Boca man sues steakhouse, claiming potato burn

[andyjackson1828]

By Alex Clifton, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 17, 2004



First, it was hot coffee. Now, it's a baked potato.

A Boca Raton man, in a lawsuit filed this week in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, claims his esophagus was damaged by a scorching spud he ate in January 2003 at the Raindancer Steak House in West Palm Beach.

Thomas Gould is seeking unspecified damages, but at least $10,000 in medical bills for a two-day stay in an intensive-care unit, said Steven Falk, his Miami-based lawyer. Falk would not say which hospital provided the treatment.

"He couldn't even swallow," Falk said. "The potato basically melted his esophagus."

The rest at... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/business_0480db7c07c8f11500b3.html

[DK666]

1. Lets See

Was that from a BAKED potato or a RAW potato ? It was his choice you know....

[karabekian]

2. another example

of why I hate trial lawyers and can't understand why the our party is beholden to their interests.

[DK666]

4. Its a nessassary evil.

n/t

[GOPisEvil]

5. Everybody hates them, until it's YOUR esophagus...

[Lostmessage]

99. Thank you

:hug:

[K-W]

7. Money , but trial lawyers are not so bad

Its really pretty simple. The corporations arent funding the dems anywhere near as much as they are funding the GOP. Labor unions have less and less money every year. Trial lawyers are a good source of money and are opposing the corporations.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Meanwhile basing your opinion of an entire profession on extreme lawsuits is rather foolish. Lawyers are very often in positions to take advantage of people and extort money, but they do serve a neccessary function in society and many lawyers have accomplished alot of good in this country.

Villianizing based on profession is really no better than any other negative stereotypes.

[LincolnMcGrath]

8. Ask any pipefitter/insulator with mesothelioma

[Gman]

19. Trial lawyers are the people that keep corporate America honest

until Republicans get elected then they make it ok to sell kids a "Bag O' Glass" that's full of broken glass but oh so fun to play with. Look at all the cool things you can do with your "Bag O' Glass.

[bleedingheart]

28. It is not the Lawyer's fault that people choose to hire them for goofy

lawsuits.

Personally I hate tort reform because it punishes majority for the acts of a few goofballs.

[K-W]

3. Why dont people just check the temp of food?

Like its that hard.

Regardless though, we have to be careful with stories like this. They give a skewed perspective of the legal atmosphere in the country. Silly lawsuits are fun to laugh at, but when people only hear about the extremes, it lends undue validity to tort reform.

[Rainbowreflect]

16. People who bash stories like this usually don't know the whole story.

I would guess that 99% of the really stupid law suits are thrown out of court.
If people would really learn the facts they might be surprised.
The McDonald's, hot coffee case is one that may sound silly, but when you learn the facts it is not.
McDonald's had been given warnings about the danger of super heating their coffee and the continued the practice. The high damage award the jury gave was, in large part, a punishment for McDonald's disregard for safety.

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. "damage award the jury gave was"

was also reduced on appeal. After a very successful disinformation campaign by the TORT reform crowd.

[Jane Roe]

42. Thank you for posting this

Not many people seem to know this aspect of the case.

People do not generally heat their coffee at home as hot as the coffee in the McDonald's coffee was heated. I know that sounds weird, but it is true as a matter of thermodynamics.

[rustydog]

64. You got that right.

Did you know the victim had 3rd degree burns from the coffee?
The skin was sloughing off of her in the hospital.
Now, it that a frivolous lawsuit,or was McJobcreator negligent ?

That is why we have a court system and a Civil system. It is a question that needs to be decided by someone other than the Corporate interest.

[camero]

25. I shouldn't have to run around with a meat thermometer

Everytime I go to a restaurant. Isn't it the owner's responsibility to see that things are cooked properly?

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. YEP

:yourock:

[K-W]

31. I dont know the details of this case,

so i really shouldnt have speculated. That was just my first reaction, i wondered why he swallowed it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. I wonder if the restaurant

ignore HUNDREDS of govt warnings and THOUSANDS of customer complaints like McDonalds? :shrug:

[karabekian]

9. lawyers do serve a function

but lawyers who engage in frivolouls lawsuits like this and countless others are the scourge of society. And then you get John Edwards railing on the influence of special interests when he himself is a member of one of the largest special interests there is. Its a matter of principle over party in my opinion.

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. countless others?

Don't buy into the myth.

[karabekian]

12. i dont think its a myth

n/c

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. Please cite the countless others!

:puffpiece:

[karabekian]

14. ok

In the 1998 tobacco lawsuits, several hundred trial lawyers walked off with settlement money of an estimated $10- to $15 billion. Some lawyers received more than $50,000 an hour in contingency fees for lawsuits that never even went to court.

A woman is awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train while trying to commit suicide.

Another example would be with the upcoming legal actions against the fast food companies by obese people.

Another example would be suing gun manufacturers for the actions of other people.

