I've seen some posts here about the stupidity of the American justice system, the evil avarice of attorneys, etc.

One well known example of the unbridled and unjustified greed of lawyers which results in the twisting of the justice system is the now infamous McDonald's coffee case.

I recently read the case. Here are a few interesting facts from it, with only one short editorial comment at the end.

1. Plaintiff was a passenger in her grandson's car. The grandson pulled away from the window and parked. Plaintiff set the cup between her knees to take the cover off in order to add cream and sugar. As she removed the cover, the entire contents spilled into her lap.

2. Plaintiff suffered third degree burns (full thickness) to 6% of her body including inner thighs, buttocks, genitals, and groin area according to her vascular surgeon. She was hospitalized for 8 days and underwent skin grafting.

3. The plaintiff sought to settle her claim for $20,000. This amount would have covered the differnce in her medical bill and what insurance covered. A mediator had suggested a settlement of $225,000. McDonald's refused the offer to settle for $20,000.

4. During discovery, the following facts were admitted by McDonalds:

(a) McDonalds produced documents showing over 700 claims made by people burned by their coffee from 1982-1992.

(b) Some of those claims involved 3rd degree burns similar to the plaintiffs.

(c) McDonalds heated its coffee to 185-190 degrees, other businesses heat their coffee to a max of 140.

(d) McDonalds quality assurance manager testified the company knew a burn hazard existed at 140 degrees and above and knew the routine temperature of their coffee was 185.

(e) He also testified he knew that coffee served above 180 degrees was not fit for human consumption.

(f) medical testimony established at 155 degrees, plaintiff would have avoided serious burns.

(g) Prior to the plaintiffs accident, the Shriners burn hospital had formally requested McDonalds reduce the temperature of its coffee as it posed a serious burn hazard.

(h) McDonalds admitted knowing most people consume their coffee immediately.

(i) McDonalds manual recommended heating its coffee to 185 degrees as a cost saving measure, thinking that they would have to empty the pot and brew coffee less often if it was superheated (ed note: actually higher temps burns up the taste more quickly.)

(j) The same McDonalds manual that recommended superheating the coffee noted that consuming food at a temperature over 150 degrees can cause severe burning.

(k) Many of the McDonalds representatives were caught in lies on the stand (too numerous to report them all.)

5. The jury determined the severe burns were 20% the fault of the plaintiff, so the reward was accordingly reduced 20% since it was a comparative fault state. Plaintiff was rewarded 160,000 in compensatory damages. The jury rewarded 2.7 million dollars, the amount of money McDonalds makes in 2 days from selling coffee, in punitive damages but the court reduced that amount to 480,000 (three times compensatory) though it noted McDonalds conduct was "reckless, callous and willful."

6. The case was later settled confidentially.

So, now for the editorial comment. This is one of the most commonly cited cases for how greedy lawyers are and how ridiculous law suits are now common. After reading the case I agree with the jury. (note that this is not the same as saying they were at fault for her spilling the coffee, it is to say they were 50% at fault for her burns being as severe as they were. If they were 2nd degree burns she could have paid $650 dollars and gone home that day -- normal coffee is unlikely to be even this bad.)

Even if you disagree with the judgment, can't you at least admit there was some merit in the case?

I wonder how many of those who criticize this and other "miscarriages of justice" have read the case?

[ October 22, 2002, 23:29: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

That has got to hurt, badly too. One minute the coffee is in the cup, the next, searing your crotch! :coffee:

Good point Laches. I never heard all these facts before.

Try this one though ... drunken man on the South Side of Chicago is trying to get home in the dead of night.

He jumps a 6' fence to get onto the Dan Ryan Expressway.

He jumps another 5' fence to get the the "L" (Electric Rail) tracks.

He whips "it" out and urniates on the 3rd rail ... and dies of electrocution.

His wife sues the city and wins ... jury states that the fences should have been higher.

I just wish it wasn't a true case :(

Um. I'm a lawyer...You talking to me?!?!?!?!?

Thanks for providing some insight. The way it was reported in the media made it seem absurd. Having seen these facts, I agree with the jury.

That was some rather interesting information there. Now, that has given me something to think about. Isn't amazing what little facts the media leaves out of the story, not telling a lie, but not the entire truth.

I object to the term "superheated" being used in various places in the above testimony to describe McDonalds coffee temperature. As everyone knows, superheating a liquid means raising its temperature above its boiling point, yet keeping it from vaporizing. As the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Farenheit, using the term "superheated" in the above testimony is erroneous, and I recommend the entire brief be judged inadmissible due to its obvious inaccuracy.

