Blogcritics: Comments on What am I?

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:33:47 EST

There are all kinds of ridiculous suit awards. My favorite remains the man who used his lawnmower to trim hedges. Picked the thing up and tried to hold it in such a way that would sculpt bushes. You can guess what happened next. Anywhere you see a warning sticker on a product, you can guess that the activity they warn you against engaging in with their product, someone has already engaged in and sued the manufacturer as a result.

Comment by andy marsh

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:04:00 EST

bhw - can I have your email address...you know, I'm always having problems finding that tenth person to send those chain mails to!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:13:46 EST

>>But if there is no chance of getting a punitive award, Dave, then people will be less likely to sue. That's the goal here, to stop the lawsuits. If you stop the lawsuits, you stop the negative publicity.<< This won't stop the legit lawsuits, because in the ones where real harm is done the money to be gained is in the real compensation for harm done, on which there is no cap. If I die in an industrial accident and my family sues, what they ought to be suing for is my earning potential in my remaining years more than the punitive damages, and that ought to be a good hunk of change and it's not limited. Dave

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:13:35 EST

SKI, Dave's earlier point was that negative publicity is the thing that changes corporate behavior. So I was noting that there haven't been too many high profile criminal cases against corporate execs for product-related negligence. In other words, you can't count on the press to punish companies who do something wrong. That's what the courts are for, even civil court.

Comment by SFC SKI

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:03:48 EST

"Either that or it doesn't get much press." I think the biggest lesson we all should have learned this far into the 21st Century is that the press coverage is hardly a reliable source for news, or for gaining enough info to inform one's opinion.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:34:31 EST

If they were personally aware that a product they were producing posed a danger to the public they can be held criminally liable. Well, it sure doesn't seem to happen very often. Either that or it doesn't get much press.

Comment by L. Cue

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:32:57 EST

>>Intersting ....I have that j....t rolled for you over here btw.<< When did 'joint' become a 'bad' word that needed to be blanked out? I hear you Dave, I'm just a paranoid liberal :) No seriously, I ran into a incident where things I wrote in my blog were used against me, and as I am in the middle of mediation in a family case, I censor myself these days. "America the f..., home of the b...." btw:: it's stricly Dutch Masters for me. You should try it! ;)

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:24:23 EST

I think all punitive-damages rewards were tainted by the massive award given to a woman who managed to burn herself with a cup of hot coffee. Read my links to that story, Dr. Pat. The awards weren't that massive, given the evidence of McDonalds' willful negligence in the case.

Comment by DrPat

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:21:10 EST

I think all punitive-damages rewards were tainted by the massive award given to a woman who managed to burn herself with a cup of hot coffee. Clearly, some such lawsuits are driving no improvements, they're just a way for lawyers and claimants to tap into corporate deep pockets. Likewise, I look at medical malpractice suits as a good idea originally, but since pushed to a ridiculous and non-productive extreme.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:20:51 EST

>>I don't think corporate executives can be held criminally liable. That's the point -- they're personally immune. It's the company that's committed a wrongdoing, not the people running the company. How do you punish a company for wrongdoing? You take away some money.<< Not true at all. If they were personally aware that a product they were producing posed a danger to the public they can be held criminally liable. You might have to work to find a sympathetic prosecuter to take the case, but it has happened before quite a few times. Here's a case you can check out from the archives of the UT Law School: Sea Horse Ranch . This is the judgement of their failed appeal for manslaughter. You can find lots of others in legal databases or even through Google. Dave

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:20:42 EST

What's interesting to me is that if I took a poll, I'd find that most of the people who think it's okay to try 12-year-olds as adults also think that corporations should be given this new break when it comes to capping their liability for their wrongdoing. Just a hunch, but I bet I'm onto something....

