Discussion on cancer research drugs (Split from Rob Steward Court Case Thread)

[CuzzA]

***MOD POST***

This thread was split from the Rob Steward Court Case thread.

This isn't a frivolous lawsuit like coffee in your lap while trying to drive.

For the record, neither was that.

 

[The Chairman]

For the record, neither was that.

What? Are you my auto-correct now? Most people see it as such and I'm OK with that. In any event, there wasn't a death involved.

 

[CuzzA]

What? Are you my auto-correct now? Most people see it as such and I'm OK with that. In any event, there wasn't a death involved.

No, I just thought it was interesting to learn the truth behind the infamous coffee in the lap suit. I was surprised, figured some would enjoy it.

 

[The Chairman]

Good for you... in any event, the initial award was way, way, way out of line for a non-life-altering event. I don't like coffee, much less McDonald's coffee and agree that it's way too hot (burned). I'll leave it at that. I have no idea how many lawsuits are motivated by naked greed, but as someone who also lost a son, I doubt it's the motivation here. In fact, it could well be that this need for justice is a part of their grieving process. Vengeance, no matter how ill thought out, is a huge motivator.

 

[doctormike]

Good for you... in any event, the initial award was way, way, way out of line for a non-life-altering event.

Off topic, but seriously, read the details before once again reinforcing what "everybody knows" online. I know that the genie will never be put back into the bottle on this one, but I think that it's important to understand a few things in the context of non-lawyers discussing the law (like I'm doing here).

The reason why the "conventional wisdom" on the coffee case might be relevant to a diving case is that we often just circle the wagons and decide ahead of time that any plaintiff is (1) mendacious, (2) only motivated by greed and the desire for an undeserved financial reward, and (3) represented by a person gaming the system for a windfall.

I'm not talking about the Stewart case specifically since I don't really have enough information to have an informed opinion. But the general point is that lots of people are injured because of negligent or outright illegal activities by others, and sometimes the only way those activities can be limited is by litigation.

In the McDonalds, case, you have a corporation that had had over seven hundred injuries over many years because of a business decision to sell coffee "not fit for consumption" (their words), with a number of lawsuits and no willingness to change anything. So in this case, the "out of line" verdict actually caused the company to change what they did, when the previous 700 injuries (including children an infants) had not.

I won't post them here because they are horrifying, but do a google image search for "liebeck burn photos" if you want to see what the injury was.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

a non-life-altering event

Uh, I'd consider those kinds of burns to my genitals as a life-altering event. I'd say McDonald's got off easy.

 

[The Chairman]

Uh, I'd consider those kinds of burns to my genitals as a life-altering event.

They healed. Sry, but it's not in the same league as a death or dismemberment to me.

 

[boulderjohn]

Trying to get the McDonald's case on topic for this discussion....

As doctormike correctly pointed out, McDonald's official coffee procedures required that they maintain it at a dangerous temperature because that high temperature supposedly benefited them enough that they were willing to accept the small awards doled out when customers were injured by it. They had apparently done a cost/benefit analysis that indicated that paying off a few burned customers here and there was worth the benefits they gained from the unsafe practices. It is similar to what happened with industries years ago who determined it was cheaper to pay small fines for polluting the atmosphere than to install the equipment needed to lower the emissions. It took a big and famous judgment like this one to make make McDonalds and supposedly other such businesses to change their practices.

A lot of people in this and related threads know a heck of a lot more about this case than I do. I seem to be the only one with no inside information. I am reading it with some interest, though, and as I do, I see some supposedly normal practices that are going to be scrutinized. It may be that this scrutiny will determine that the practices are acceptable, and so will continue. It may be that some practices may result in some beneficial changes.

 

[tridacna]

My wife is a PI attorney. She had a case against a car manufacturer who elected not to install airbags for financial reasons. (They used door mounted belts). Her client died when he was ejected from the car in a rear-ender. As part of discovery, a spreadsheet was found calculating the cost benefit analysis of installing air-bags.

“Annual average payout per death vs cost to install”. Simple business decision. No brainer.

Case was settled quickly after that was presented to defendant but info suppressed as condition of settlement. And fee was way lower than 33%. Sorry @mdb lawyers rarely collect that, only in Wki and the internet.

 

[mdb]

My wife is a PI attorney. She had a case against a car manufacturer who elected not to install airbags for financial reasons. (They used door mounted belts). Her client died when he was ejected from the car in a rear-ender. As part of discovery, a spreadsheet was found calculating the cost benefit analysis of installing air-bags.

“Annual average payout per death vs cost to install”. Simple business decision. No brainer.

Case was settled quickly after that was presented to defendant but info suppressed as condition of settlement. And fee was way lower than 33%. Sorry @mdb lawyers rarely collect that, only in Wki and the internet.

tridacna-Your good girl knows way more than I do.

I have two college friends who are Personal Injury attorneys.

They both have told me their average contingency fee is 20-40% of the awarded judgement.

I certainly don't know for sure.

I do know, from personal experience, that if there is an accident, particularly one reported in the
local news, that the phones start ringing with calls from Lawyers who "want to help".

I also know, when I turn on TV to watch the local evening news, that the majority of ads, at least here in Ann Arbor, are big pharm, and local attorneys.

Injured people certainly need help and a good attorney can provide such.