How'd I do Bel? :lol:

BTA - Excellent! Maybe I should mail you my law license!!! ;)

ROFL BTA. I honestly thought this was a stupid case of how some people are always seeking the blame for another, but in light of this new evidence, I have to say that I agree with the jury now as well.

What about this case though:
A couple of kids were mowing lawns (as many kids do) to earn some spending money. One of their customers asked if they could trim the bushes as well. The kids did not have any equipment to do bushes, so rather than tell the man that they could not do that, they grabbed the blades of their lawnmowers and used it as weed trimmers. Needless to say, their hands were cut off. The jury awarded the kids $1 million. I fail to see how anyone but the kids would be responsible for this.

I remember hearing that the coffee was much hotter than normally, and McDonalds knew that it was dangerously hot. I didn't know all of the facts you cited about the case, but did know it was more than "some idiot put a hot cup of coffee in her crotch and then sued when she got burned".

I agree that there is often more to cases than the public is generally aware of.

But, I still think most lawyers are greedy, conniving bastards with little or no compassion.

[ October 23, 2002, 00:01: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

Another excellent post, Laches. It's really sad how the very justice system we tout as the fairest in the world is rife with corruption and mindless cases as these.

P.S. McDonald's coffee tastes like crap. I feel a lawsuit brewing [pun intended]!

I really don't see why people are so against lawyers.. it's a pretty basic thing in any legal system, dating back to the romans, that someone needs to speak for the accused too.

I think a lot of people just don't understand how a court works.. they see lawyers on tv all the time, defending horrible criminals, speaking to the media and apparently trying to get this axe murderer released.. and it is perceived as if they're "taking his side", when in fact, they're only doing their job, just like the prosecutor is only doing his job when he tries to make the accused party look bad in every way. It's not because anyone is a liar or anything like that, it's simply how a courtroom works. :rolleyes:

Iduru,

The reason why lawyers get a bad name and are disliked has little or nothing to do with criminal trials. Even the worst scumbag in the world has the right to a defence lawyer in my opinion when a case is up in court.

So why is it then?

In the US and now in the UK the system of "no win, no fee" is being adopted. This means of course that unless the case is won, with ensuing damages paid, the lawyer gets nothing.

Now lets examine this system:

The rationale is that it gives people "access to redress" or access to take other people to court even if they cannot afford to pay for their own lawyers. What a good idea. Well, sort of.

The problems are of course as follows:

1) It breeds spurious claims, because there is no cost if you can find a lawyer who will take the case on.
2) You WILL find a lawyer who will take it on.
3) Claims are exaggerated to maximise compensation payments rather than provide justice.
3) Litigation is now effectively solicited by lawyers because they need the income, not because there is a just claim or case.
4) In the UK the health service now spends an incredible amount of money on settling claim cases, which to a large extent should not have been brought and would not previously have been brought, instead of using the money as intended, to aid people who are ill.
5) If I see another bloody advert on tv with a slogan of "Where there's blame, there's a claim" I will scream. I frequently do actually.
6) There is such a thing as an accident where our own misfortune is not someone elses fault.
7) I now hate lawyers.
8) Thats a lie ;) BUT I do hate the system which allows these sort of ambulance chasing, adverts encouraging litigation tactics to exist.

Rant over.

Viking,

I think there is more to it than what you list. Are there unethical attorneys? Sure. More than in other professions? Unlikely.

I wish I could find the article but I can't anymore, but there was polling done in the U.S. as to the public opinion regarding different professions. The public has the greatest dislike for attorneys, no other profession was disliked more. The most liked profession was doctors followed by teachers and then pharmacists. Pharmacists had long been #1 but changes in the law which required pharmacists to start discussing with her customers what the effects of the medication would be resulted in a sharp dip in the way the public perceived them.

That bit about pharmacists is pretty interesting to me. Once they started to interact with patients and tell them what they could and couldn't do on certain meds the public started to like them less.

Look at attorneys now. It isn't often that people go to attorneys when things are going well. They go to attorneys when the **** has hit the fan. Because we have an adversarial system, 1/2 of all these clients are going to be mad at the attorney because they will "lose" and it couldn't possibly be themselves to blame, it's the attorney. Have you seen the movie "Shawshank Redemption?" Remember how everyone in that prison would proclaim, "I'm innocent, a lawyer ****ed me." That is what the public is like. It gets worse though because so many cases are settled, and then both parties get to feel like a lawyer screwed them over because she didn't get the client everything she wanted.

