I knew this was George Bush's fault.

I Wear Pants;825978 wrote:Their own QA people told them the coffee was much hotter than most establishments, that at the temperatures it was served it would severely burn people if spilled/cup broke/whatever. Their internal research told them that people did not in fact wait until they got to their destination to drink their coffee (which was their argument in court as to why they had it so hot), and they had a history of people being burnt by it (which is to be expected to an extent with the amount of coffee they serve but still). How did you or they expect that case to turn out?

So if the coffee was extremely hot and most people didnt wait to get their destination, why were so few people burned?

I Wear Pants;826139 wrote:If you watched the "Hot Coffee" video they did show an interesting stat. Since Texas placed limitations on the amount that you could get for malpractice settlements insurance costs have gone up faster than before there was a limit. As did insurance company profits.

stlouiedipalma;826393 wrote:Of course. People want to use the "dumbass" and "common sense" arguments whenever a case such as this comes around, but they conveniently overlook the fact that the insurance companies (you, know, the ones who have our interests first and foremost) profit from them. And who represented all of these businesses and insurance companies to argue for tort reform: none other than Bush's point man Karl Rove.

Oh no, A private company raised their rates?

Maybe because stupid people sue for the stupidest crap.

Maybe if I smoke enough, and get cancer, I can sue the tobacco company for selling me a bad product.

stlouiedipalma;823985 wrote:Obviously you didn't see the program. The woman in the McDonald's case wasn't driving. She was a passenger in a car which, after going through the drive-thru, had pulled into a parking space and was at a complete stop when the beverage spilled. The vehicle she was in didn't have beverage holders and the cup didn't have a very good lid to hold the 190 degree coffee inside. The photos of her burns were shown and they aren't very pretty. She had to have skin grafts for burns inside her vagina. I'll admit that I didn't know the full details of this case and thought much as you do about it. I also didn't know that she only sued to collect the amount her insurance didn't cover.

After seeing this I now know more about what went on. I also know more about who led the charge for tort reform. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't any group of citizens, but was spearheaded by one man, who is well-versed in the art of public manipulation. Do yourself a favor and take the time to watch this documentary. It may not change your mind but at least you'll know more about the cases they present. Then you'll be able to comment on facts, not rumor and speculation.

What a stupid broad. So she was sitting still when it spilled? And a judge ruled in her favor, must have been a woman judge.

What a great "get rich quick" plan, that worked!!

Insurance premiums have gone down in Texas. I have attached an article from the Texas Medical Assocation, supporting a 27% decrease in premium since enactment of Tort Reform.

http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=780

coyotes22;826463 wrote:Oh no, A private company raised their rates?

Maybe because stupid people sue for the stupidest crap.

Maybe if I smoke enough, and get cancer, I can sue the tobacco company for selling me a bad product.

There are warnings on the box of cigs. Your comparison is invalid

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

Little Danny;826688 wrote:Insurance premiums have gone down in Texas. I have attached an article from the Texas Medical Assocation, supporting a 27% decrease in premium since enactment of Tort Reform.

http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=780

I see that. Something was shown as having gone up in the video. I must have been recalling what they said incorrectly.

^^ What has gone up is claim severity (average payout in claims). The reason for this is Tort Reform knocks out a lot of your lesser damages cases. The cost of pursuing these cases are very expensive. With non-economic damage caps, plaintiff attorneys are now only aggressively pursuing cases that have large economic damages (which are uncapped) to get the most bang for their buck. Ten years ago, for every six or seven figure settlement insurers lumped in a $5K-25K settlement or two which made the average payout look better than it actually was.

There are warnings on the box of cigs. Your comparison is invalid

Was the steam coming off of the coffee or the temperature of the cup as sensed by the fingertips a warning?

FYI
Smokers have been suing tobacco companies since the 1950s. Until recently, they have been almost entirely unsuccessful--mainly because tobacco companies argued effectively that smoking is a personal choice and that people have known of its harmful side effects for years. That argument is proving less effective these days as plaintiffs produce documents proving that cigarette makers have known all along their product is addictive. The next logical inference--if cigarettes are addictive, then people don't choose to smoke them--has led to a couple of multimillion-dollar jury awards in recent months. In February, a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a woman who said she developed inoperable lung cancer from smoking, and a month later, a state jury in Oregon awarded $81 million to the family of a man who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for 40 years before his death. Both awards were cut in half by the trial judges, and the cases are still on appeal.

http://www.slate.com/id/1005187/

The burns that Ms. Liebeck incurred. Posted it as a link because it's pretty graphic and NSFW.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A7RAtyuT2dQ/ThCjlw1qpqI/AAAAAAAAAFs/4tj5rmeCq7w/s320/stella+liebeck+burns+%25282%2529.jpg

The question is though, do people not have faith in jury's to make the correct decision? Very few cases ever get to a jury and yet we should let some legislators in Columbus or Washington decide that there ought to be damage caps rather than let the juries of reasonable peers determine what they ought to be based upon each unique set of facts?

