America, land of the....sued

Spec · March 25, 2003, 16:58

America, the land of the sued.....why is that?

Why do everyone sue everyone overthere?
Why does a fat lady sue McDonalds because she's fat? I never seen a Big Mac forcing its way into a mouth! I've seen one forcing its way out though...Plus McDonald dont even deliver!! The woman HAD to have a part of responsibility it her "fatness". And she still has a chance to win?!?!
Why does a man that gets cut with his saw sue the company that made it? HE is using the frikin saw, the company that made it didn't put his finger in front of it, and if the guy thought it wasn't safe, why did he buy it?
Why does an old lady sue Kenmore because her cat died when she tried tp dry it in the microwave? How stupid can the old bag be? That's why we have instructions in microwave manuals today that state:" Do not use to dry pets". No shlt Sherlock!

Why does a burgglar sue the owner of a house he tried to rob because the owners dog bit his hand when he stuck it inside the window to try to open it?! He won the bastard!

What the f**k is that all about? How can these people have a chance to win? How can your legal system be that.......sorry but.....stupid?
Here in Canada a women tried the same thing. She tried to sue Imperial tabacco because she could'nt stop smoking. The Juge condemned her to 2 month in jail for (sorry I only know the legal terms in french) waste of time for the court (outrage a la cour) and bashing the reputation of Imperial Tabacco (atteinte a la réputation).
I think that THAT is what she deserved.

Spec.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 17:02

Because we believe that everyone should have a right to sue. We don't throw people in jail for trying to exercise their rights to sue (though we may fine them for frivolous lawsuits).

Ming · March 25, 2003, 17:05

The problem is that in many cases, the people actually win those Silly Lawsuits... sigh...

Shi Huangdi · March 25, 2003, 17:06

"
What the f**k is that all about? How can these people have a chance to win? How can your legal system be that.......sorry but.....stupid?
Here in Canada a women tried the same thing. She tried to sue Imperial tabacco because she could'nt stop smoking. The Juge condemned her to 2 month in jail for (sorry I only know the legal terms in french) waste of time for the court (outrage a la cour) and bashing the reputation of Imperial Tabacco (atteinte a la réputation).
I think that THAT is what she deserved. "

That is horrible. It is the fundamental right of people in a civil society ask to seek redress for wrongs comitted against them.

Spec · March 25, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
The problem is that in many cases, the people actually win those Silly Lawsuits... sigh...

Exactly.....but why is that? Why cant the juges just tell those people that they are stupid? I dont get that. It's like if they were rewarded or compensated for their stupidity.

Spec.

ColdWizard · March 25, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Spectator
America, the land of the sued.....why is that?

Why do everyone sue everyone overthere?

Lawyers run the country.

Pekka · March 25, 2003, 17:10

I agree with Ming here. It's everyones right to sue (in other countries too, just a reminder

), but in the US they win often. So.. because of that it makes many people opportunists.. suing when they really don't feel violated, rather they just want money. But that's not the fault of the system. People are greedy.

Spec · March 25, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That is horrible. It is the fundamental right of people in a civil society ask to seek redress for wrongs comitted against them.

WRONG?!?! WRONG!?!?!?! What the **** is wrong there? The stupid old bag tried to dry her cat in a MICROWAVE!!! The guy tried to ROB the house and he got bit INSIDE the house (If I'm right you can shoot someone that comes in your house...but your dog cant bite him..

)! The lady eats at McDonalds becuase SHE LIKES IT and she is fat because she eats to MUCH!!

They are stupid.

Spec.

ColdWizard · March 25, 2003, 17:12

lawyers and judges let people win silly lawsuits, so that more people will sue so that more lawyers can make more money

Kirnwaffen · March 25, 2003, 17:14

It's a good question, and a major issue in the US.

The original intent of civil lawsuits was, I believe, to ensure a certain amount of equality and fairness under the law. Today, they are more often used to satisfy feelings of entitlement and outright greed.

In the medical field, people simply seem to forget that doctors are human, and as fallible as any other human being. Emotions run high when the death of a loved one is involved, and people forget that the original intent was not to harm.

Perhaps the greatest cause of lawsuits in America is lawyers. Civil litigation is a very profitable way to maintain a practice, hence the phrase "ambulance chasers". A lot of these guys have no ethics, and no regard for the consequences of a lawsuit. They take advantage of people who are emotionally vulnerable and lure them with the possibility of huge compensation for their state, loss, or injury.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 17:17

Quote:

The problem is that in many cases, the people actually win those Silly Lawsuits... sigh...