Most people go to lawyers in a difficult time in their life and understandably but childishly want everything perfect. This can't happen. So, they blame the lawyer. Nasty divorce? Hate the former spouse and the lawyer, forget any of your infidelities. Malpractice? It's those damned greedy lawyers, forget about leaving the suregery room to go pick up you dry cleaning (true case just happened.)

Doctors are always high on the list of respectability. They must be more ethical than attorneys then right? I'm not so sure.

Have attorneys ever done anything as despicable as the Tuskegee experiments?:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9705/16/nfm.tuskegee/index.html

Are doctors less greedy than those "ambulance chasers?" How about the way so many begin plastic surgery for which they are unprepared to make a quick buck?:

"In the past three years, 21 people have died in Florida during or immediately after undergoing cosmetic surgery in offices. Since 1986, at least 44 deaths have occurred statewide, according to an investigation by the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. No one knows the exact number because, until earlier this year, Florida has no formal system for reporting deaths and injuries from cosmetic surgery." (Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 2000, pp A14)......

The desirable credential in plastic surgery is certification by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which requires a minimum three years of training in general surgery and two in plastic surgery. However, many of the estimated 50,000 other doctors practicing in the field learned their skills in apprenticeships or *crash' style short courses. Longtime ASPS member Dr. David Ross states in Newsweek, "Anyone with an M.D. can call themselves a plastic surgeon, that is why we have catastrophic liposuctions-this is not a business people can jump into with a week-end course." (Kalb, 1999, pp 55). This source estimates that the 'revision rate' for all cosmetic surgery could be as high as one procedure in ten, again, a risk that most potential patients are not appraised of.

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2001/ACME/89acme01.htm

Are doctors more ethical than attorneys?:

More than 100 clinical students who were about one year away from completing medical school at the University of Toronto were surveyed about their ethical dilemmas for the study. Nearly half reported they had been placed in a clinical situation in which they "felt pressure to act unethically and a whopping 61 percent reported witnessing a clinical teacher acting unethically."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/medicalstudentethics_010322.html

Along the ethical theme:
A Harvard study reported that over

Maybe This Is Why The Average Physician's Income Has Risen 44% In Just Eight Years!

Cardiac catherization is another popular procedure with which heart doctors pad their income. The cost is $4,000.00 to $5,000.00, but scientists say that very few are necessary out of the tens of thousands done each year.

Several uncomplicated and INEXPENSIVE stress tests will provide the same information about the patient. However, cardiac specialists love catherization, and so do the hospitals. Their share of the charge results in over 70% profit!

http://www.brwwellness.com/three.htm

My point isn't that Doctors are bad. They're not. At least, no more than lawyers, or engineers, or teachers, or fry cooks. Doctors are just people and so are lawyers and there are going to be poor and unethical people in any field.

We don't blame lawyers more because they deserve it, we do because it is socially convenient.

EDIT -- misquote

[ October 23, 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: Laches ]

Considering the payment syste so think I it is pretty good here in Sweden. The losing part pays all the attorney fees, both his and the counterpart. Everyone gets paied and it is in some ways a deterence for taking silly cases to court while at the same time insures that most people can get a decent attorney to speak for them if they have a good case. Secondly there are roofs for that the cost of an attorney may cost, it has to be within reasonable limits so to speak and that is decided by the two clients attorneys so one can complain if the other part is claiming skyhigh payment. Thirdly it is neigh on impossible to get much money by suing people or companies, the only thing you get is the actual damage ie the cost of destroyed clothes, medical bills, loss of working income things that are easily measurable. The common rule is that you cannot sue for more than what you have lost. There is a thing called 'sveda och värk' (sting and pain) where you can get a small compensation for the pain you have suffered but thats usually not very much.

Sure there are unethical people in all professions. I should know, I'm an accountant - Andersons anyone? Now there's Unethical with a capital U for you.

What I truly dislike is the system of encouraging litigation which is unwarranted.

"Where there's blame, there's a claim" This sort of advertising on TV is sickening, because it promotes a blame culture where not only is everything that may go wrong is someone elses fault, but we're also going to make them pay.

I do not so much blame lawyers for this as the legislature that allows it.

