Are Americans Mad?
- Thread starter booga_roo
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
We just have too many lawyers...
landlocked
Contributor
A Russian, a Cuban, an american busness man and an american lawyer were all taking a train ride. As the ride progressed, the Russian took out a new bottle of Vodka, took one drink and threw the rest of the bottle out of the window. The american business man was shocked and confronted the Russian. Why did you throw that perfectly good bottle of vodka out of the window? Don't you know what it is worth? The Russian simply replied, "in Russia we have too much vodka!" A little while later, the cuban lit up a cigar, took three puffs, put it out and threw it out of the window. The american business man was again outraged. Why did you throw that perfectly good cigar out of the window? Don't you know what it is worth? The Cuban simply replied, "in Cuba we have too many cigars!" A short time later, the american business man simply stood up and threw the lawyer out of the window. 
It's an old joke.
It's an old joke.
Well, didn't I open a HUGE can of worms!
1. No offence intended and apologies for any caused but sometimes the rest of the world just sits back in amazement at what goes on there.
On a final note, I have total respect for any nation that developed the concept of the drive in off licence - go Australia!
Love and peace all
A chastened Booga
1. No offence intended and apologies for any caused but sometimes the rest of the world just sits back in amazement at what goes on there.
On a final note, I have total respect for any nation that developed the concept of the drive in off licence - go Australia!
Love and peace all
A chastened Booga
perhaps just a french fry short of a happy meal!
I'm reading Fast Food Nation at the mo and when I saw the thing about suing the fast food companies (don't think it is just Macdonaldo as it'scalled out here) it made me chuckle.
The women that sued the other year for scalds from hot coffee - bet she would have sued if it was cold!!
Just another reason why it's fun to be on the outside looking in.....
I'm reading Fast Food Nation at the mo and when I saw the thing about suing the fast food companies (don't think it is just Macdonaldo as it'scalled out here) it made me chuckle.
The women that sued the other year for scalds from hot coffee - bet she would have sued if it was cold!!
Just another reason why it's fun to be on the outside looking in.....
Laurence Stein DDS
Medical Moderator
Jeez, I'm away for 5 days on a trip to hell (moving day at my daughters university) and I come back to "Mad" Americans.
While on the trip, however, I tuned into a "mad" talk show...happened to be a lawyer and he made several interesting points. First was about the Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds lawsuit. She was the 81 year old woman who spilled coffee on herself while driving her car.
It seems, that not all the information came out in the media...Duh! It seems that, 1) McDonalds had been warned in writing--several times that their coffee was too hot (This is the suit clincher). On the rare occasion that I will have coffee at McDonalds, their coffee is indeed, scalding hot. There is no way a person can consume it freshly poured into the cup and retain their tastebuds! They also have a VERY efficient thermal cup--I don't know how this paper stuff works but it can keep coffee hot longer than my thermos! The fact that she drove with this hot coffee between her legs with capri pants on and spilled it....you know where may be a traffic infraction and stupid on her part but the traffic laws and the civil laws don't reinforce each other. She broke the law but McDonalds had written complaints and recommendations that the coffee was too hot. She got a 6 million dollar judgement which was reduced to $600,000 by the judge. She, in fact, did suffer 3rd degree burns, was in the hospital for two months and the corporate source of the burns was aware that their product could do just that.
She was a total jerk to carry hot coffee between her legs and drive (or keep hot coffee there at all--how WAS she gonna drink it?
I CANNOT BELIEVE I'M DEFENDING THE US LEGAL SYSTEM!!!...Northeastwrecks, please forgive me!!!
The next item reported on the show was about Walmart selling ammunition to a deranged adult and he committed suicide. It seems that the media "left out" the fact that this man was agitated, aggressive and had threatened to do just what he said he would do. His wife called the police AND the two local WalMarts in the area warning them NOT TO SELL AMMUNITION to a 20 something, agitated man. The message was taken by WalMart but the supervisors failed to pass it onto the sales staff responsible for ammunition sales. The result...Walmart settled OUT OF COURT without admitting guilt. In this country, big corporation DO NOT settle out of court for anything except if they expect to get creamed by a jury trial. Was this guy nuts...yes. Did he "off" himself, yes but an error in omission allowed, even for a moment this person to succeed.
Finally, about smokers getting cancer or other diseases because of their own actions. This type of lawsuit didn't usually win because these people were considered to have done it to themselves. They should have been aware of the consequences of smoking. What finally clobbered the tobacco companies was the fact that they knowing covered up health information they were fully aware of. Not only that, they actually found ways to make their product more desireable or addictive by manipulating the amount of nicotine in the product. Finally, a conspiracy to attract young individuals was persued on the sly. So that is why they lost.
