>>> to overlook it.
>>
>> But we both know that the normal rules are suspended in times of
>> emergency, just look at all the laws both our governments have been
>> ramming through the system. "We think you've got drugs on your person.
>> Strip down while I put on this rubber glove"
>
> Yeah, that's true enough.  But a staffer doing something (as opposed to a
> student) doesn't really qualify in my book as an "emergency" of any sort.

Running around waving my hands in the air type of emergency rather then  
staying quiet and fearing for my life type of emergency.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:01:56 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> Another example: My son's girlfriend was in a car accident about 8 months
> ago; someone ran a red light and hit her truck, totaling it.  The kid in
> the other car ran the light, and they sued *her* for the damage to their
> vehicle, as well as for their medical injuries.  Even though THEY were
> not wearing their seat belts.
>
> Personally, I don't think they stand much of a chance of winning, but
> there is *a* chance, and it's costing Ken's girlfriend and her family a
> lot of money to even *defend* against the suit.

Aren't their any preliminary hearings where a judge can read the case and  
essentially say "Don't be so ****ing stupid"? Thus saving everyone (apart  
 from the lawyers) money.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Darren talked about this in a much earlier thread. He pointed out that 
> McDs knew the coffee was over temperature and did nothing about it,

Well, you can argue whether it was "over temperature" or just "hotter 
than other peoples' coffee".  It was intentionally hotter, because it 
tastes better and they thought most people would drive a while before 
drinking it, so by then it would be cool.

Not to rehash the whole thing. Just pointing out, it wasn't 
"accidentally over temperature", it was "intentionally served hot."

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Aren't their any preliminary hearings where a judge can read the case 
> and essentially say "Don't be so ****ing stupid"? Thus saving everyone 
> (apart from the lawyers) money.

Yes.  It's called a preliminary summary judgement.  IANAL.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though.
> 
> The problem is more that something like 25% of all doctors get sued for 
> malpractice in their first five years. If "malpractice" is something so 
> bad even a layman can understand how bad it is, then either way too many 
> people are suing for malpractice or the medical schools are turning out 
> complete morons.
> 
> Not that there aren't good situations for malpractice, but the doctor 
> failing to cure you isn't necessarily a malpractice case.

But, doctors hurried so much by the insurance companies that they miss 
simple signs of diseases and fail to cure them, is that malpractice?

It's not too hard to spot the difference between scarlet fever and strep 
throat, if you have more then 2 minutes per patient.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> I was reading a story the other day (have to see if it's online
> somewhere) about a guy who fell off a ladder in spite of having taken
> "ladder training" that explained that there were ways in which it was
> inappropriate to use the ladder.  He was standing on the very top
> (against the training) and was only found to be 25% at fault in the
> accident.  The result is that he'll collect something like £37,500 on his
> claim of £50,000.

That was in the usa, wasn't it?

Post a reply to this message