Advertising your services is one thing, but encouraging litigation for the gain of the profession is wrong, and has nothing to with justice which is what the system ideally should be about.

I've come to defend our system. It is in many ways the most open in the world, rife with stories of David vs. Goliath. You see these stories precisely because of the way in which it is set up.

joaquin is proud of how, "it is neigh on impossible to get much money by suing people or companies, the only thing you get is the actual damage ie the cost of destroyed clothes, medical bills, loss of working income things that are easily measurable."
This is a frightening concept to me. There are so many examples of why a system without punitive damages is a bad idea it's difficult to just pick one. Consider the suits against the manufacturers of the drug DES. DES was given to women during their pregnancy to prevent miscarriage. DES was known by the manufacturers to be a carcinogenic. It was determined to be the cause of the cancer which developed in the children of many of the women who had been given the drug. I wish I knew the numbers relating to DES but I don't. Consider though that Bristol-Myers made $253 million off the drug Buspar in just four months, or that the drug prilosec makes $11 million every day for Astrazeneca. That is the type of money we are talking about with large drug companies. Now imagine a world with no punitive damages, where someone in the home office can determine that the price of paying "just the actual damages" would be, say $5 million. What kind of incentive does that create to cut corners? Would the manufacturers of DES been deterred from future similar behaviour by a $50,000 judgment when they made hundreds of millions? No. That's one of the reasons punitive damages are necessary.

That's not to say that punitive damages can't rightly be capped.

I sense that many have this concept of an "explosion of litigation" where our court system is flooded with fraudulent claims.

That is an out and out falsehood, propaganda emenating in large part from big business. Consider the facts:

This argument first errs by suggesting that the nation's courts and businesses are inundated with a rising tide of tort suits and tort liability claims. If anything, the opposite is true. The number of tort suit filings was nearly constant from 1975 through 1990 and has actually fallen since then. Most of the ten million civil actions filed each year in state courts are divorce, estate, contract, and property disputes. Only ten percent of all civil suits are tort suits; of these, nearly half are auto accident cases, ten percent are medical malpractice cases, and only three percent are products liability actions. Nor is there a rising tide of large awards: The average recovery in a products liability case has been estimated at only $48,000. These numbers suggest that tort suits are not the crippler of courts and industry that the proponents of tort reform suggest. If there is a growth industry in litigation, it is to be found in complex commercial litigation, where attorneys on both sides are paid by the hour and the suit's ultimate objective may well be collateral to the claims asserted.
The other common complaint about our system is that it utilizes contingency fees. As the facts above show, that hasn't led to an increase in litigation. Nor has it led to an increase in frivolous law suits:

Thus, there is no empirical data to suggest a rising tide of tort litigation. Nor is there any such data that suggest that contingent-fee contracts encourage frivolous litigation. In fact, there is no rising tide of tort litigation precisely because the contingent-fee contract does not encourage frivolous litigation. To be sure, the contingent-fee contract does give plaintiffs a risk-free means of asserting claims. But it does not eliminate the risk -- and costs -- of failure. Instead, it merely shifts the risk from the client to the attorney. Since the attor- ney's fee is contingent upon success, the attorney has a compelling economic incentive not to accept cases in which the probability of success is so low as to make the case a poor investment of time and money. Indeed, the contingent-fee contract more likely deters the filing of frivolous cases because it puts the risk of failure on the lawyer, who is the person best-positioned to assess its merits. As one economic analysis of the question concluded: "In other words, under a contingent fee the primary screening function shifts to the lawyer, and the lawyer will probably do a more effective screening job. We can at least conclude that contingency itself gives little or no encouragement to groundless speculative suits."

Finally, the argument against contingent-fee contracts errs by suggesting that plaintiffs and their contingent-fee counsel are the ones responsible for delays and protracted litigation in the tort system. In fact, the opposite is true. It should be self-evident that tort plaintiffs themselves have no interest in delay; their interests lie in being made whole as soon as possible. As discussed in the following section, attorneys retained under contingent-fee contracts have an economic incentive to maximize their profits by minimizing the hours and resources that they invest in a case. That incentive is hardly consistent with the claim that contingent-fee plaintiffs' lawyers are responsible for the costs of protracted litigation.
So, if the facts demonstrate there is no increase in the amount of litigation, there is no increase in the amount of fraudulent litigation, and that our system is the most open in the world, where is all the negativity from?