You don't think the tobacco companies have backed off in 3rd world countries do you--they have little exposure to a population that can't afford an attorney.
So, are Americans "Mad"...yes, we're are the same as the "Mad" people throughout the entire world. You try to tell me why so many European countries smoke so much--they know the risks.
Sincerest regards and many apologies to all those who think that lawyers are pond scum. Funny thing...all the attornies I know seem to be ethical, caring professionals...Northeastwrecks it at the top of my list and I don't know him personally. I just don't know where all the scum comes from.
Larry Stein
While on the trip, however, I tuned into a "mad" talk show...happened to be a lawyer and he made several interesting points. First was about the Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds lawsuit. She was the 81 year old woman who spilled coffee on herself while driving her car.
It seems, that not all the information came out in the media...Duh! It seems that, 1) McDonalds had been warned in writing--several times that their coffee was too hot (This is the suit clincher). On the rare occasion that I will have coffee at McDonalds, their coffee is indeed, scalding hot. There is no way a person can consume it freshly poured into the cup and retain their tastebuds! They also have a VERY efficient thermal cup--I don't know how this paper stuff works but it can keep coffee hot longer than my thermos! The fact that she drove with this hot coffee between her legs with capri pants on and spilled it....you know where may be a traffic infraction and stupid on her part but the traffic laws and the civil laws don't reinforce each other. She broke the law but McDonalds had written complaints and recommendations that the coffee was too hot. She got a 6 million dollar judgement which was reduced to $600,000 by the judge. She, in fact, did suffer 3rd degree burns, was in the hospital for two months and the corporate source of the burns was aware that their product could do just that.
She was a total jerk to carry hot coffee between her legs and drive (or keep hot coffee there at all--how WAS she gonna drink it?
I CANNOT BELIEVE I'M DEFENDING THE US LEGAL SYSTEM!!!...Northeastwrecks, please forgive me!!!
The next item reported on the show was about Walmart selling ammunition to a deranged adult and he committed suicide. It seems that the media "left out" the fact that this man was agitated, aggressive and had threatened to do just what he said he would do. His wife called the police AND the two local WalMarts in the area warning them NOT TO SELL AMMUNITION to a 20 something, agitated man. The message was taken by WalMart but the supervisors failed to pass it onto the sales staff responsible for ammunition sales. The result...Walmart settled OUT OF COURT without admitting guilt. In this country, big corporation DO NOT settle out of court for anything except if they expect to get creamed by a jury trial. Was this guy nuts...yes. Did he "off" himself, yes but an error in omission allowed, even for a moment this person to succeed.
Finally, about smokers getting cancer or other diseases because of their own actions. This type of lawsuit didn't usually win because these people were considered to have done it to themselves. They should have been aware of the consequences of smoking. What finally clobbered the tobacco companies was the fact that they knowing covered up health information they were fully aware of. Not only that, they actually found ways to make their product more desireable or addictive by manipulating the amount of nicotine in the product. Finally, a conspiracy to attract young individuals was persued on the sly. So that is why they lost.
You don't think the tobacco companies have backed off in 3rd world countries do you--they have little exposure to a population that can't afford an attorney.
So, are Americans "Mad"...yes, we're are the same as the "Mad" people throughout the entire world. You try to tell me why so many European countries smoke so much--they know the risks.
Sincerest regards and many apologies to all those who think that lawyers are pond scum. Funny thing...all the attornies I know seem to be ethical, caring professionals...Northeastwrecks it at the top of my list and I don't know him personally. I just don't know where all the scum comes from.
Larry Stein
Dear Larry:
No need to apoligize and thank you for the compliment. I don't know anyone who went to law school intending to be a bad person or a bad lawyer. Moreover, while the Courts may hesitate to sanction a client, they do not show the same reluctance to sanction an attorney who brings meritless claims. At a minimum, most attorneys I know have enough grey matter to figure out that getting sanctioned is not in their best interests and that your reputation with a judge can make or break cases for years to come.
I don't agree with many tort claims, which is one reason why I will not practice in that field. However, in my experience, most claims turn out to be less ludicrous when all of the facts are known. Your statements of the McDonald's and Wal-Mart cases are good examples in which the case seems less (but not completly) outlandish after the facts are known.
They are also excellent examples of people who failed to take responsibility for their own actions and look to improve their lives by blaming someone else for their stupidity (see earlier post) and the fact that many people are jealous of success and look to bring other people down to their own level. Thus, in McDonalds, you have a sympathetic plaintiff (she was injured, so someone must be at fault) suing a large, successful company (lets get them, they have too much money anyway) in which twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty decide the relative equities. The result is unfortunately predictable.