A personal example was I was on jury duty and the case was about a worker who had broken his ankle. He was already recieving full workers comp and unemployment benefits that exceeded his old salary but was suing for the amount of future income for the rest of his life, around 10 million claiming that he could never work again.

Medical lawsuits that drive up the cost of insurance and patient bills.

I could go on about more but I think it is clear that many trial lawyers are making money on frivolous lawsuits. They are a special interest and one I wish our party could do without. I know that lawyers do good things and that some lawsuits are necessary but I know there are a lot who are in it to get as much money as possible. It is bad to be beholden to special interests and the amount that trial lawyers give to the democratic party worries me.

[K-W]

18. Dont forget to include the total number of personal injury lawsuits

filed in the nation in the time your examples are from, so we can judge just how countless this is. The fact that a handful of people will try to take advantage of a system is not evidence that a system, as a whole, is bad.

Sounds like this potatoe did serious damage. I think it is probably reasonable to expect a restaurant not to serve something that outrageously hot. Maybe there was liability, im not sure that you have a right, having read a news story on it, to pretend you know.

[yankeedem]

43. Get educated

Tort law makes our products safer and is the only way to enforce standards when legislation doesn't exist.

"Medical lawsuits that drive up the cost of insurance and patient bills".

No, that would be stock market variations. States where "tort" reforms have occured have seen little to no difference in malpractice premiums.

"Trial lawyers making money on frivolous lawsuits"

First of all, you are making the judgement on what is frivolous. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a personal injury lawyer to actually take a borderline case? They work on contingency, which means that if they lose they don't get a nickel for all their time. Every lawyer I've known only takes sure things.

Maybe you should read something like www.centerjd.org, where they actually study these issues, instead of regurgitating what the right wing media wants you to think.

Or when you need to file a "frivolous" lawsuit when someone hurts someone you love, you will be unable to.

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. Where do I start on these "countless cases"

What state allows work comp and unemployment benefits to be paid together? Future lost wages is not an issue with you?

How much were tobacco lawyers paid? And lets not forget, the settlements to states were a gift to the tobacco giants.

Medical lawsuits have ZERO to do with healthcare costs.

Once again you make sweeping generalizations in your last paragraph with little to back them.

[rumguy]

65. tort reform lies - check out my explanation of the infamous spilled coffee

case below...

When you go and look at the cases, at the actual facts, you find that lies and distortions are being spread by rethugs and tort refomers, aka, corporate America....

[Supply Side Jesus]

15. as opposed to

the indifference corporations have to people if they are harmed by their product?

[karabekian]

20. wow

insulting lawyers is a touch subject here

**runs for cover** }(

I stand by my dislike for trial lawyers and my disdain for the inproportionate and powerful hold that they hold over our party. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. :toast:

[LincolnMcGrath]

21. "inproportionate and powerful hold that they hold over our party"

Please explain?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. We are beholden to them

Which is why we tolerate the legal excesses in this nation.

[K-W]

24. what legal excesses?

Did it ever occur to you that a system as complex as our legal system is never going to be perfect?

Do you have a plan for tort reform that gets rid of the excesses but doesnt limit the ability of people to persue legitimate redress?

Are you basing your opinion on a very very very skewed societal view of lawyers and torts?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Of course it won't be perfect

But we have evolved a legal system, not a justice system. As a result, lawyers advocate a litany of excuses for clients that have no relationship to guilt or innocence.

Lawyers have helped destroy any belief in the criminal "justice" system.

No, I don't claim to have an instant answer.

[LincolnMcGrath]

35. Excuses?

Mental illness?

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. The Twinkie Defense?

[LincolnMcGrath]

69. Enlighten us!

[Pithlet]

73. Outragious example?

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. Why?

It happened. It was used. Perhaps if it is outrageous, we should see some lawyers equally outraged.

[Pithlet]

85. Aside from the fact

that in the case you're probably referring to , the defense didn't actually use a twinkie as a defense? It's okay to be outraged by a particularly unusual case that is apparently ludicrous to those outside of trial, but to use it as an example typical of our legal system is quite another thing.

[LincolnMcGrath]

80. nice try never happened

"Twinkie defense" is now a widespread and commonly-recognized term. It is also a term based on something that never happened.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.htm

[K-W]

37. As far as I can tell you are the one helping to destroy that belief

Until you come up with a better system, maybe you should stop bashing this one.

You do realize that their is more to a justice system than criminal proceedings and always has been. Or do you think we should just not have torts at all?

Please just explain to me what system would be better. If you dont know one, you dont have much of a point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Of course we should have torts

And there should be repurcussions if you file bogus claims. Those repurcussions should strongly impact both those who file them AND their lawyers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. That will only discourage all suits

Corporate protection if you will.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Some suits need discouragement

Some of those who wear them do as well.

[LincolnMcGrath]

81. HAHA

this?