I submit it comes from a culture who likes to blame others, and attorneys are a convenient target, and it stems from politicians who are in the pocket of big business which would like to see an end to punitive damages. Wow, that's a lot of rhetoric

EDIT-- I can't link the source of my facts for some html problem it says, I can still look at it. They're from an article by ELIHU INSELBUCH in a Duke University law journal and can be found at law.duke.edu.

[ October 23, 2002, 23:22: Message edited by: Laches ]

In the case of medical companies and bad medicine like the one you shown they would most likely be litigated in a criminal court or certain market court and can there be heavily fined for recklessness and the like but that is fines and not compensations. How do you measure the value of ones health? Not an easy thing to do and in the case you described ou system has its flaws if you would like to call it that I more see it as a weakness as the victims of that drug would get money but not the millions of dollar they get in the states.
Oh and everyone that wants a divorce should try to try it in Sweden! Allemony doesnt exist here! :D

Good points Laches, it's nice to see someone who uses quotes and facts to prove one's point, instead of just opinions and logical assumptions.. I've been guilty of doing that once or twice :D

I saw a documentary about this actually, it was made in the Netherlands. Anyway, it dealed with this issue, and how the courts have, in some ways, replaced a social welfare system.

The main character in the documentary was a construction worker who got injured at work: His legs got crushed so badly that even at the time of the interview, 3 years later, he was still in crutches. Obviously he couldn't work anymore, and since he had no medical insurance or anything of the sort, he just couldn't support his family, he had no income. So, his, and many others' way out of it was to call a lawyer. The accident had occured when he had got up on a malfunctioning piece of machinery, on a direct command from his boss... all of a sudden the machine (some form of stone crusher) came to life, and before he could do anything, his legs got crushed.

So he sued the construction company, and from what I understand the maker of the machine as well. It was his only way out of this difficult situation.

In other countries with a more developed welfare system, he would've been retired, with a government check coming each month to enable him to survive, either permanently, or until he had recovered. From what I understand about the US, the welfare checks that you can get are much too small to help in a situation such as that one. In those same countries, you won't get that kind of money in a lawsuit... if he would've won, then you could say that the companies caused this accident, which keeps him from making his own living. But if would be the goverment's duty to provide for him, not the company's.

It was a very interesting documentary, and I really wish I remembered the title. I saw it while I worked at a swedish tv channel (dokument utifrån, på svt, för svenskar..), so I should be able to just call my brother in law, who still works there, and ask him for the title. If anyone's interested, let me know.

As an attorney here in the States (and in California, the most litigious state around), I couldn't agree more with Laches' points. Please note that I am not a personal injury lawyer and would not do that for anything in the world (just as I personally could not defend criminals, even though most criminal defense lawyers justify what they do as defending the system -- I agree with the concept, I just cannot do it personally). In any event, people need to understand that it works both ways. Lawyers need to be responsible and need to advise clients when they have no case. However, clients need to be realistic about their goals and need to have some personal restraint. I have seen numerous situations where clients bring cases to my colleagues that are just ridiculous -- they are hunting for someone to take their case and get them some money. Whether it is an insurance company or just a business on the defense side, the public suffers due to an increase in costs -- whether premiums or the price of an item or service.

It is also a sad but true story that over 90% of my clients lie to me about something in their cases, and these are business disputes where very often the clients are really spending someone else's money and are not as emotionally invested as someone with crushed legs or the like. Not only do I give my clients the benefit of the doubt and believe them, I am required to do so by the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern those in my profession. Unless I know my client is lying (which raises another host of issues), I, as an advocate, try to do everything in my power to get my client the best result within my client's goals, so long as it is legal and ethical. That's my job.

Unfortunately, the average member of the general public now appears to believe that he or she is entitled to large amounts of money any time he or she suffers any injuries, and normal compensatory damages are not acceptable. You see constant cries of "emotional distress" and "soft tissue damage." This is bull and the people claiming it know it, but they still want the money. It is a side effect of the system and one I live with in order to promote a sort of "market watchdog" effect on the various companies that operate in this state. I would prefer to have the free market and private lawyers policing the practices of industry and commerce rather than the government, as the government has proven time and again that it is wholly incapable of running anything effectively. I'll take a slightly buggy system over a state run system every time.

By the way, I never knew the full story about the coffee case and appreciate the award now that I know. For those reading this, there are now annual awards given out (tongue-in-cheek similar to the Darwin awards) called the Stella awards (named after the plaintiff in the coffee case) for the most absurd result in litigation.