One additional problem is the way that the media reports cases. A few years ago, I was de facto lead counsel in a bankruptcy case that received considerable attention in the local and regional media. I would appear in Court and present my case. Later, I would watch reporters whose sole experience in the legal system was hanging around the court house and whose major career accomplishment was finding a suit that matched their shoes read inaccurate statements off a teleprompter. At least twice, they got the decisions backwards.
The fact is that media is a product. Reporters use the news to sell the product that they are pitching. Sensationalism sells, accuracy does not. A detailed report of a case, including the reasons for a particular ruling, will not sell airtime or newspapers and is therefore irrelevant to the media (excepting legal papers, and even I find them dry). Couple this with the inevitable distortion that occurs when a story is retold and you have the current situation.
It is a fact of life that many people dislike attorneys. That's fine with me because (1) I honestly don't care; and (2) I know that those people who yell the loudest will be the first to pick up the phone and run screaming to their lawyer's office when they get in trouble or when they get hurt. I have very little problem increasing my rates when a potential client tells me how much he hates lawyers or the legal system because I know that this person will be a problem child.
Dea's question about what would happen if McDonald's refused to serve these oppressed hogbodies their daily slop as they make their long commute home to the desert outposts in which the evil system forces them to live, (see earlier posts), is interesting. I suppose that it would look like the response that Southwest Airlines received when it announce that people who give a new meaning to the term "widebody" by taking up two seats will need to actually buy both seats.
No need to apoligize and thank you for the compliment. I don't know anyone who went to law school intending to be a bad person or a bad lawyer. Moreover, while the Courts may hesitate to sanction a client, they do not show the same reluctance to sanction an attorney who brings meritless claims. At a minimum, most attorneys I know have enough grey matter to figure out that getting sanctioned is not in their best interests and that your reputation with a judge can make or break cases for years to come.
I don't agree with many tort claims, which is one reason why I will not practice in that field. However, in my experience, most claims turn out to be less ludicrous when all of the facts are known. Your statements of the McDonald's and Wal-Mart cases are good examples in which the case seems less (but not completly) outlandish after the facts are known.
They are also excellent examples of people who failed to take responsibility for their own actions and look to improve their lives by blaming someone else for their stupidity (see earlier post) and the fact that many people are jealous of success and look to bring other people down to their own level. Thus, in McDonalds, you have a sympathetic plaintiff (she was injured, so someone must be at fault) suing a large, successful company (lets get them, they have too much money anyway) in which twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty decide the relative equities. The result is unfortunately predictable.
One additional problem is the way that the media reports cases. A few years ago, I was de facto lead counsel in a bankruptcy case that received considerable attention in the local and regional media. I would appear in Court and present my case. Later, I would watch reporters whose sole experience in the legal system was hanging around the court house and whose major career accomplishment was finding a suit that matched their shoes read inaccurate statements off a teleprompter. At least twice, they got the decisions backwards.
The fact is that media is a product. Reporters use the news to sell the product that they are pitching. Sensationalism sells, accuracy does not. A detailed report of a case, including the reasons for a particular ruling, will not sell airtime or newspapers and is therefore irrelevant to the media (excepting legal papers, and even I find them dry). Couple this with the inevitable distortion that occurs when a story is retold and you have the current situation.
It is a fact of life that many people dislike attorneys. That's fine with me because (1) I honestly don't care; and (2) I know that those people who yell the loudest will be the first to pick up the phone and run screaming to their lawyer's office when they get in trouble or when they get hurt. I have very little problem increasing my rates when a potential client tells me how much he hates lawyers or the legal system because I know that this person will be a problem child.
Dea's question about what would happen if McDonald's refused to serve these oppressed hogbodies their daily slop as they make their long commute home to the desert outposts in which the evil system forces them to live, (see earlier posts), is interesting. I suppose that it would look like the response that Southwest Airlines received when it announce that people who give a new meaning to the term "widebody" by taking up two seats will need to actually buy both seats.
Laurence Stein DDS
Medical Moderator
Northeastwrecks,
Thanks for the reply. I truly enjoy you lucid explanations in this and other threads. Your thoughts and personal experience with the media mirror mine.
There is no way on earth that I would let a camera man and reporter into my practice for a "special". I know others that have done so and the story presented and the story told are usually 180 degrees apart. For that matter, I view with great suspicion and dentist, physician or attorney who "just happens" to be reporting on a new and improved technique or a more successful way to practice a field of law.