[Pithlet]

74. Great

Let's make it harder and less affordable to find lawyers willing to take on cases for fear they will be punished for doing so. Frivolous cases can and should be thrown out, after it has been determined that it is frivolous by the courts. That's how it works. Going further only places barriers to those who actually have legitimate complaints.

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. YEP

:yourock:

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. It also places barriers on those who do not

Lawyers need to be responsible just like businesses. I expect it of both and don't ignore one just because I see a big "D" after the name.

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. Thats what judicial revue and elections are for.

[Pithlet]

86. My opinion on this matter

has nothing to do with Ds or Rs, I can assure you.

I agree that lawyers need to be held responsible. Where do I say otherwise? My whole point (and there's no letter beside it) is that people have the right to have their grievances addressed. Both people and corporations should be held responsible for their actions. By placing limits on who and who cannot seek out that redress, we only protect those who can gain benefit by harming others.

No doubt there are lawyers out there who will take any case for a buck and the publicity. The system already addresses those by throwing out their silly cases a vast majority of the time. The few that make it through are trotted out and used as examples merely to make it harder for people to sue. When that happens, people aren't held accountable when they should. Responsibility goes both ways.

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. The lawsuit lottery

Because we don't hold lawyers responsible for their actions, far too many Americans seek out lawyers to hit the lawsuit lottery. Far too many lawyers willingly embrace this knowing there are no negative consequences of frivolous lawsuits.

[LincolnMcGrath]

88. Lawyers are run out of town all the time.

Lawyers are disbarred. Judges can be reviewed and censured. The consequences of frivolous lawsuits include the loss of clients and credibility.

"The Lawsuit Lottery" lol Come up with something original that isn't spin. Make it harder than the Twinkie Defense too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. All the time?

Sure. Lacking stats on that one, I will consider that to be just hyperbole and let you slide.

As for judges, they are disbarred far fewer times than they need to be. Most are judges for life and, no matter how ridiculous their comments or their rulings, they persist in their insanity. That one I know. I've seen. I've seen judges let drunk drivers off after repeated offenses even though they have killed.

The consequence of frivolous lawsuits is publicity and more clients, not fewer. Next thing you know, you're suing the fast food franchises over fat content. Heck, you might even win once in a blue moon. That's all you need.

[LincolnMcGrath]

92. My hyperbole?

What do criminal cases have to do with this thread?

The ABA numbers for disbarred lawyers are out there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. The legal system

Is at issue here -- criminal AND civil are a mess. Not just one or the other.

[LincolnMcGrath]

106. Try and stay focused

Start your own thread to rant about failing teachers, union corruption, and what ever else ails ya. :crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. I am focused

And you?

[LincolnMcGrath]

112. You don't see me ranting off topic.

Railing against everything democratic we still barely hang on to. I try to look past the spin, but talking points have to be smacked down.

The search feature is the greatest tool on DU at times.

[rumguy]

90. Ever hear of Rule 11 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

All states have corresponding state rules.

These rules hold that any legal action or motion that is not grounded in actual facts and law opens the filing lawyer to suit from the opposing side to recover all costs....

There ARE consequences to filing bogus legal actions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. "legal excesses"

How do you define this?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

51. I'm curious-all these assertions

without statistics, links or any shred of evidence to back them up.

If it weren't for the evil trial lawyers, we would still be wearing flammable clothing, using products that cause cancer, etc.

You're right on the money, Lincoln!

[karabekian]

58. its clear to me

For example trial lawyers and the teachers union.

Those our special interest groups and they hold a lot of sway in the positions our leaders take. Evident by how they all oppose any tort or education reform. Hence the power.

For the percent of the population these special interest groups represent, they sure have a lot of political power. Hence the inproportionate part (much like people here rail on businesses for their political power).

Our leaders are beholden to special interests (like every politician)and their interests are not always in the interests of the country.

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. UNIONS ARE NOT A SPECIAL INTEREST

They do not oppose education reform, they oppose 'right wing-non union-privatized-testing as a means to an end' reform. The unions know the teachers know more about teaching than anyone else. The unions also know that the public schools are NOT failing, even though we hear it over and over and over and over.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Of course they are a special interest

An interest more concerned with political power than education.

No, that doesn't mean teachers are like that, but the NEA sure as hell is.

And yes, a good chunk of our public education system isn't failing. It's already failed.

[LincolnMcGrath]

75. More talking points?

Name a corporation with a success rate better than Public Ed. For a century they have taught, fed, and baby sat our children. All of them, the bright and the dim, the willing and the not so willing, the special needs and the behavioral problem cases. All the while listening to parents who think "little Jonnie should have gotten a better grade", And little Suzi thinks you hurt her feelings". How do we repay them, well we call them a failure. Real nice

"more concerned with political power than education" Spin pure and simple.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Try visiting an urban school district

Like Washington D.C. or Baltimore and get back to me on that one.

