Ambulance Chasers
It’s usually a rotten apple that spoils the barrel. And I don’t think it’s any more (or less) true for lawyers. I read Overlawyered, a blog about frivolous lawsuits that highlights the need for legal reform. And while I agree that we need reform, both malpractice and otherwise, I’m always skeptical when I read it. I assume that there’s usually more background information than I’m being told. Case in point: the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit. We’ve all heard about it, probably talked about it with disgust. But when you read the facts of the case the media never presented, the black and white become shades of gray.
Lawyers aren’t all bad, either. Many (but arguably, not enough) work on important social issues protecting our rights and freedoms.
That all being said, I’m totally disgusted by this lawyer van sitting outside the ER. Had no idea they actually *did* that. Via EMedConcepts, a new ER blog.
Woah, that van is freaking nuts. Thanks for the tip.
Given that most of the “facts the media presented” about the McDonald’s coffee case come from a front-page Wall Street Journal article, I’m curious what you mean by “media.”
In any event, Overlawyered has addressed those arguments on multiple occasions. Search for “coffee” on the site.
Best,
Ted
Sorry, that’s “facts the media never presented”.
While the WSJ may have presented the facts correctly, I don’t think they were presented that way on television on the 6 o’clock news or as a small news blurb in some magazine.
I can’t say I disagree, Graham, but that’s an argument against the 6:00 news. In any event, it’s not like the “missing details” of the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit change the fact that the lawsuit and resulting verdict was ludicrous.
The 6:00 news is definitely in the realm of “the media,” and I’d consider them more “the media” than the WSJ–what’s the figure, something like half of people get almost all of their news from TV?
I can’t say I think the lawsuit was ridiculous; McDonald’s itself knew its coffee was too hot (3rd degree burns in 2 seconds?), had 700 previous incidents of similar burns, and wouldn’t pay a penny for the woman’s hospital costs. If third degree burns to one’s genitals isn’t grounds for compensation, I don’t know what is. If you knowingly sell a dangerous product, shouldn’t there be some liability there?
Bathtubs. Potentially dangerous. Everybody uses them and some people get hurt. Should we sue tub manufacturers? Aren’t they liable for all the people who slip in the tub?
bathtubs: not much we can do to make them safer. Coffee: have mcd’s not serve it 20 degrees hotter than other places.
As Ted pointed out…McD’s Corp had HUNDREDS of COMPLAINTS from their OWN MANAGERS of the coffee being too damn hot.
They chose to ignore these complaints and concerns. Additionally, if you read the judges notes-the judge felt a high initial judgement was necessary to send a message that ignoring such a wall of concern is negligent.Note also the reduction of the judgement by the same judge after the case was decided.
RE: bathtubs
Isn’t the onus upon the manufacturer of a dangerous product to make it safer? It is difficult, though by no means impossible, to make a tub safer. I’ll grant you that it won’t be as easy as simply lowering the serving temperature, but does that difficulty absolve the manufacturer of responsibility?
Questions remain:
1. Does it *really* matter on a histopathological level if a water based liquid is “185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants”? In other words, does a water based liquid of 165 degrees really burn less than one 20 degrees warmer (“hotter” for those of you who favor emotionalism over rationalism)? Probably not.
2. How many complaints do national chain based restaurants get about *their* coffee temperature? “Uh excuse me miss, but this coffee is just too damn hot for me!”
3. (not trying to get the “Blame The Victim” award), but isn’t it *common sense* to not put a HOT liquid in your lap?
Questions remain:
1. Does it *really* matter on a histopathological level if a water based liquid is “185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants”? In other words, does a water based liquid of 165 degrees really burn less than one 20 degrees warmer (“hotter” for those of you who favor emotionalism over rationalism)? Probably not.
2. How many complaints do national chain-based restaurants get about *their* coffee temperature? “Uh excuse me miss, but this coffee is just too damn hot for me!”
3. (not trying to get the “Blame The Victim” award), but isn’t it *common sense* to not put a HOT liquid container in your lap?