I thought the coffee in the McD's case was way above industry and FDA standards which is why she won the case.

I know if you go to Starbucks they won't heat the coffee over a certain temp because of regulations.

LJ;826997 wrote:I thought the coffee in the McD's case was way above industry and FDA standards which is why she won the case.

I know if you go to Starbucks they won't heat the coffee over a certain temp because of regulations.

It was 40-50 degrees hotter than pretty much any other company serves it. And their own QA people had told them it was a burn hazard and testified as such.

That is why they lost the case and badly. People touting "common sense", etc are just trying to cloud the issue.

And Boatshoes makes and excellent point. Why is the jury system not good enough?

An excellent point, and one made during the documentary, that caps on damages effectively circumvents the justice system because it considers the jury unable to determine damage awards.

stlouiedipalma;826393 wrote:...(you, know, the ones who have our interests first and foremost) ....

??? I understand this was inserted sarcastically but I am curious why anyone would think a for profit entity would exist for your interest "first and foremost"?

BoatShoes;826992 wrote:...

The question is though, do people not have faith in jury's to make the correct decision? Very few cases ever get to a jury and yet we should let some legislators in Columbus or Washington decide that there ought to be damage caps rather than let the juries of reasonable peers determine what they ought to be based upon each unique set of facts?

This is a very interesting question worth soliciting views on. I think I know what the collective might answer but am far from sure about it.

I Wear Pants;827077 wrote:That is why they lost the case and badly.

The ultimate settlement was peanuts, but that doesn't get headlines in the papers.

And Boatshoes makes and excellent point. Why is the jury system not good enough?

Better put the court system worked even though arguably the jury system failed. She got a settlement in an amount far less than continuing the fight would have cost.

Con_Alma;827741 wrote:??? I understand this was inserted sarcastically but I am curious why anyone would think a for profit entity would exist for your interest "first and foremost"?

One of the biggest arguments against Obamacare is that no one wants a government bureaucrat to determine what is covered and what is not. Given that argument I can only surmise that people would rather have an insurance company bureaucrat decide what is covered and what is not. That leads me to believe that many people feel that the insurance companies are looking out for our welfare.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as the insurance companies only care about us when the premium is due.

stlouiedipalma;828528 wrote:One of the biggest arguments against Obamacare is that no one wants a government bureaucrat to determine what is covered and what is not. Given that argument I can only surmise that people would rather have an insurance company bureaucrat decide what is covered and what is not. ....

I didn't dispute anything you posted there and still ask why would anyone think that a for profit company would exist for your interest first and foremost?

I do not want a government officials making healthcare decisions for me.

I do not want want companies making healthcare decisions for me and they don't.

My and my doctor make my medical decisions.

I laughed at the lady asking for my insurance care when I took my son to get his physical. I asked her why I would want to claim a physical on my insurance? She didn't have an answer. I told her that I sign papers every time I come into a medical facility claiming that I am ultimately financially liable for the services rendered. One form of potential payment for those services is my medical insurance. It's one form, not the only form and it isn't even the primary form of payment that we choose to use. It's for catastrophic medical scenarios. They don't decide what procedure get's performed and what doesn't.


People are going to say that the average folk can't afford most medical visits they make. Maybe that's because those folks are using their homes as their largest savings vehicle according to another thread I read on here. It's sad.

I have a lot of feelings about Tort Reform as I work in the industry. I have heard and discused all sides of the topic. The proponents for Tort Reform state it is necessary to stablize the medical malpractice insurance market. I can personally attest to how it affected us here in Ohio:

Tort Reform was passed in 2003, limiting the noneconomic damges (pain and suffering awards) to $250K-500K for noncatastrophic injuries and $500K-1M for catastrophic injuries (loss of limb, loss of use of an organ, brain injuries, etc.). Insurers stated it was necessary so that they can appropriate set rates. Prior to this, the medical malpractice insurance companies operating on a loss from 1997-2004 (the prior Tort Reform measure had been struck down in 1996). Physician premiums skyrocketed. Doctors left the state to go to other states that had lower premiums (Tort Reform states like California [oddly enough, insurance for a physician in CA is cheaper than OH] and Indiana. After Tort Reform was passed, the companies started to turn a profit in 2005. Physician rates have now decreased every year and you are seeing more retention of physicians in the state.