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Money problem

not failing teachers. Been there, OTown.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Not just money

DC spends tons more money that most every place in the nation. Money does not solve all problems.

[LincolnMcGrath]

105. Please, These are poor kids, right?

Everything costs more in DC, so what? That is not the same as dollar per student in say, Iowa. Weak stat, but it has been repeated allot.

You said inner city. No hope, no jobs, no future, Except maybe a McJob. 20% unemployment among the nations young black men, 1 in 4 has a criminal record. DC schools do not compare to a rich district school with new facilities, smaller classes, CPUs for all. Drive around Orlando and pay attention to the differences between the poor and the rich schools.


Another talking point, "Money doesn't solve everything."

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Again, not a weak stat

D.C. is third with per pupil spending of $11,649. D.C. is still 13th with inflation adjusted spending of $8,745 per pupil.

http://www.miedresearchoffice.org/nationalfacts.htm#_U.S._per-pupil_spending_1

Yes, D.C. does have many problems. But last time I checked the school system still, years later, didn't know even how many people actually worked for it. Mismanagement is a huge problem, not just in D.C. but many urban districts.

[LincolnMcGrath]

115. Oh lordy, Chamber of Commerce funded study?

Hey you spend less then Wisconsin. Thats gotta count for something.


Last year the FBI lost 500 laptops, hundreds of weapons. Ghosts on the union payroll huh? tsk tsk

[Muddleoftheroad]

116. If you dispute the stats

Please produce others.

[LincolnMcGrath]

119. Another thread my friend

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. In other words, you don't

[LincolnMcGrath]

125. I believe zero from a group that whores for business.

The CoC are the henchmen for business. Once again, lets stay on topic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. That was on topic

We pursued a subthread issue. It related. Please, stay on topic.

[K-W]

23. Republicans love and fuel the villianization of trial lawyers

Trial lawyers as a group are neither good nor bad. Your lumping them all together is just bad judgement on your part.

[karabekian]

59. i guess since I don't like lawyers and our current justice system

I must be a freeper. :eyes:

Doesn't anyone see the hypocracy of railing on Republicans for their business interests when our own party is beholden to the interests of a bunch of sue-happy lawyers?
:shrug:

[camero]

60. I got an idea

How about when products maim and kill the people who buy them we put the CEO in Jail? Then there won't be a need for trail lawyers.

:eyes:

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. No one is calling you A FREEPER

There you go again, "beholden to sue happy lawyers".

[Supply Side Jesus]

71. here here

agree to disagree. While i view the power trial lawyers have over the party is less than you claim, they serve a indispensable part in progressive politics. While some are ambulance chasers and opportunists of the worse kind, their ground breaking work should not be over looked.

[sendero]

26. nonsense...

... that is what we have judges and juries for. Most of the time, they are reasonably adept at sorting out nonsense from real negligence.

If lawyers made bad decisions as often as doctors do, then you'd have a case.

[bleedingheart]

33. People hire lawyers to do their bidding

its not the fault of the lawyer that people hire them for less than questionable purposes..

For example I worked with a guy who was deranged and was constantly sueing his neighbor for something or other. It became very hard for him to find an attorney after a while since he had a "reputation", but there is always a lawyer who needs the cash who will take a case they are loathe to even deal with..

[EV1Ltimm]

11. They like to bring up the coffee burn, don't they?

I mean, the lady only had to get 9 skin grafts. She's totally taking advantage of the system!

But anyhoo... are there any guidelines for the restaraunt industry dictating how hot a potato can be served at? Are there any instruments that can reasonably measure the temperature of a potato?

Unlike the mcdonalds that served the coffee, there was probably no previous warning given to the restaraunt about the temperature of their potatoes, so it's hard to say if there's any liability on their part.

All i know is that if i put a piece of potato in my mouth that's that hot, odds are that i'm going to let out a string of explitives and spit it back out.

[Buffler]

27. Yes, there are temp guidelines

but they are for the minimum temp that certain foods can be served at. And yes, there are accurate devices to determine how hot a potato is.

[EV1Ltimm]

34. thanks!

i'll remember that next time i weld my throat shut with a potato :)

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. No max temp guidelines?

[DiverDave]

32. Whatever happened to

Personal RESPONSIBILITY??

This should be thrown out. I am sorry he is hurt, but no one MADE him swallow it!

Our society is the biggest bunch of greedy bastards ever.
Ambulance chasers ruin it for people that have been TRULY injured by gross negligence.

If someone is injured by a defective product, they are painted with the same brush as the "hot coffee" syndrome.
What, this guy has no temperature sensation in his mouth?
He couldn't spit it out?
Nah, It's easier (and more lucrative) to blame someone else for HIS stupidity.

Judgement for the greasy spoon, and court costs to the shyster for bringing such a suit.

[camero]

39. When you go somewhere

There is a certain amount of trust that your product will be good. People should learn how to cook. It shouldn't kill you or get you sent to the hospital.

