Mother of deceased Chiefs LB Jovan Belcher sues the team

[RamFan503]

Yep. Like they did. The woman had a valid legal argument and the jury awarded her damages.

Wow.

 

[jrry32]

Wow.

Wow...what? There was legal merit to her case. Which is why it wasn't thrown out by a judge. The media chose to misrepresent the case and make it seem like it was some travesty and a frivolous lawsuit. It wasn't. If you want to read some of the facts of the case...here you go:
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

If you don't want to, you don't have to. But there was legal merit to the case. Here are some things pulled from the link I just posted that I thought were worth relaying:

McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.

McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”

The elements necessary to prove negligence are a duty of care owed, a breach of that duty, proximate cause and damages. The woman was owed a duty of care as a business invitee at McDonalds. The duty was breached when she was injured due to the actions of the company. The coffee was the proximate cause of her injuries. The coffee causing severe burns was foreseeable because McDonalds admitted that there were over 700 other documented cases of injuries that it had caused in the past and they had done nothing to fix the issue. She suffered significant damage to her body due to the burns from the coffee.

Sorry man but there's absolutely legal merit to a negligence case here. And then a jury of our peers heard the case and found in HER favor. They also, though, found her negligent for her own unsafe actions. Which is called comparative negligence. They put 20% of the blame on her and 80% of the blame on McDonalds. Because of this, she was only entitled to 80% of what they awarded her.

Also, the jury only awarded her $160,000 for her injuries. The $2.7 million was PUNITIVE against McDonalds. Basically, they wanted to penalize McDonalds because they felt McDonalds didn't care about the injuries they had caused. It wasn't hurting their wallet. The $2.7 million was REDUCED by the Judge down to $480,000 due to caps set on punitive damages. McDonalds and the woman then settled to avoid appeals.

 

[RamFan503]

I guess we have a different definition of a sensible award. To me there is no way a half a million dollars is justified for what occurred. And I find the idea that it's ok because a company has "deep pockets" abhorrent. The link you posted is from the Consumer Attorneys of California. Y'know - the very a-holes needing to make sure these kinds of suits can continue. You think what they list as evidence is verbatim? The woman was willing to settle for $20,000.00. And the jury awards her $3 MILLION? Yeah THAT sounds sensible.

As I said

Juries are prone to award damages because they feel for the "victim" and not for the side they feel has deep pockets.

Your contention was that if frivolous, the jury would find in favor of the team or the case would be thrown out. It's hardly the case when someone sues in civil court against an entity with deep pockets. Juries often overlook important aspects of the facts and/or common sense and judges only sometimes rule against their findings and when they do it is usually to reduce an absolutely ridiculous reward to merely a ridiculous award.

So now we pay more for virtually everything due in large part to ridiculous lawsuits being filed by morons and their attorneys looking for the quick riches.

 

[jrry32]

I guess we have a different definition of a sensible award. To me there is no way a half a million dollars is justified for what occurred. And I find the idea that it's ok because a company has "deep pockets" abhorrent. The link you posted is from the Consumer Attorneys of California. Y'know - the very a-holes needing to make sure these kinds of suits can continue. You think what they list as evidence is verbatim? The woman was willing to settle for $20,000.00. And the jury awards her $3 MILLION? Yeah THAT sounds sensible.

So you're just going to ignore it because you don't like the source? That seems close-minded. What they listed were plaintiff's arguments from the case. Whether or not you agree, those were the crux of the case.

The jury didn't award HER $3 million. That's what you're ignoring. THEY PENALIZED MCDONALDS. It's two different things. They were awarded her $160,000.

Your contention was that if frivolous, the jury would find in favor of the team or the case would be thrown out. It's hardly the case when someone sues in civil court against an entity with deep pockets. Juries often overlook important aspects of the facts and/or common sense and judges only sometimes rule against their findings and when they do it is usually to reduce an absolutely ridiculous reward to merely a ridiculous award.

Precisely. And the case wasn't thrown out. Because it wasn't frivolous. As I just proved to you. They sued McDonalds for product liability/negligence and there were legal merits to a negligence case. Because the lawyers were able to PROVE that all the elements necessary to prove negligence WERE MET. Which allowed them to take the case to the jury and they won.

Don't like it? That's the system.

Here's what the Judge said after he ruled on the punitive damages(dropping them to $480,000):

I think that there was evidence and argument about the Defendant’s knowledge that the coffee could cause serious, third degree, full tissue burns. The Defendant McDonald’s knew that the coffee, at the time it was served, was too hot for human consumption . . . . [T]he written transcript is not going to reveal the attitudes of corporate indifference presented by demeanor or of the witnesses for the Defendant McDonald’s as well as their employees, but the jury was exposed to it and I think that they properly considered it in their deliberations. And let me say that with knowing the risk of harm, the evidence and testimony would indicate that McDonald’s consciously made no serious effort to warn its consumers by placing just the most simple, adequate warning on the lid of the cup in which the coffee was served. . . . This is all evidence of culpable corporate mental state and I conclude that the award of punitive damages is and was appropriate to punish and deter the Defendant for their wanton conduct and to send a clear message to this Defendant that corrective measures are appropriate.

The Judge, Robert H. Scott, is now a Federal District Court Judge. I think he'd know the law well enough to know if a case was frivolous or not.

You weren't there to hear the facts of the case and the case has been misrepresented by the media. But the idea that it was a frivolous lawsuit is unfounded.

 

[RamFan503]

You're boring me.

 

[jrry32]

You're boring me.

Well, can't say I didn't try. People have their beliefs. But I think the widely held belief on frivolous lawsuits has been fueled by misrepresentation. The legal system is complicated and confusing so a lot of people just don't bother. But there a lot of safeguards in place to prevent frivolous lawsuits. And to be frank, frivolous lawsuits are not in the best interest of attorneys.

It's like saying we should stop people from investing in high risk securities. There are more than enough safeguards and warnings in place. People know what they're doing. If they want to risk blowing their money, go right on ahead. On rare occasion, someone might hit big but the vast vast majority are just going to end up bankrupt.

The same is true of attorneys taking on frivolous lawsuits. I'm sure there have been a very small amount of frivolous lawsuits that were won but for the most parts, all the attorneys are going to do is waste their time and money on a long-shot. That's how you go broke. And that's why good attorneys will stay far away. Keep in mind that the good attorneys get a percentage of what they win. So if they lose, they get nothing. But they still have to pay off the $10,000s or even $100,000s in expenses they spend on the case.

Call me biased because my old man is an attorney but having done some clerking and being around lawyers a little too often, people blow this issue way out of proportion. Lawyers get a bum wrap too. Not all of them are money-driven, ambulance chasing snakes. Only 99.9%. :wink:

P.S. I'll be taking the LSAT in a month so I might be becoming one of those snakes in a few years. We'll see. :bigup:

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah I'm sure we're never going to see eye to eye on this. I started college pre-law/political science and spent several years in politics including working for an outfit that among several other things was working on tort reform. Many of the cases that we reviewed were just sickening and frankly very destructive.

 

[jrry32]

Yeah I'm sure we're never going to see eye to eye on this. I started college pre-law/political science and spent several years in politics including working for an outfit that among several other things was working on tort reform. Many of the cases that we reviewed were just sickening and frankly very destructive.

Oof. Not a fan of politics. Interned in the State Senate. Didn't mind the work but didn't like the people.

 

[RamFan503]

Oof. Not a fan of politics. Interned in the State Senate. Didn't mind the work but didn't like the people.

On THAT we can agree. Note that I USED to be involved in politics. I actually enjoyed the work and the public but actual politicians? :disappoint:

 

[jrry32]

On THAT we can agree. Note that I USED to be involved in politics. I actually enjoyed the work and the public but actual politicians? :disappoint:

Definitely feel the same way.