Having worked in the industry for over 15 years, I have seen it all. I have personally seen juries hand down awards over $30M (twice), I have seen juries overevaluate a case, I have seen juries give too little and I have seen them give nothing at all when there probably should have been an award. I think for the most part juries do get it right. I also see how it has benefitted not just the physicians and insurance carriers in Ohio, but all of the citizens as well who have been able to keep their physicians from closing their doors.

Let me add one more point, Tort Reform does not just constitute non-economic damage caps. Other things seen are are caps on attorneys fees and requirements for an Affidavit from an expert in the same field as the defendant attached to the filing of the Complaint. The Affidavit of Merit requirement has gone a long way IMO of weeding out "friviolous" cases. If you don't have an expert who can criticize the defendants, you aren't going anywhere with your case.

The worst part of Tort reform Is damage caps.

When you cap punitive and compensatory damages, you allow a business to cost average "damages" into shitty or poorly performing products.

For instance, Honda may know of a manufacturing problem in the exhaust system in their cars. Instead of recalling 4 million vehicles and spending 200 bucks apiece to repair them, they just may to decide to let the courts sort it out. If it goes to court, and the damages are capped, they could save BILLIONS.


Big deal if little johnny is brain damaged and can't support himself the rest of his life. The company has damages offset to the caps. pays a million, and little johnny is supported by Medicaid and Social security for the rest of his life.

Devils Advocate;829819 wrote:The worst part of Tort reform Is damage caps.

When you cap punitive and compensatory damages, you allow a business to cost average "damages" into ****ty or poorly performing products.

For instance, Honda may know of a manufacturing problem in the exhaust system in their cars. Instead of recalling 4 million vehicles and spending 200 bucks apiece to repair them, they just may to decide to let the courts sort it out. If it goes to court, and the damages are capped, they could save BILLIONS.


Big deal if little johnny is brain damaged and can't support himself the rest of his life. The company has damages offset to the caps. pays a million, and little johnny is supported by Medicaid and Social security for the rest of his life.

Damage caps are for non-economic awards only (pain and suffering). Economic damages (medical bills, life care plans, loss of future earnings, loss of household services) are not capped.

Little Danny;829862 wrote:Damage caps are for non-economic awards only (pain and suffering). Economic damages (medical bills, life care plans, loss of future earnings, loss of household services) are not capped.

Fair enough, but punitive damages are capped as well. and as far as pain, suffering , and emotional distess, how can you put a number ( by latislative action) on keeping care of an invalid child the rest of its' life?

Devils Advocate;830100 wrote:Fair enough, but punitive damages are capped as well. and as far as pain, suffering , and emotional distess, how can you put a number ( by latislative action) on keeping care of an invalid child the rest of its' life?

It's not easy, but you have to do it. To be compensated, we have to figure out how much a life (or a limb, or mental health, or whatever else) is worth.

FWIW, the issue isn't that the lady didn't know the coffee was hot; it's that the coffee was unreasonably hot. The idea is that you can warn about a danger, and yet if your warning doesn't serve to put people on notice of the actual danger, that's not quite good enough. E.g., if I put a sign on my lawn that says "Stay off grass -- Danger!", and then I bury land mines throughout the yard, I'm not likely to stay out of trouble because landmines aren't exactly something that can be foreseen by a sign warning about danger. (That's obviously hyperbole to illustrate the point).

Devils Advocate;829819 wrote:The worst part of Tort reform Is damage caps.

When you cap punitive and compensatory damages, you allow a business to cost average "damages" into ****ty or poorly performing products.

For instance, Honda may know of a manufacturing problem in the exhaust system in their cars. Instead of recalling 4 million vehicles and spending 200 bucks apiece to repair them, they just may to decide to let the courts sort it out. If it goes to court, and the damages are capped, they could save BILLIONS.

Those calculations go on regardless of whether there are damage caps. Every piece of litigation I have ever seen involves a preliminary analysis of risk/potential cost so the client can determine how much to budget to fight a lawsuit.

fan_from_texas;830142 wrote:It's not easy, but you have to do it. To be compensated, we have to figure out how much a life (or a limb, or mental health, or whatever else) is worth.

FWIW, the issue isn't that the lady didn't know the coffee was hot; it's that the coffee was unreasonably hot. The idea is that you can warn about a danger, and yet if your warning doesn't serve to put people on notice of the actual danger, that's not quite good enough. E.g., if I put a sign on my lawn that says "Stay off grass -- Danger!", and then I bury land mines throughout the yard, I'm not likely to stay out of trouble because landmines aren't exactly something that can be foreseen by a sign warning about danger. (That's obviously hyperbole to illustrate the point).




Those calculations go on regardless of whether there are damage caps. Every piece of litigation I have ever seen involves a preliminary analysis of risk/potential cost so the client can determine how much to budget to fight a lawsuit.

Isn't that the same sort of thing conservatives scream about when talking about the "death panels" and such?