[K-W]

40. Whatever happened to people not assuming they know the facts of the case?

Everyone had a good laugh at the coffee suit. Turns out there was some liability. Maybe there is some here. Stop buying into the easy, pop read of everything.

Wouldnt things be alot easier if we could just send you a brief news article about every case and you could tell us the decision?

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. Straight from the "TORT REFORM talking points memo"

What is happening to CORPORATE responsibility?

[DiverDave]

44. OO boy

You all think the guy couldn't have SPIT IT OUT??
Yep, sue, sue, sue...
And I don't agree with tort reform.
I do agree that frivolous lawsuits should be reduced and the costs paid by the person bringing the suit.

I'll say it again, this sort of thing hurts people that were really hurt due to negligence.
But you don't see that, you just accuse me of being on the "bad guys" side...
Good critical thinking on your part

[yankeedem]

48. How do YOU judge frivolous?

I'll bet it is "I know it when I see it", isn't it?

Well you don't know the details of this case. If the case is frivolous, it will be thrown out of court.

[Pithlet]

50. I think what is being responded to

is you seem to have responded rather strongly without knowing all the facts, unless you are privy to this case. If so, you didn't make that clear.

This very well could be a frivolous suit, but there isn't enough information in the article to make that judgment, IMO. How hot was the potato? If it indeed caused serious enough damage to send him to the hospital, I would think it likely he may just have a case. It isn't as if he were using the potato in an unusual manor. We expect to be able to eat food at a restaurant without risking injury.

The strong reaction is also due to the fact that those who would love to see tort reform enacted use such cases as examples of why it is needed. They often respond to such cases just as you did. Tort reform is nothing more than corporate protectionism, and many have strong feelings about that.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. Well said

:yourock:

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. Unfortunately LOSER PAYS

Will mean nobody will sue for anything, for fear they might lose.
Maybe he sucked in his breath like most people do when they experience pain. :shrug:

[yankeedem]

46. and if the case has no merit

It will be thrown out of court. So why exactly is this court case even in the paper? Do all civil cases get published by this paper? Why did we hear about that family in the Bronx who was trying to sue McDonald's for obesity? Did you know their case got laughed out of court?

The system works. Don't screw around with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/04/mcdonalds.suit/

[mike1963]

45. So, was this moran trying to swallow the goddamn thing whole?

:eyes:
:eyes:

[Jacobin]

47. Summary judgment for defendant

He should have waited until it cooled off before he gobbled it down.

This will go nowhere

[jmowreader]

54. I didn't know you could get a potato that hot!

The interesting thing is that he's not claiming damage to his mouth. It seems to me that if this potato was hot enough to destroy your esophagus, it would also be hot enough to burn your mouth, and it would be hot enough to burn your fingers while you were squishing it out to put butter and sour cream in it. "Uhhh...maybe I better not eat this right now."

Ten grand for two days' intensive care isn't out of line, though; I'd imagine the steakhouse has one of those liability insurance carriers that won't pay unless you sue first, then they settle out of court and everyone's happy.

[Pithlet]

57. Maybe it got stuck in his throat.

It's a strange story, to be sure. I would think that the reaction would be to spit it out, but if he panicked and inhaled, and it got stuck, it could have been there just long enough to do damage while bypassing his mouth. Kind of like the run your hand through a candle flame kind of deal.

[LiviaOlivia]

55. Tort reform hypocrites

Good reading from TOMPAINE.com

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4286


Individual hypocrites

George W. Bush

As Texas Governor, George W. Bush was one of the "tort reform" movement’s biggest proponents. One of Bush’s first acts as governor in 1995 was to meet with representatives of nine Texas Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) chapters in a salsa factory outside of Austin, after which he declared a legislative "emergency" on "frivolous lawsuits." Over his two terms, Bush signed a series of brutal bills that severely reduced injured consumers' rights to go to court.

However, when it comes to solving problems involving his own family, Bush heads straight to court. In 1999, Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car over a minor fender-bender involving one of his daughters in which no one was hurt. Although his insurance would have covered the repair costs, making a lawsuit unnecessary, Bush sought additional money from Enterprise, which had rented a car to someone with a suspended license. In this case, Bush seemed to understand one of the most important functions of civil lawsuits -- to deter further wrongdoing. The case settled for $2,000 to $2,500.

Sen. Rick Santorum(R)Penn.

As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has repeatedly supported limits on consumers' rights to seek compensation in the courts. In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000. In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, "We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do."