In my profession, implants and cosmetic dentistry are buzz words. These are fine procedures--when used as intended.
On the other hand, there are many, older techniques that are even more successful and, in fact are the "gold standard"
by which newer procedures are measured. Somehow these advantages get left out--in the treatment plan and in the (Oh! How I hate the term) marketing of the newer procedure.
Tell someone you use a laser and you must be the best. Truth be told, that laser is nothing but a $50,000 knife that has a lease to be paid. Suddenly, you are doing procedures that supposedly support its use but are in fact being done to pay for the "profit center". True, a laser may require no anesthetic but after that, it is a knife--plain and simple. Now we have lasers that cut tooth--except they don't properly expose all hidden decay so out comes the old fashioned drill. In additon, the FDA is still not sure if lased tooth surfaces are better than the non-lased surfaces.
Now we have laser root canals. What does that mean. It it gonna hurt less? They usually don't anyway. How are you going to control this mini atomic bomb within the tiny canals of a tooth? Are you sure that all infected tissue will be removed? I'm waiting until, a lot of other dentists use this lease company's cash hog and it's proven to be really useful.
I refuse to purchase equipment which is just "gee wiz" dentistry. To date, the most useful dental device does NO DENTISTRY!--It is an intra-oral camera. It instantly stops the game the insurance company plays with me. It educates patients on what is really happening in their mouth and I DOCUMENT all suspicious fractures, deep caries, broken cusps, dirty teeth and gums, abscesses. Nobody can come back at me and say I didn't tell them. With picture, I've got them by the you know whats. I would never have believed that a camera would be so valuable. The truth is unbelievable.
Regards and thanks for the reply,
Larry Stein
Thanks for the reply. I truly enjoy you lucid explanations in this and other threads. Your thoughts and personal experience with the media mirror mine.
There is no way on earth that I would let a camera man and reporter into my practice for a "special". I know others that have done so and the story presented and the story told are usually 180 degrees apart. For that matter, I view with great suspicion and dentist, physician or attorney who "just happens" to be reporting on a new and improved technique or a more successful way to practice a field of law.
In my profession, implants and cosmetic dentistry are buzz words. These are fine procedures--when used as intended.
On the other hand, there are many, older techniques that are even more successful and, in fact are the "gold standard"
by which newer procedures are measured. Somehow these advantages get left out--in the treatment plan and in the (Oh! How I hate the term) marketing of the newer procedure.
Tell someone you use a laser and you must be the best. Truth be told, that laser is nothing but a $50,000 knife that has a lease to be paid. Suddenly, you are doing procedures that supposedly support its use but are in fact being done to pay for the "profit center". True, a laser may require no anesthetic but after that, it is a knife--plain and simple. Now we have lasers that cut tooth--except they don't properly expose all hidden decay so out comes the old fashioned drill. In additon, the FDA is still not sure if lased tooth surfaces are better than the non-lased surfaces.
Now we have laser root canals. What does that mean. It it gonna hurt less? They usually don't anyway. How are you going to control this mini atomic bomb within the tiny canals of a tooth? Are you sure that all infected tissue will be removed? I'm waiting until, a lot of other dentists use this lease company's cash hog and it's proven to be really useful.
I refuse to purchase equipment which is just "gee wiz" dentistry. To date, the most useful dental device does NO DENTISTRY!--It is an intra-oral camera. It instantly stops the game the insurance company plays with me. It educates patients on what is really happening in their mouth and I DOCUMENT all suspicious fractures, deep caries, broken cusps, dirty teeth and gums, abscesses. Nobody can come back at me and say I didn't tell them. With picture, I've got them by the you know whats. I would never have believed that a camera would be so valuable. The truth is unbelievable.
Regards and thanks for the reply,
Larry Stein
Dear Larry:
I see your point.
I would never allow a reporter in my office. In most instances, however, I can't keep them out of the courtroom. I just wish that they could, at a minimum, figure out who won the case.
I note with some dismay that the most recent issue of Newsweek that there are plaintiffs out there who are claiming that they were never told that "fast food" would make them fat and that they plan to sue.
Kind of makes you wonder what other new warning labels we will be seeing in the future.
I see your point.
I would never allow a reporter in my office. In most instances, however, I can't keep them out of the courtroom. I just wish that they could, at a minimum, figure out who won the case.
I note with some dismay that the most recent issue of Newsweek that there are plaintiffs out there who are claiming that they were never told that "fast food" would make them fat and that they plan to sue.
Kind of makes you wonder what other new warning labels we will be seeing in the future.
Similar threads