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:16:44 EST

First, I think it's both the punitive awards and the negative publicity. But if there is no chance of getting a punitive award, Dave, then people will be less likely to sue. That's the goal here, to stop the lawsuits. If you stop the lawsuits, you stop the negative publicity. Game over.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:15:16 EST

As I pointed out before, BHW, it's not the punitive damages, it's the negative publicity that gets the response from the corporation. If anything, an excessive damage award makes the corporation look more like a victim and gets them some sympathy. Dave

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:12:55 EST

>>With a 250k cap now, Ford has no incentive to fix a similiar problem in the future, and past actions show us they would place more value on the action of not replacing an 11 dollar part, than they would to save lives.<< Absolutely wrong. They should be held criminally liable if thye knew the car was dangerous, and the negative publicity of executives going to jail and a car being declared dangerous would force them to take action to remedy the problem. I don't think corporate executives can be held criminally liable. That's the point -- they're personally immune. It's the company that's committed a wrongdoing, not the people running the company. How do you punish a company for wrongdoing? You take away some money.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:06:16 EST

Andy, did you know that "gullible" is not in the dictionary? I bet you respond to the chain letter e-mails you get so that you don't have bad luck, don't you? And as for the "dumb bitch" you refer to, Stella Liebeck had third degree burns on her thighs, genitals, and buttocks and spent 8 days in the hospital. McDonalds' "we don't give a shit" attitude sunk them in the trial. And here's some good commentary on why punitive damages are a good thing: McDonald's suffered substantial, but hardly outrageous, financial punishment for its irresponsible practices. Mrs. Liebeck was compensated for her injuries. And folks like me are less likely to get burned. That's exactly how our legal system is supposed to work. That's also why the insurance, tobacco, and other major industries want to change it. They think it works too well. Corporations want Americans to think that huge punitive damages are awarded constantly, crippling businesses and raising consumer prices. This is simply not true. Punitive damages are rare, especially in products liability cases. A Rand study showed that 47 percent are awarded in business-against-business litigation, versus less than 5 percent in products cases. And according to a study by Suffolk University law professor Michael Rustad, punitive damages were awarded in only 353 products liability cases (91 of them asbestos) between 1965 and 1990--an average of 14 per year or one per state every four years. Most important, punitive damages bring safety. They have forced removal from the market of flammable children's pajamas, asbestos, tampons causing toxic shock syndrome, defective intrauterine contraceptive devices, and a host of hazardous drugs. They have forced car manufacturers to correct design defects like exploding gas tanks on Ford Pintos, slipping transmissions, and faulty minivan door latches.

Comment by andy marsh

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:23:32 EST

check this out! 5TH PLACE (TIED): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving toddler was Ms. Robertson's son. 5TH PLACE (TIED): A man, 19-year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles, won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently did not notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal the hubcaps. 4TH PLACE: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was awarded $14,500--and medical expenses--after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle dog. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought for because the jury felt the dog might have been a little provoked. At the time, Mr. Williams, who had climbed over the fence into the yard, had been shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. 3RD PLACE: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier, during an argument. 2ND PLACE: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out two of her front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window of the Ladies Room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. 1ST PLACE: This year's runaway winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new Winnebago Motor home. On his trip home from an OU football game, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he could not actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago Motorhome. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreational vehicles!

Comment by andy marsh

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:22:52 EST

I just got an email from a friend yesterday about the Stella awards. Named after the dumb bitch that spilled hot coffee in her lap and successfully sued mcdonalds because she was an idiot. You read some of the winners here and there's no doubt that something needed to be done!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:49:56 EST

>>Dave, consider the recent cap on awards that victims of corporate society can get. It's now set at 250,000 dollars. No matter what a corporation does to you, you can not be compensated any more than that.<< Not true. That's the cap on punitive damages, not on awards. Real damages can still be allotted based on loss of quality of life, loss of life, long-term medical care, loss of salary, etc. Those damages would add up to around $1 million in most cases where death was involved. >>When a jury awarded a crash victim 144 million dollars, roughly the same amount that Ford would have spent to fix the problem, Ford then took notice and fixed the gas tanks in Pintos.<< Regardless of what Ford's reaction was, that was still an excessive award. No one's life is worth that much money, and no amount of money even one that high is enough to actually punish the corporation. In the case of the Pinto the executives who knew about the defect should have faced criminal charges - that's the proper way to punish that sort of conduct. And as for fixing the problem, that would have happened regardless of the amount of the judgement because of negative publicity which does far more damage to a car company than money can ever do. >>With a 250k cap now, Ford has no incentive to fix a similiar problem in the future, and past actions show us they would place more value on the action of not replacing an 11 dollar part, than they would to save lives.<< Absolutely wrong. They should be held criminally liable if thye knew the car was dangerous, and the negative publicity of executives going to jail and a car being declared dangerous would force them to take action to remedy the problem. Remember the Corvair? There was no lawsuit at all. Ralph Nader simply made some poorly researched but highly publicized charges about safety problems and the car was recalled and subsequently withdrawn from manufacture. >>I suppose in your 'optimism' you think conservatism solved a problem there?<< The primary target of capping punitive damages was the medical industry, and yes if it brings medical costs down, it will have been a major victory. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:41:42 EST

>>Intersting ....I have that j....t rolled for you over here btw.<< When did 'joint' become a 'bad' word that needed to be blanked out? Personally I'd rather call it a doobie, being a child of the 70s, but I'm pretty sure you can refer to it on the internet without the thought police descending on you instantly. Dave

Comment by Nick Jones

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:41:50 EST

"Negativism and pessimism tend to lead to identifying with liberalism politically." Geez, and here I was led to believe by the Right that Liberals were naive Utopians!

Comment by Joe

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:45:42 EST

Steve! Does Margret Thatcher have a big dick?

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:14:33 EST

Dave, consider the recent cap on awards that victims of corporate society can get. It's now set at 250,000 dollars. No matter what a corporation does to you, you can not be compensated any more than that. When the Ford Pinto was determined to have a faulty gas tank that exploded in crashes, killing people, it was discovered that Ford knew about the problem, but left it, rather than replace an 11 dollar part in the cars. When a jury awarded a crash victim 144 million dollars, roughly the same amount that Ford would have spent to fix the problem, Ford then took notice and fixed the gas tanks in Pintos. With a 250k cap now, Ford has no incentive to fix a similiar problem in the future, and past actions show us they would place more value on the action of not replacing an 11 dollar part, than they would to save lives. I suppose in your 'optimism' you think conservatism solved a problem there?

Comment by alienboy

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:09:37 EST

nalle, that's still all bluster. There is little that can be counted on in this world, and there has NEVER been any dogma or principle that is universally applicable. Crumbs, even Einstein was only mostly right! I really don't care what kind of life you've had, any time any body abandons basic principles for the minutiae of detail to make a case, all perspective is lost. You literally can't see the woods, or the changing landscape, for all the trees. There is no such thing as informed opinion, and there is almost nothing that is always true. That isn't cynicism, it's just accepting the way things are. Try it sometime... It's refreshing.....

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:08:12 EST

Clearly your experiences are different and have led you to a much more negative view of the world. Negativism and pessimism tend to lead to identifying with liberalism politically. I do not go to liberalism because of negativity. Rather, my own experiences as well as the experiences of those I have known in my life have led me to see the need and adopt the principles of Jesus and humanitarianism, which I do not consider a negative. Many times do I look up at the stars at night and marvel over the wonders and magic of the world. I have faith that we will find equality someday, I have faith that we as a society will come around and try to do better when it comes to helping those who truly need it. I am filled with faith and hope. I can't say I am devoid of negativity, no person can say that, certainly you are one of the most negative and closed people I have known when it comes to liberalism, although I do respect you more than many of your peers. I suspect we agree on the problems. The difference is that we're looking in different places for solutions to those problems. Not talking about you specifically, but conservatism in general, I believe is a large part of the problem. Conservatism is against solving the problems. Conservatism is against hate crimes, against anti-discrimination laws, against the recognition of my family, against protecting workers, against secularism, I could go on, but notice how conservatism is 'against' something at least as often as it is for something. Talk about negative, huh? Ann Coulter? Hannity? Rush? yeah, yeah, the party of optimism. Also, the individuals that can gravitate towards conservatism are people usually of privilege, as you yourself attest, and when not actively working to stop protecting the little guy in whatever way possible, just simply fosters an intolerant Good-ole-boy atmosphere that CREATES many of the problems I find in my world today.

Comment by L. Cue

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:57:33 EST

Intersting ....I have that j....t rolled for you over here btw.