But the same rhetoric does not seem to apply to Senator Santorum. In December 1999 Santorum supported his wife’s medical malpractice lawsuit against her chiropractor for $500,000. At trial, the Senator testified that his wife should be compensated for the pain and suffering caused by a botched spine adjustment, claiming that she had to "treat her back gingerly" and could no longer accompany him on the campaign trail. After the verdict, Santorum refused to answer phone calls asking what impact the case had on his views of "tort reform." According to his spokesman Robert Traynham, "Senator Santorum is of the belief that the verdict decided upon by the jury during last week’s court case of his wife is strictly a private matter. The legislative positions that Senator Santorum has taken on tort reform and health care have been consistent with the case involving Mrs. Santorum." In January 2000, a judge set aside the $350,000 verdict, deeming it excessive, and offered a reduced award of $175,000 or a new trial on damages only.

[rumguy]

56. THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT COFFEE LAWSUIT

Last year I did an in-depth paper on this case. The facts have been distorted by the rethugs who simply want a headline grabbing soundbite.

Interestingly, the grandmother who sued McD's was a lifelong republican!!! Ha ha, suck on the repukes!

These are the basic facts that you don't hear about very often (these are established facts all on public record, I personally read the trial transcript as well):

The fact is she got third degree burns up and down her legs. She had to have extensive skin grafts and spent a lengthy period of time in the hospital

The fact is she wrote to McDonald's acting for some help with her medical bills - only asked for a few thousand - because she could not afford the bills.

The fact is McDonald's completely ignored her.

The fact is she went to a lawyer only as a last resort.

The fact is that lawyer offered to settle for medical expenses plus a little more for pain and suffering.

The fact is the McDonald's was rude and abusive to her and her attorney.

The fact is at trial evidence came out that McDonalds knew it coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns.

The fact is that the jury was appalled at the arrogance of McDonald's and its attorneys...factoring into the punitive damages award.

The fact is that the 2.7 million dollar jury verdict was meant to sent a message to McDonalds (it was two days of coffee profits).

The fact is that the next day the McDonald's where she got the coffee lowered its coffee temps.

The fact is that the jury verdict was reduced on appeal to around $500,000.

(the exact numbers above may be a bit off, they are coming from memory, but they are close to the actual awards)

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. Great job

[Kathy in Cambridge]

63. Excellent synopsis!

:toast:

[depakid]

101. The fact is also that McDonalds had around 700 previous

complaints about their coffee scalding people, and yet still ordered its franchisees to serve their coffee at 180+ degrees, which experts testified will cause 3rd degree burns on less than 3 seconds exposure.

McDonalds knowingly created and maintained a risk of serious harm- and just didn't give a shit- after all, that's the sort of companmy they are.

On another note, the judgment was lowered by the trial judge on remittitur (as the majority of punative damages awarded by juries are), but of course, you never hear about that....

[LincolnMcGrath]

107. Yessir

:grouphug:

[Ilsa]

91. Tonight at a restaurant, I asked to have my soup reheated.

They serve it cooler than any adult would want; it is the temp for a young child or elderly person. Still, after they reheated it for me, I ate half of it, then I found the superheated hot spot of food. Had to spit it out, it was so hot. I take full responsibility for not letting it get past my tongue.

Why didn't he spit it out? Surely it was steaming?

[LincolnMcGrath]

93. Ever suck in your breath in intense pain?

Ever got liquid in the lungs? Soda out the nose?

Crayon stuck in nose? (wait, that was probably just me, sorry)

[Ilsa]

94. No. I guess my reaction has been to blow out.

Geez, my kids, including my autistic child, knows that food can sometimes be hot and too approach steaming foods with trepidation.

I'm very much in favor of tort rights, not the new tort reform. But I wouldn't be picked for this jury. I think he should have been paying closer attention to what he was doing.

[LincolnMcGrath]

95. Have any of the three things I mentioned

happened to you? You say he should have known it was hot, yet you did the same thing?

[Ilsa]

98. Yeah, I took a small bite! about the size of a

diced carrot. It was hot, so I spit it out. When I know food is hot I don't gulp it down.

No, no soda through the nose. No crayons, either. I answered the first one in my header on #94.

[KTM]

100. Yah, I hafta agree

I cant think of a single time I ever put something too hot in my mouth and didn't spit it back out.. likewise, it's not like one picks up a potato and takes a bite.. surely he had to cut it, stick a fork in it... I just cant imagine how you get it all the way from plate to throat without realizing it is hot.

I worked in and managed restaurants for 14 years. Every now and then someone would ask us to superheat soup or tea or something.. but NEVER have I seen someone swallow food that is too hot.

The coffee case was one thing - this is something else. There has to be a line.

[LincolnMcGrath]

102. Who draws the line?

Big business? The Federalist Society?

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. Not the Federalist Society

Just society in general. And surely, not the lawyers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. You don't vote?

We have two dems up for openings here at the county level. Vote Vote Vote

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. I vote, but I lack the power of the trial lawyers lobby

So my vote doesn't matter that much to the Powers That Be.

[LincolnMcGrath]

126. A lobby can vote?

cool

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. Even more

A lobby can FUND. That, to both parties is vastly more important. With cash, they can buy TV, radio and print ads and get all the votes they desire.