... and then are reversed on Appeal, but that doesn't make good sensationalist news, does it?

--

And besides MOST of the changes in the law or practices came from lawsuits. Ford stopped making deathtraps like the Pinto because they were sued!

Frankychan · March 25, 2003, 17:18

A lot of American's have lost their common sense.

What pisses me off is where thieves go into a house to rob it, hurt themselves and sue the house owners, then win!

WTF is that all about?

Aro · March 25, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
................
Here in Canada a women tried the same thing. She tried to sue Imperial tabacco because she could'nt stop smoking. The Juge condemned her to 2 month in jail for (sorry I only know the legal terms in french) waste of time for the court (outrage a la cour) and bashing the reputation of Imperial Tabacco (atteinte a la réputation).
.................

2 month in jail... without cigarettes.

Everybody would be happy, including her...

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 17:35

2 months in jail for wasting the court's time is harsh, to say the least. I agree her case should have been dismissed as soon as the judge has seen it, and she should have paid a big fine for her absurd case. But 2 months in prison ? I don't call this justice

flash9286 · March 25, 2003, 17:41

well the people who sued the tobacco companies won becuase the tobacco lied about it being addicted and it health problems.

CerberusIV · March 25, 2003, 17:44

I'm not sure if it is true but I have heard that Adolf Hitler once said "I shall not rest until every German realises it is a disgrace to be a lawyer".

If it is true then I agree with him on one thing.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The problem is that in many cases, the people actually win those Silly Lawsuits... sigh...

... and then are reversed on Appeal, but that doesn't make good sensationalist news, does it?

--

And besides MOST of the changes in the law or practices came from lawsuits. Ford stopped making deathtraps like the Pinto because they were sued!

I think this bears repeating for those who want to ignore the reality of the situation.

Spec · March 25, 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
2 months in jail for wasting the court's time is harsh, to say the least. I agree her case should have been dismissed as soon as the judge has seen it, and she should have paid a big fine for her absurd case. But 2 months in prison ? I don't call this justice

She had the choice between paying 50000$ or 2 months in Jail. She chose jail. As we all know, she'll be out in 2 weeks.

Spec.

Lonestar · March 25, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Spectator

WRONG?!?! WRONG!?!?!?! What the **** is wrong there? The stupid old bag tried to dry her cat in a MICROWAVE!!!

Spec.

That would be called an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/micropet.htm

Flubber · March 25, 2003, 18:19

Most of the silliest wins come from jury trials. I think most other places use them much more rarely than the US.

In Canada, a jury trial is possible in civil matters but it represents a miniscule proportion of matters going to trial.

Most of the silliest decisions are reversed on appeal . . . whether the decision was jury or judge.

For example I remember a thread where people decried the Canadian court system when a judge acquitted an inmate of a weapons charge when he had fashioned a weapon out of available materials. People even characterized the decision as providing the prisoners with a "right" to arm themselves. I saw in the paper this weekend that the trial court reversed 3-0 on appeal in a pretty forthright decision.

Spec · March 25, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar

That would be called an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/micropet.htm

EDIT: That is not what I heard happened. The cat did not exploded but died because it's fluid boiled and the cat's brain died of "overheating". But ok, I give you that one, I didn't know. Anyhow, you know what I mean, I could find hundreds of examples like that one.

BTW, I wonder why it says:" Dont use while wearing clothes" in the instruction manual of an iron. Maybe someone sued....

Spec.

ThePantaloonDog · March 25, 2003, 18:56

A lot of these are reversed, I believe the 'McDonald's coffee is too hot' case got thrown out just recently.

The trouble with much AMerica's civil legal system is juries. Many of these outrageous lawsuits are won in jury trials, usually when a judge gets a hold of the case they throw it out as frivilous. The reasons for this I can't fully explain but juries in civil courts are one of the major problems in our legal system.

Dis · March 25, 2003, 21:25

I hadn't heard the mcdonald's burn case got thrown out.

The woman did burn the hell out of her cooch.

Spec · March 25, 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I hadn't heard the mcdonald's burn case got thrown out.

The woman did burn the hell out of her cooch.

Yea well she deserved it. Who drives around with a hot coffee between his/her legs.

To me, that's just looking for trouble.
Next time she'll buy a car with a cup holder.

Spec.

Dis · March 25, 2003, 22:11

well I agree.

but we have to protect stupid people from themselves. I believe that is in the constitution now.

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 22:29

What disturbs me is the willingness to find a culprit for every accident that happens, or every stupidity.
This trend has originated in the US, but is now spreading in the rest of the world (of the West at least). It doesn't only lie on the greed of the complainants. It also lies on the belief every problem is somebody's fault.

I've read an interesting book, where the author explains how today's consumer, who just loves to be pampered, is glorifying both the children and the victims, for they symbolize the complete lack of responsibility. You might want to check out Pascal Bruckner's The Temptation of Innocence (I thought it was an eye opener when I was 18).

The trend of going to court for whatever reason, even when the problem is the complainant's fault, seems to be a consequence of this glorification of irresponsibility. Whereas judges follow the logic of the law, juries are sympathetic to the plight of the complainant. And the one who should be responsible in all cases, the incriminated professional, must pay ridiculous amounts.

I don't know if you had such a case on your side of the pond, but a case in France one year ago really hit the fan. A mentally-handicapped boy was born in the early 80's, after the doctor didn't detect any abnormality. In 2002, the mother's problem was the survival of her son once she'll die of old age. Guess what she did to find money for her son ? Did she turn to welfare ? Did she turn to charity ? No, she sued the doctor who made a mistake 20 years ago, and the worst is that she won. Needless to say, as it was a precedent, all doctors were threatened to have such trials for every error with dire consequences they have made. Insurance premiums for doctors skyrocketed. Luckily, the politicians put a stop to this madness.
This woman wanted to milk millions from a doctor because of her child being handicapped. I think it is the worse case of "stupid trials" I've heard of until now.

(If you are interested in this matter, the whole affair is called "arrêt Perruche" )

Imran Siddiqui · March 26, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

I think this bears repeating for those who want to ignore the reality of the situation.

Che quoted me and agreed! I feel 'shock and awe'

.

Quote:

The trouble with much AMerica's civil legal system is juries. Many of these outrageous lawsuits are won in jury trials, usually when a judge gets a hold of the case they throw it out as frivilous. The reasons for this I can't fully explain but juries in civil courts are one of the major problems in our legal system.

That does seem to the be the interesting part. Many judges would love to rule opposite of the jury on some cases, but a JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) can only be used sparingly. We aren't doing a good job as juries. This is reason #4023 for why we should teach MORE civics in schools (especially in elementary schools). Tell people what the system is!

Spec · March 26, 2003, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
well I agree.

but we have to protect stupid people from themselves. I believe that is in the constitution now.

That's funny....but sadning at the same time....

Spec.

TheStinger · March 26, 2003, 09:43

In the UK we realise we can't trust people in civil cases. The problem is that juries will find for the plantiff because they are usually aginst a corporation or someone with insurance and they therefreo don't see the harm in finding for them.

Civil cases are often about the law rtaher than who you believe as in a criminal case. Judges should make the decision.

Spec · March 26, 2003, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
What disturbs me is the willingness to find a culprit for every accident that happens, or every stupidity.
This trend has originated in the US, but is now spreading in the rest of the world (of the West at least). It doesn't only lie on the greed of the complainants. It also lies on the belief every problem is somebody's fault.
The trend of going to court for whatever reason, even when the problem is the complainant's fault, seems to be a consequence of this glorification of irresponsibility. Whereas judges follow the logic of the law, juries are sympathetic to the plight of the complainant. And the one who should be responsible in all cases, the incriminated professional, must pay ridiculous amounts.

Exactly the problem. If you make a mistake anywhere, you can get sued, and if you're just plain stupid, you can sue.

Where is the, "humans make mistakes", "people learn from their mistakes", "only god doesn't make mistakes" and so on... There is no margin of error anymore.

What gets to me is exactly this:
If I'm walking down the street and I'm looking at a nice looking car (An RX-7 or something

) and break my foot because I trip on a crack in the street, I can sue!! It would be my frikin fault! I'm the one not looking in front of me, cracks are a normal thing in streets, the city cant check every street for every crack. Injuries are part of life, otherwise, we would'nt have evolved to heal...

Spec.