[LincolnMcGrath]

110. That settles it then

Never happened to you so he is lying. Hang em!



:evilgrin:

[Skidmore]

103. Why won't this thread die?

[LincolnMcGrath]

109. To many people feel the need to express their

jealousy over someone else's settlement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. That sounds like a classic lawyer response

Not really addressing the issues, just trying to bury the subject.

[LincolnMcGrath]

118. How is mentioning jealousy over settlements

burying anything? I am not a Lawyer, But I play one on TV.

[Muddleoftheroad]

124. It ignores and belittles a very real problem

That most Americans recognize, but because we are in their back pocket, the Democratic Party does its best to ignore.

To me, that's hypocrisy. We abuse the Repugs for their worship of big business and then we turn around and do the exact same thing with lawyers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

129. I do not worship anyone.

I don't want to lose my rights, thats all. And spreading false talking points about one of the the best systems in the world will only lead to my losing them. Right now we are a hairs breath away from total TORT reform in this country.
All we will end up with is corporate protection.

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. I want neither corporate NOR lawyer protection

I am not advocating a headlong rush into insanity. I am urging a thoughtful move away from it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

133. If we were any where near it,

I would agree. Everything can be improved from time to time, but the push behind the reformers must be taken into account.

[Spentastic]

114. Yeah that's what is is

People are just gutted that their potato didn't burn them enough to sue.

:eyes:

[Loonman]

117. Make sure your food is sufficiently cool before enjoying

Not hard to do.


Why don't we just give our money to fucking trial lawyers and save the lawsuits?

Damn snakes.

[LincolnMcGrath]

123. Should my father give his money back?

After all, the company lawyers said mesothelioma was just junk science. Should he just hand it over to his trial lawyers?

[Loonman]

131. Strawman

Don't give me that crap, this is about potatoes, not asbestos.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. Or make it about asbestos

Peter Angelos, the asbestos lawyer, made so much money on those class actions that he bought a baseball team. Yeah, the system works just fine.

[LincolnMcGrath]

134. How much money were the corporate lawyers paid?

He only worked one case in his whole career, huh?

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. Corporate lawyers are also overpaid

I agree.

[LincolnMcGrath]

139. Better yet,

how many millionaires were created by the asbestos makers? How many shareholders reaped profit, how many company boys stuffed their pockets for years even after they knew it was dangerous?

NAH, Lets focus on the lawyer who represented the dead and dying.

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Clearly you missed my earlier posts

I think we need to worry about abuse on both sides of the coin. Not just corporate but lawyers as well. Not just lawyers, but corporations as well.

[LincolnMcGrath]

143. I have read hundreds of your posts Motr

Anything can be improved, its true. You proposed loser pays earlier. In that case, had they lost, the dead and the terminally ill would be paying back the filthy murderous thugs who got fat from selling asbestos. I see no fairness in that.

[K-W]

144. This isnt abuse though.

This man feels as though the restaurant is in a significant way responsible for the damages he has sustained. He has every right to go to court and try to prove that. This is our system. If lawyers didnt benefit from taking cases to court, then we wouldnt have legal experts when they were needed. If the case has no merit, it will be thrown out. If it has merit, then the system worked.

Certainly lawyers make alot of money and the way they do leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, but the fact is that our system requires legal experts to function. It would be nice if the world was perfect, but there is nary a profession in the world that is paid in a reflective way with what they actually do for society. Lawyers get singled out as a profession because they get associated with the more unseemly side of society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. Lawyers get singled out

Because many of them spend their whole careers looking for a homerun. Sometimes such cases are justified. But once the big awards started coming, then things got much worse. Fast food? Sure, let's sue an entire industry because people are fat.

[K-W]

148. Yah and every other profession is full of people who dont want success

give me a break. First off your statement is wrong. A very small minority of lawyers handle big money cases like the ones you are referring to.

Secondly, for every obesity lawsuit that seems, on its face to be absurd (but may not actually be absurd) there is abspestos litigation or class action litigation that forces companies to both compensate people they have damaged and change thier policies so that they dont cause damage.

Personally I am willing to put up with a nuisence lawsuit now and again, that will, if it is rediculous, simply be thrown out of court, in exchange for the fact that such litigation keeps corporations from hurting and killing people.

I really wonder why you seem to have a problem with that. The stance you are taking baffles me a little bit. You would rather limit peoples abilities to hold corporations responsible for thier actions simply to make lawyers less rich and not have to read stories about funny lawsuits. I wonder where your priorities are.

[LincolnMcGrath]

136. I`ll tell my dad to quit whining and give his money back

[Loonman]

145. Okay Mr. Self Righteous

Whatever.


Have you hugged your lawyer, today?

[LincolnMcGrath]

135. This is really about people judging cases

they don't have the facts on. If it is found to lack merit it will be tossed. If the restaurant broke any law they should be held accountable.

[Spentastic]

137. Law?

There's a law on serving baked potatos that are hot due to the fact that they are BAKED?

Unless there's a way of making potatos superhot that I'm unaware of.

[LincolnMcGrath]

141. Law Statute Code Recommedation

Standard Requirement :shrug:

[K-W]

142. This is tort law.

It isnt about the criminal code. The question is, does the restaurant have any liability in the damage that was done to the man. At first glance alot of people jump to the conclusion that they dont, but they may. That is why we have judges and juries. This man has just as much right as you or I to seek redress in a court of law for damages. I think our system, while flawed of course, works pretty well and I await the decision that is arrived at by people who actually know the case, rather than the conditioned lawyer haters on this forum who have some psychic conduit to the facts.

[Loonman]

147. Serving food hot- not against the law

Last I checked.


You're a lawyer, aren't you?

[K-W]

149. Tort law, is not criminal law

If the restaurants actions were responsible for the injury, they can be held legally liable.

[Loonman]

150. For serving hot food?

That's patently ridiculous.


The legal system in America has been compromised by people who refuse to use common sense and take responsibility for their own actions.

[K-W]

153. Why are you people being so absolutely rediculous?

are all assuming you know the facts of the case. I dont, you dont. So why are you pretending you do? What if this potatoe was served at a temperature that a reasonable person would consider outrageous, and the man put it in his mouth, tried to spit it out, but gagged and swallowed. The potatoe severely damaged his throat and esophogus. He is now saddled with medical bills and is in a desperate situation. He expected that a restaurant would not be so irresponsible as to serve him something to eat that could 'melt his esophogus'. I think it is probably fairly reasonable to expect a place that sells food, not to sell me something to eat that can melt my esophogus. "WHy didnt he just spit it out" etc, maybe he tried. You werent there, I wasnt there.

I dont know if my scenario is accurate, but neither do you know that yours is. This could be a case with some merit, it could be a case with none. That is why we have a legal system. If the case has merit an unfortunate man could get a little money to help pay his bills and a rare but unfortunate problem could be exposed with food serving. If it has no merit, it will be thrown out.

Why do you have a problem with this? How does this hurt you? Of the many many huge problems in the world, why would you show such outrage over something so incredibally small?

So how about you people stop pretending that you know the facts of the case, and stop making a much bigger deal out of the issue of nusuince lawsuits than the actual issue deserves.

[Loonman]

154. No, but I do a funny thing when I eat hot food

I make sure it's not too hot to eat before I eat it.


Amazing, huh?

[K-W]

155. You have never put a piece of food in your mouth and found it to be hot?

That is amazing. You may be the only human being on earth who has never carelessly eaten something and then found it to be too hot. I have no doubt that Einstien himself had to spit out something hot in his life. So congratualtions to you for being the most deliberate eater who has ever lived, but perhaps you should lower your standards for the rest of us.

Now imagine that one day, you just plop the food in your mouth, and it is too hot, but its not just a little scalding, you dont just burn your mouth, it is extremely hot and starts causing massive damage. In a situation like this you arent given lots of time and lots of rationality. This is a reflex situation and your body tries to eject the hot substance. Now what if in that process, your body fouled up. You gagged and you swallow the food. It goes down your throat and burs you all the way down.

That scenario really could happen to anyone. In such a case, I would certainly be pissed off at the restaurant. I would also be hard pressed to pay for my medical treatments and cope with the time id have to spend in the hospital. I might investigate whether or not the restaurant had any legal liability. I might contact a lawyer, who would look over case law and tell me, "they might have some liability." I might bring a suit.

This is not unreasonable. This is not stupid. This is not funny. This could be just like the cofee incident. Given just some of the facts and alot of assumptions most people dont bother to consider the fact that the facts might be a little more complicated.

Now I dont know if my scenario was close to what happened. It could be a nuisence lawsuit. If it is, it will be thrown out, no harm, no foul. So what exactly is your problem?

[Loonman]

157. Not too hot to eat, no

Hard concept to grasp, huh?

[K-W]

159. As I said, you are a miracle man. A statistacal anommaly.

I have, more times than I could count put food that was too hot in my mouth. Sometimes i had to drink some water. Sometimes I had to pant a little bit. Sometimes it just hurt, and sometimes I did some superficial damage to the inside of my mouth. This is perfectly normal and I see people doing it constantly. The key fact is that NO ONE, except for apparently you, checks everything they ever eat before putting it in thier mouth.

So, congratulations for your brilliant eating, but your standards dont apply to the rest of us.

[Spentastic]

151. Explain to me

How a fully functioning human being orders a baked potato and is then surprised that it is hot.

[LincolnMcGrath]

156. See post #91

Halfway through a soup meal that poster got surprised by a superheated morsel.

[Spentastic]

158. Fair enough n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

152. How many lawyers use UNION YES as an avatar?

:pals: :pals: :pals: