I like Edwards, but how do we support him as a trial lawyer

[napi21]

and still condem the ones who successfully get verdicts like the Millions to the lady who spilled coffee in her lap?

I read the article about the little NC girl who was caught in the wading pool drain. Edwards got a multimillion dollar settlement for her & her family. It's a very compelling case and a just verdict.

But we all know of a lot of really dumb and excessive verdicts have happened over the last 15 to 20 years that really had no merit and a crazy jury awarded them anyway.

I want to be able to support Edwards in all the arguments, but I'm not sure how to counter the bad judgements that I know also happen all the time.

[bowens43]

1. There is nothing wrong with being a trial lawyer.

It doesn't need defending.

[uhhuh]

70. Absolutely correct

People must remember that Both sides at a trial have lawyers. Corporations keep trial lawyers on staff. I doubt you will hear the chimpsters complaining about Kenny Boy Lay being represented.

Oh, and when the chimp was being interviewed about things relating to the Plame affair, he didn't bring an MBA with him, did he?

[Fla Dem]

124. Amen to that.

There are bad apples in every profession, and there may be a few too many stupid lawsuits (it's in the eye of the beholder). If it wasn't for some of these suits against huge corporations we would have rampant disregard for consumer's safety just so corporations can squeeze out every last drop of profit at the expense of consumer injury and death. Besides most of the decisions in these cases are made by juries. So are they rotten too?

[David Dunham]

2. Abe Lincoln was also a trial lawyer.

[expatriot]

19. when ever the Republicans claim they are the "Party of Lincoln"

I say, "what party would he belong to today being a trial lawyer, civil rights activist from the Blue State of Illinois." That usually shuts them up. (i know, i know, he wasn't that much of an abolotionist himself before the war but most Republicans I talk to don't know that)

[ParanoidPat]

148. IIRC, 24 or 25 of our past Presidents were 'trial lawyers'......

.....at some point in their lives. What's your point? :shrug: :evilgrin:

I think being a lawyer and having a good understanding of the law would be a good pre-requisite for running the country. But that's just me. :)

[kanrok]

3. Do yourself a favor and research the McDonald's coffee spill case

Google it and make up your mind on the facts, not what you believe the facts to be. Oh, yeah, also check out snopes.com on all the supposed "frivilous" lawsuits.

[Beearewhyain]

13. Good point

and here is a link. Like most things in life the story is much more complicated than what the media would have you believe.

link

Edit: Fixed link

[True_Blue]

42. I thought it was just a frivilous lawsuit too

until I actually saw the pictures of the burns....huge red welts all over her thighs....she was an elderly woman too. God I felt so bad for her!

If it weren't for the trial lawyers, we would be so screwed by these corporations.

[Beearewhyain]

49. It is so easy to jump to conclusions, especially on legal matters

when the media gives limited information designed to evoke an emotional reaction rather than a thoughtful one. When I first heard about the case I thought it was insane. Later, I found out that there was a lot more to it than met the (TV news) eye.

Being a nation of laws means that lawyers are actually defenders of the nation, IMHO.

[AP]

64. And if anyone can explain the truth to Americans, it's Edwards.

[AP]

63. She wasn't the only person it happened to. Many complained, but

McDonalds could save more money by not changing the coffee in the machine (and cleaning it) if they turned up the heat (to kill germs) then they expected to pay out by injuring people whom they knew they were going to injure.

McDonalds made the decision to burn people based on a calculation that they'd be saving, like, $2 per coffeepot per day. They have millions of coffee pots, so that was a lot of money over a period of time.

The jury had to hit them with a big verdict or they would have never changed their policies.

[juajen]

74. Amen to that

And, what most people do not know, is that McDonald's had complaints going back years over their too-hot coffee. I know from experience that I could get a cup of coffee there in Lafayette and it would still be hot when I got to Natchitoches three hours away. For the first hour I couldn't even sip it. Their coffee was too damn hot and they knew it. I stopped buying coffee there for this reason, even though I liked the taste of their java.

[ibegurpard]

51. like many of these "frivolous lawsuit" stories

it's easy to frame the whole issue in a way that outrages people when they hear only a part of it. Unfortunately, the lack of critical thinking in this country means people take stuff like that at face value without looking into the whole story.

[AngryAmish]

121. McDonald's verdict was basis for Insurance company PR blitz

To poison jury pools nationwide. The verdict was reduced at the trial court level. McDonalds knew that lots of customers were being injured in the same way. He injuries were horrific.

McDonalds case as an example of runaway judicial system is a fiction made up by the US Cahamber of Commerce and big insurance companies.

[KT2000]

152. Trial lawyers =today's civil rights

corporate lawyers make me want to barf though.

The whole issue of tort reform is spun in the media using bogus and misleading info. Trial lawyers are our last tool against the corporate oligarchy. Trial lawyers are today's civil rights attorneys!

[Dookus]

4. Why should we condemn

the one who got a verdict for the woman who was severely burned? The fact is, the coffee was served at an extremely unsafe temperature.

They had settled over 700 previous cases of scalds due to the coffee temperature.

The woman involved suffered 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts.

The final verdict against McDonalds was $480,000, not millions.

The woman wouldn't have sued if McDonalds hadn't denied her request to pay her medical bills.

It was a perfectly valid lawsuit, and the verdict was correct.

[Hamlette]

62. the 2.7 million punitive damages was equal to two days' coffee sales

for McDonalds. That's how the jury arrived at that number.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[neuvocat]

5. Why even worry about it?

I mean, if you need something to go on then quote John McCain who said that perfection is an enemy of the good. When you compare Edwards record as a trial lawyer to Bush's record as the governor of Texas, just tell people that you'd rather have someone who didn't kill people to get to where he's at.

[jpgray]

6. People focus on the exceptions and not the rule

The coffee case is an exception, pushed to coverage because it is unique, AND because it helps the meme of 'too many lawsuits are frivolous, we need to legislate limitations.' Who benefits from this? Hundreds of millworkers who get ill from exposure to asbestos could get their ability to prosecute stymied by a handful of unique cases that sway public opinion. The corporations who suffer from these lawsuits are trying to push the idea that these lawsuits are all frivolous, and the trial lawyers and victims are all lazy, greedy folks looking to make a quick buck and drive up the cost of business. Unfortunately, no one reports on the people who really need this kind of justice, because they seem to be too ordinary. :( This is one of the few ways corporations can be held directly and meaningfully to account for their lack of interest in humanity, and it should remain.

[DenverDem]

7. Corporations are not citizens, do not have inalienable rights

and should be liable if their profiteering endangers public health and safety.

Edwards was only interested in JUSTICE, a forgotten concept, but one of the cornerstones of our great nation, one of the many cornerstones we have lost on our way to becoming a soulless empire in support of cynical, sociopathologically megalomaniacle corporate globalists.

[Trajan]

8. That lady

suffered 3rd degree burns on her genital region, and underwent three skin graft operations ....

The GOP hates trial lawyers because they hold corporate supporters of the GOP accountable for their frauds and malfeasances ....

Trial lawyers work for US ....

No WONDER they hate them ....

[merh]

39. In addition to the severe burns to the elder woman's genital region,

the evidence established demonstrated that the corporation was aware of the defect of the lid on the coffee cup and the danger of the overly heated coffee. This was not a one time, first time occurrence. The corporation was aware of the flaw and should have spent the extra pennies to correct the flaw and to regulate the temperature, they did not care, thus the verdict.

[AP]

65. They turned up the heat to kill germs so they wouldn't have to brew more

coffee.

It was all about a cost-benefit analysis McDonalds did in which they accepted the fact they'd injure their customers.

No different from the Ford Pinto cases.

[Hekate]

67. Let me tell you about my sister's MacBurn

Almost 25 years ago she and her new hubby were out for an early morning bike ride and stopped at MacD's for a coffee. Out in the parking lot she dropped her cup, which broke open and splashed her ankle. The women in my family are not sissies about pain, but hers was so severe she could not ride on.

Her husband went back inside the store to ask for a phone, some ice, a secure place to park their bikes, and maybe just a little human concern. He got none of it, although he was able to call a cab from their pay phone.

At the doctor's my sis was treated for a third-degree burn on her ankle -- almost to the bone. She had to return to the doctor's office every single day to have the dressings changed by the nurse until it got better, and narrowly avoided a skin graft.

MacDonald's has known about this danger for decades now, and their only response has been (after the lawsuit) to emboss white-on-white warnings on the cup-lids -- warnings that apparently shift the responsibility to the consumer, rather like the warnings on cigarette packs.

A burn like that could easily turn life-threatening to an elderly person; it could scar a child for life if a cup tips over at the table. MacD's keeps their urns set to near-boiling -- how many of us do that at home? At home (and in most restaurants) the coffee begins to cool below boiling even as it drips through the grounds. Even in an insulated carafe the temperature of coffee at home is well below MacD's industry standard.

MacDonald's deserved having to pay the high settlement--what I fail to understand is why they have not changed their ways. Corporate behavior like that is why we need lawyers like John Edwards.

Hekate

[merh]

75. That is why trial lawyers have been demonized....

The corporations don't want to change if it costs them money, they have found that making the greedy trial lawyers the villians is much more effective than improving their products for consumers.

Also would like to point out that insurance companies are the ones that are the most villianous of the lot. They are always showing profits and when they take a hit in the market (or do to catastrophic events such as hurricanes and 9/11) rather than feel the loss or a reduction in profits, they hick up the rates and blame those nasty trial lawyers.

And while I am ranting, you would think these silly corporations and insurance companies would recognize that if they would only pay what the consumers or insureds are entitled to from day one, then they would save themselves money. Cut out the middle man - the defense lawyers and just pay what is owed. Save the litigation expenses and limit the possibility of large verdicts/punitive damages.

[AP]

158. You'll NEVER hear a story like that on Fox news.

I love the intenet.

[PaDUer]

9. Edwards will show them

how good and honest he is..they're shaking in their shoes..Don't let the media or anyone intimidate you about Edwards..We've got the perfect, ideal team, and the greatest new First Ladies!

[goclark]

35. And fabulous kids!

It is so refreshing to see the Edwards kids today.
There was the lovely video of Edwards holding his little one as they walked down the steps.

The Chimp family has to hold each other up!

[winga222]

10. Lincoln

I don't think the repugs will be disowning their professed Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, even with his tainted trial lawyer past. We all know he wouldn't be allowed in the current GOP with his radical views but they do refuse to give up the fantasy.

[union_maid]

11. Even better, we get to re-examine the roll of trial lawyers

The kinds of cases Edwards has won are the kinds of cases that need to be brought. Contingency lawsuits are often the only redress ordinary people have against corporations and other mega-institutions and the only thing that will bring them into line at all. The silly ones that win big awards are the exceptions. The anti-trial lawyer meme is largely a successful example of propaganda and another example of getting us to cheer while laws are passed that make the people less powerful and the powerful less vulnerable.

[goodhue]

12. It's a Myth!

Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case

In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

This infamous case<1>has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and, in an instant, the media and legal communities were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as “Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million,”<2>or “Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million”<3>painted the picture of a “runaway jury,” an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers’ legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a “legal myth,” a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers.

The Facts

A detailed look at the facts of this case reveal that in light of McDonalds’ actions, the awards were justified:

* By its own corporate standards, McDonald’s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald’s argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. However, a doctor testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees.<4>

* During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.<5>In addition, many of these claims were settled, amounting to more than $500,000.<6>

* Witnesses for McDonald’s testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company’s required temperature. McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.<7>

* As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years.<8>Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald’s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.<9>McDonald’s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.

* McDonald’s had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck’s attorney offered to settle for $300,000.<10> In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald’s settle for $225,000.<11> McDonald’s refused all attempts to settle the case.


The Findings

The jury found that Ms. Liebeck suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.<12>

Based on its finding that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald’s made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily.<13>

Since the purposes of awarding punitive damages are to punish the person or company doing the wrongful act and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future, the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person.<14>Punitive damages are supposed to be large enough to send a message to the wrongdoer; limited punitive awards when applied to wealthy corporations, means the signal they are designed to send will not be heard. The trial court refused to grant McDonald’s a retrial, finding that its behavior was “callous.” The judge, however, announced in open court a few days after the trial that he would reduce the punitive damages award to $480,000.<15>Both sides appealed the decision.

Before the appeals could be heard the parties reached an out-of-court agreement for an undisclosed amount of money. As part of this settlement, McDonald’s demanded that no one could release the details of the case.<16>

Based on the facts, Corporate America’s and much of the media’s trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a “legal horror story” when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing.

Note: The nature of the private settlement and lack of public court documents resulted in the use of primarily newspaper sources.

November 30, 1999


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<1>. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, No. CV-93-02419, 1995 (N.M. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994).

<2>. “Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million; Damages awarded to woman scalded at McDonald’s.” The Orange County Register, Aug. 19, 1994, at C1.

<3>. “Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 1994, at B3.

<4>. Gerlin, Andrea, “A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided McDonald’s Should Pay a Woman Millions for a Hot-Coffee Spill,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 1, 1994, at A1.

<5>. Morgan, S. Reed, “Verdict Against McDonald’s is Fully Justified,” The National Law Journal, Vol. 17 No. 8; Oct. 24, 1996, at A20.

<6>. Gerlin, supra note 4, at A4.

<7>. Morgan, S. Reed, “McDonald’s Burned Itself,” The Legal Times, Sept. 19, 1994, pg. 26.

<8>. Morgan, supra note 5, at A20.

<9>. Sherowski, Elizabeth, “Hot Coffee, Cold Cash: Making the Most of Alternative Dispute Resolution in High Stakes Personal Injury Lawsuits,” 11 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 521, 1996.

<10>“McDonald’s Settles Lawsuit of Woman Burned by Coffee,” Liability Week, Vol. 9 No. 47; Dec. 5, 1994.

<11>. Gerlin, supra note 4, at A4.

<12> Morgan, supra note 5, at A20.

<13>. Morgan, supra note 7, pg. 26.

<14>. § 908 (a); § 908 (e) Punitive Damages, Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, American Law Institute (1979)

<15>. Morgan, supra note 5, pg. 26.

<16>. Howard, Theresa, “McDonald’s Settles Coffee Suit in Out-of-Court Agreement,” Nation’s Restaurant News, Dec. 12, 1994, pg. 1.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785

[mopinko]

14. hmmm, well there are always, ummm, facts

like the fact that the lady's verdict got reduced considerably on appeal, or the fact that she got that verdict because mc donalds had been quietly paying other burn victims off for years.
or the fact that many, many of the outrageous claims that your hear about are urban legends. http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
cite edwards actual cases. and ask them who they support, greedy corporations, or people injured by that greed.

[Lex]

15. The McDonald's coffee verdict was CORRECT.

Maybe I'm the only one on earth who feels this way, but the jury was RIGHT in Liebeck/McDonald's coffee case.

Be ready to throw this back into the freepers' faces.

Here's why the verdict was correct:

* There had been over 700 prior incidents of injuries from McDonald''s coffee that had been reported to the company and were present in company documents. They ranged in severity from minor burns to third degree burns, and resulted in numerous claims, some settling for over $500,000. Several cases involved children.

* Prior to the lawsuit, McDonald''s sold its coffee at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Coffee you serve in your home is between 135 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Water that is found in your car radiator is 180 degrees Fahrenheit. At 190 degrees, it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn, while at 160 degrees it takes about 20 seconds.

* The coffee inflicted third degree burns on Stella Liebeck''s groin, inner thighs and buttocks, necessitating seven days in the hospital for extensive skin grafts and debridement treatment. Photographs vividly demonstrated the severity of these burns, which covered six percent of her body.

* A McDonald''s executive testified that McDonald's knew its coffee caused serious burns. McDonald''s also consciously decided not to warn people of the dangers concerning the temperature of its coffee and had no intention of changing that temperature.

* One week after the lawsuit, McDonald''s changed its coffee temperature reducing it by 20 degrees.

* Despite Stella Liebeck''s $20,000 in medical bills, McDonald''s only offered her $800 to settle her case. Stella Liebeck stated she would have never brought the suit had McDonald''s been willing to pay her medical bills.

* The Plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, was found 20 percent at fault, which resulted in the compensatory damage award of $200,000 being reduced to $160,000.


Also see this: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[eablair3]

34. The verdict was correct but the judgment was not.

I don't see how they could justify reducing the punitive damage verdict of $2.7 million to $480,000. McDonald's ignored over 700 other incidents or people getting burned by their scalding hot coffee over the previous ten years. They were creating an unsafe situation for the customer -- did many know that the coffee as served to you at the time was not drinkable and would burn your mouth and throat? McDonald's knew. 700 previous burn cases.

The $2.7 million verdict was only two days of McDonald's sales of just coffee.

Reducing that amount to $480,000 is a crime.

Does anyone think that McDonald's is going to even blink over $480,000? That's nothing to McDonald's. It's not going to deter them -- and that's why they continued to sell coffee so hot because they calculated that the injuries to people were "rare" and that their coffee sales would increase and they'd make more money, even with people getting hurt and burned.

A couple more links, fyi:

http://www.atlanet.org/consumermediaresources/tier3/press_room/facts/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

and a decent link/post:
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/001070.html

[Lex]

43. I agree with that.

The punitive damages must be punitive in light of what makes that particular corporation pay attention.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Amen and ALL of McDonald's drinks were served that hot

Does anyone think if a small child had been burned by Ronald McDonald's hot chocolate they would have EVER contested that case to the degree that they did?

[Dunedain]

79. actuary

Gotta love math huh?

[SharonAnn]

40. If it had been a man who required skin grafts on his penis -

as a result of this situation, what would have been the right amount for the award?

I think that there would have been horror at the judge reducing the damage amount. Public outcry might have demand that the $2.7 million actually be increased!

Think about it.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

92. A fair punitive award...

Take the CEO of McDonalds and force him to dip his penis into 190 degree coffee. He can either do that or accept the $2.7 million in damages.

[kiahzero]

16. You learn what the hell you're talking about

That would help.

http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

[Robbien]

17. What nonsense. The GOP party line is "lets say trial lawyers are bad

and make those dumb Democrats waste their time defending the profession".

Why defend. Attack and say much better than a Halliburton stooge who stole our money and spilled the blood of our children.

[rolodomo]

18. 190F coffee causes

third degree, full thickness burns to your skin.

Do you hold coffee close to your skin when drinking it? :eyes:

[LiviaOlivia]

20. Bravo/Brava to all who posted replies on this thread!

And the Truth shall set you free!

[Swede Atlanta]

21. It's not all about trial lawyers

First of all, let's now be sucked into what the repiglikkkans want us to think, that we have to defend Edwards' experience as a trial lawyer. We can't let them set the agenda as they have in the past. This is about real issues and not wedge games.

There are really bad trial lawyers out there, lawyers who would sell their mothers to make a few bucks. We all know that. But that doesn't mean that they all are bad or that Edwards was one of them. In fact Edwards appears to have zealously advocated for the "little guy". I'm going on a cruise in August and plan to read his book, The Four Trials.

Let's stop feeling like we have to be on the defensive. In fact I think his experience as a trial lawyer is a perfect counter to the Cheney money cabal. Edwards would be likely to be confronting Cheney and his monied cronies over some egregious accident or harm. Edwards by his very background is the antithesis of the corporate excesses of Bu$hCo.

So, let them make his background an issue. Bring em on!!!! Being a trial attorney makes Edward the quintessential attackdog.

[SideshowScott]

22. Edwards fights for the little guy. End of story..

Oh i see the Right Wing talking heads are going to try to have a field day with this. But the fact of the matter is that as someone pointed out the Lincion was a trail lawyer, Trail lawyers fight for our rights. Edwards is a very smart man and im sure he will dish back whatever they try to throw at him. Its funny how the right does not mind Trail Lawyers when THEY need someone to defend them. The propaganda against Trial Layers is nothing more than Big Business trying to screw America just a bit more.

[testing123]

23. The right wingers supports a corporate thug

I believe a Trial Lawyer is better then a corporate thug.

[JanMichael]

24. Argh! Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

I can't even believe that I'm hearing this shit here...My ears, no my eyes, oh crap I'm suing DU.

[gmoney]

25. You're buying the CorpoRepublican spin

It's corporations that have given trial lawyers a "bad name" -- idiots like Rush point to the coffee spill case like it didn't have to merit a court date and get a jury to agree. Coffee that's way too hot with a crappy lid handled poorly by an employee is dangerous and the woman was genuinely injured. If McDonalds would have acknowledged it, she probably would have settled for medical expenses and a little compensation for pain and suffering. But McDonalds are the ones who forced it to go to court, knowing the odds were largely in their favor... they gambled, they lost, and they can fuckin' afford to pay this woman a couple million.

For the three or four "frivolous" suits that get mentioned over and over, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of instances where someone is injured due to negligence, and the big company just "outlawyers" the individual so the person never even recovers their medical expenses, or gets their car fixed, or whatever.

Frivolous lawsuits are NOT the problem... unaccountable corporations are the problem. Which is why they spin against plaintiff trial lawyers every chance they get. (Nobody complains about the defendant's trial lawyer who gets legitimate cases thrown out on technicalities or through predatory lawyering.)

Without trial lawyers like John Edwards, who are willing to front the costs of taking a case to trial on contingency, there would be virtually NO justice for everyday people harmed by sociopathic psychotic corporations.

[eablair3]

37. she offered to settle

there was apparently an offer to settle the case for payment of the woman's medical expenses of $20,000 at one point, but McDonald's refused.

[Straight Shooter]

26. What kind of fool would represent himself or herself in court

That's my opinion of those who think trial lawyers are only in it for the money. You need smarts, you need savvy, you need common sense.

I've worked around lawyers for over 20 years. There are some bad ones, and most lawyers do have major egos, but I have seen them fight tooth and nail to make sure their clients get the justice they deserve when they have been harmed by the negligence of others.

Lawyers are all that stand between what's fair and falling through the cracks in our legal system. They are the best safety net we have, in many arenas, and anyone who thinks otherwise can damn well represent themselves in court.

[Trajan]

27. napi ? ...

Im sure you have been informed by this thread ....

thanks for posting this: Im sure it educated more than a few ....

[gbwarming]

28. Third degree burns, skin grafts. McD ignored 700 similar claims.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.

McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.

McDonald's refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman's initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald's actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer.

[Zen Democrat]

29. Don't Worry - The Republicans tried that against Edwards in 1998

and abandoned that strategy -- because they couldn't find a single frivolous case in Edwards case history. Read this link for a great story that should make you feel proud that he's a trial lawyer.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

[avb7]

30. Do you think that....

some of those "dumb and excessive awards" got the attention of a corporation that then tried a little harder to do the right thing with a product? Large verdicts in personal injury lawsuits serve as a reminder to manufacturers and service providers to make products that do not maim or kill the public. Punitive damages are just that, they are meant to punish the guilty and maybe they will think twice about marketing a product that is unsafe. No lawyer ever got an award that a jury didn't specify. Why is it that we trust juries to render a verdict in a death penalty case but call them "crazy" when they put the hammer to a multi-national corporation or a drunken doctor? It's easy to put the bad mouth on lawyers, they even tell jokes about themselves, but where is the first place we are headed when something bad happens?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. Maybe you ought to read this recent post about Edwards' cases....

<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html>

Until he moved to the Senate, Edwards was a personal injury lawyer---the kind people most love to hate---and a very talented one. More than half his cases were medical malpractice suits. Many involved infants born with brain damage or other serious conditions that entail a lifetime of expensive medical care. Edwards also won cases against hospitals, cities, and corporations. "As a lawyer, he was the whole package," says Mike Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly. "He's prepared, he's smart, and he's very personable." And he continued winning massive verdicts. In 1990, he was the youngest member inducted into The Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only group of the nation's top 100 trial lawyers. By the mid-1990s, Edwards had become legendary. "After trials," recalls Howard Twiggs, a Raleigh lawyer and former president of ATLA, "jurors would approach Johnny and ask him for his card." It is said that insurance companies would suddenly become interested in settling when Edwards' name was added to a plaintiff's team. Edwards won a $7 million verdict for the parents of a 16-year-old who'd killed himself the day after being dismissed from a psychiatric hospital, an incredibly difficult case to win, Dayton says, because in North Carolina the plaintiff must prove that the entire burden of negligence lies with the defendant. In 1997, Edwards successfully sued a doctor for $23 million on behalf of the parents of a baby severely brain damaged by oxygen deprivation during labor.

The defining case in Edwards' legal career wrapped up that same year. In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards' closing argument, "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen," recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history. For their part, Edwards and Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.

....snip....

But Luntz had it backwards. Edwards hadn't cleaned out Mom and Pop. He'd targeted corporations like Sta-Rite and negligent hospitals that had injured small children, and he'd won the unanimous jury decisions state law requires. What's more, he responded to Faircloth's criticism by inviting the public to scrutinize his legal record. Faircloth's campaign strategists considered making a commercial featuring a doctor whom Edwards had put out of business, but thought better of it when they realized Edwards would retaliate by putting forward the little girl who'd suffered at the doctor's hands. As it was, Faircloth never delved into specifics about his opponent's record. Nor should he have, says former ATLA president Twiggs: "Johnny, in that situation, can put on the patient, can put on the jury foreman, and can absolutely destroy that tactic if it's used. It would be a unique opportunity to show who he represented and why, and to show why the jury found in his favor."

By sheer virtue of his skill as a lawyer, Edwards had been able to avoid taking the kinds of cases the public detests. During the campaign, opponents tried unsuccessfully to criticize him for turning away 35 to 40 cases for each one he accepted. But such was the demand for his service that it was impossible to accommodate everyone. Even so, a close friend and fellow attorney says that, before running for Senate, Edwards had a team of doctors and nurses privately screen his record to make sure that no case he'd brought to trial could be considered frivolous: "When they got significantly into , they decided he'd never come close to violating the standard."


Any questions?

[Pachamama]

68. Thanks for posting this info on his cases...

....its important to show what kind of cases he fought for....versus the kind of lawyers that defend friends of Bush and Cheney....

I look forward to seeing some of that excellent presentation and lawyering used in the debates versus Cheney.... :)

[Zero Division]

73. Great article. Some interesting points I'd never heard

such as:

- the bulk of frivolous lawsuits come not from individuals, but businesses suing other businesses (like John Deere suing over another company's use of a certain shade of green)

- Tort reformers ignore problems with trial lawyers that affect the average person more than corporations: the trial lawyers' monopoly over basic legal services that could be handled by paralegals (reducing the costs of legal services), trial lawyers who withhold information vital to public interests, concealment of the personal earnings of trial lawyers.

It sounds like an attack on Edwards from the typical angle of talking about frivolous lawsuits from individuals or attacks on the general profession will almost certainly backfire.

However, there is the possibility that Edwards will have to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the second point above. These might pose more of a difficulty.

[guitar man]

33. Well, let's see.......

He grew up the son of simple textile plant workers, first in his family to go to college. He found a profession that interested him, worked hard,became very good at it and made a buttload of money doing it. Sounds like he has a huge work ethic and has been able to achieve the "American Dream" scenario the Repigs are always crowing about.


Id stack JE's work ethic up against Bushler's and let it go at that. Let the Repig bastards eat cake on this one!

[merh]

36. Trial lawyers do not award verdicts.

Juries award verdicts. Judges hearing bench trials based on the evidence award verdicts.

Trial lawyers advocate their clients' positions. They fight for their clients. Just as a criminal lawyer fights to protect his client's constitutional rights, not necessarily to get him off, a trial lawyer fights to put forward his client's case and to protect his client's rights in the courtroom. Most criminal defense lawyers understand that if they allow their client's constitutional rights to be violated by the government, then they have opened the door that allows the prosecutor/government to violate the constitutional rights of all.

A trial lawyer is not out for the big bucks, he is out to try to make whole his client. Verdicts are not awarded by a jury willy nilly, a trial lawyer must have the evidence to support the (1) liability and (2) to support damages.

Multi-million dollar verdicts are not returned because the case is idiotic or frivolous. Evidence has to be presented to substantiate the verdict. Multi-million dollar verdicts are generally awarded against corporations that knew there was a problem with their product and ignored the problem or flaw because correcting it would have been too expensive.

The perfect example is the Pinto lawsuits. The proof established by the plaintiffs' legal teams was that it was a design flaw that caused the Pintos to explode when struck from behind and that Ford was aware of the engineering flaw, but, was unwilling to pay the extra money to correct the flaw.

Trial lawyers are advocates for the less fortunate and for the victims of corporate greed. For every multi-million dollar case won by trial lawyers there are thousands of smaller cases that the verdict does not adequately repay the lawyer for his efforts and/or that result in no verdict at all. Trial lawyers pay out of their own pockets 9 out of 10 times to fund the litigation.

The contempt that most feel toward trial lawyers should not be directed at trial lawyers but toward corporate, defense lawyers that advise their clients (hospitals, corporations, insurance companies, etc.) not to settle despite obvious liability. The odds are the plaintiffs will not be to able to pursue or afford to pursue the litigation, let alone pursue it to a just end. As I said, most trial lawyers pay the plaintiff's expenses and if no verdict is returned, they do not get a dime. No refund, no bill in the mail. Naadaaaa!

How will you defend a trial lawyer as the VP? A trial lawyer like Edwards is accustomed to fighting for the rights of the underdog against the corporations. Who better do you want to do this for you? That is an easy call. (imho)

[seabeyond]

38. my opinion only..............he is doing a needed job

and yes i believe we need a ceiling on what can be sued for. that isnt the trial lawyers place to put said ceiling. and it is out of control what some of the suits are about and being awarded for, again that isnt the trial lawyer, that is the jury that is going for it

i cannot blame the lawyer, though i have bad taste with lawyers. have them in family, have used them, and watched brother give over 150k and 6 years in a custody hearing.

but it isnt just the lawyer
it isnt just companies
it isnt just the people

it is all out of control

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. "We need a ceiling on what can be sued for"

My mom had her leg amputated as a result of medical malpractice...


The Pukes want to limit pain and suffering awards to $250,000,00...


If that was your mom would you be satisfied with a $250,000.00 cap?

Are you down with that?


If the judge thinks the verict is excessive he can reduce it or throw it out.... Same thing for appeals court...

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

41. Big deal........

Everything that John Edwards has, all the money he's made, he did it himself. He started with very little and now he's running for vice-president of the United States....and nowhere along the line did one of his father's business buddies need to bail him out of a hole he dug himself into.

No matter what you think of lawyers, you can't expect John Edwards to apologize for his success.

[Maat]

46. I worry a lot less about a trial lawyer securing a settelement..

or award for a client who has been injured...than about CEO's and other top officers of corporations who get obscene bonuses (at the same time they are driving a company into the ground), a couple of hundred times what they pay their average worker.

[eablair3]

44. I like the fact that he was a trial lawyer

it's a big plus to me.

Do yourself a favor and really read some of the posts and the links provided in this thread and learn the facts.

You've been brainwashed and hoodwinked by the right-wing corporate mass media.

Don't just believe what they say, ... find out the real facts and make up your mind.

Trial lawyers are one of the best groups to keep *somewhat* of a check on the millions and billions that some corporations and some CEO types who rip off the normal everyday American.

These companies and CEOs who make hundreds of millions per year don't like trial lawyers because trial lawyers hold their feet to the fire. But, with people believing the public relations blitz of the right wing and the corporate mass media, it gets harder and harder for trial lawyers.

Do yourself a favor and read up ... keep an open mind, .. and maybe you'll change your mind about trial lawyers.

[Blue-Jay]

45. Poop!

"Trial lawyer" = RW talking point.

Yes, he made lots of moolah representing people against insurance companies. So Cheneying what? He presented arguments and evidence, and a jury either decided for or against his case. That's how it works.

[napi21]

52. I chose the coffee case because it is well known. I should have

chosen some others. Even though you may not have heard of them, they support my point of view.

York Weights and the distributor and seller were sued because a guy was using their product, doing bench presses without a spotter, lost control of the bar and missed the cradle. He dropped the bar and it broke his neck when it fell on his throat. Yes, it's a gruesome description, but it's true. His family sued and were awarded a lot of money. WHY? This guy was stupid! I don't see where the weight mfg. was negligent, or the product malfunctioned. Every rofessional lifter knows that you never do bench presses without a spotter because things CAN go wrong!

People fall off ladders and sue the mfg. of the ladder. I just purchased a Digital Cooking Thermometer. In the brochure is says DO NOT TOUCH THE HOT METAL PROBE WITH YOUR BARE HANDS. WOW, did they really have to tell me that?

I don't think the trial lawyers are the problem at all. I guess it's the jurors, or the judges. I'm not sure who is at fault. I can tell you though that I'm not the only one who feels there have been a lot of unreasonable awards made to people who had no valid case.

[kiahzero]

53. Probably for reasons similar to the coffee case

You understand that the discussion of the coffee case was lies, but you don't appear to learn the lesson of that. Let's see the case details regarding York Weights and their distributor. If the case was successful, they were probably negligent in some way. Just like the coffee case, there was probably some crucial detail you don't have that explains the verdict.

[napi21]

57. I was not present at the trial, but I was an accountant for the

company that sold the bar and weights. I know the case was successful beccause I issued the check for the payment of the judgement. The answer I got when I asked how this case could have been lost was that this nitwit bodybuilder didn't know he was supposed to have a spotter and York should have put a warning on the bar. Sorry, but I don't think that is negligence of the mfg. I think that's stupidity of the user.

[kiahzero]

59. Who did you ask?

The company you were working for, that was sued?

As for your claim that it was the stupidity of the user... if no one warns you that having a spotter is SOP, and you're new to weightlifting, how would you know? Yeah, it's ignorant, but companies have an obligation to tell the customers the safe way to use their products.

But, that's assuming that you got the straight story... I imagine that if an accountant for McDonalds was asking a similar question, the answer would be "Oh, some dumb broad dumped coffee on herself."

[napi21]

61. I did ask our Co. attorneys.

And I agree a company is responsible for telling customers how to safely use their products. But I think my point has been proven by the rediculous warnings you find on EVERYTHING you buy today. When a company has to tell me that a knife blade is sharp, an iron is hot when it on, if you stand on a ladder you can fall off.....something is WRONG! The York case was about 15 years ago, and was one of several successful cases that prompted all these rediculous warnings. You have no idea how many times I buy sonething, read the instruction leaflet inside, and say, "Oh, gee, they really thought they had to tell me that!"

[kiahzero]

66. I'll give you the first two

Now, the third is generally "Don't stand higher than this level..." which is because at a certain height, because of the design of the ladder, it will become unstable if all your weight is up that high. That's a valid warning - if physics isn't your strong point, you could easily assume that if you can stand on the second step from the top, you can stand on the first from the top, as well.

And you know what? I'd rather have a few extra labels on my products than end up hurting myself because a company assumed it was "just common sense."

[napi21]

72. You can have all the blips on your products you'd like.

It soesn't matter to me. I actually get a laugh from most of them. My problem is that it became legaly necessary to put them there. I do think it's reasonable to think people should use common sense and when they don't, they shouldn't be able to benefit from our legal system.

BTW, thanks for the debate tonight. I enjoyed it.

[lolly]

80. Hey, What's all this anyway?

Napi, I thought you weren't going to vote for Kerry because some local legislative branch in Massachusetts passed a law against second-hand smoke!

Now you've forgiven him that, but, dad-gum it, you just CAN'T vote for him because he's picked one of them thar TRIAL LAWYERS for VP?

Next you're going to be warning us about his phony medals and claiming you can't vote for him because you just found out about some "Swift Boat Veterans Group" that reveals the real John Kerry . . .

[napi21]

81. I'm still pissed about the non smoking laws!

I never said anything about not voting for him because of Edwards! I really like Edwards and I think he is the best choice Kerry could have made for VP.

I started this thread because I wanted people to tell me how I can defent the "trial lawyer" stigma.

If I thought the Pubs would defeat all this protect me from me stuff, I might just think about voting for them, but they won't do that.

I'm going to vote fot Kerry, but I still hate all the restrictions!

[AP]

69. Corporations LOVE having to do that. It's the easiest way to avoid

liability.

For corporations, it's the equivalent of a cop reading the Miranda warning. Once you give the warning, you're good to go.

Trust me, printing a label and slapping it on a product is NOT an inconvenience.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. "I Can tell you though that I'm not the only one who feels there have been

a lot of unreasonable awards made to people who have no valid case."


I guess we need to do a better job of combating Republican lies...

[sendero]

102. The thing about folks like you....

... is that you single out the 0.0001% of awards that might not be justified and use it to tar a class of people.

Show me one thing in society that works better. Get a freaking clue and stop falling for the right wing bullshit.

[eaprez]

138. This is SOOOOOOO Bogus!

When one goes through a drive through for coffee one does not expect the coffee to be so hot that one can't hold the cup. The coffee that was served that woman was boiling (who serves boiling coffee) and she was burned. Trial lawyers are the ones that stand up to help keep consumers safe...to make unsafe tires be recalled...etc. Don't fall for the brainwashing nonesense of the Repubs. Trial lawyers are bad for corporations, CEOs and stockholders NOT for consumers. The republicans are against trial lawyers because they are protecting corporations not you, not me.

[ParanoidPat]

149. Perhaps you should have used the FAUX News 'Fair and Balanced'......

.....suite against Al Franken as an example. :shrug:

Oh! Wait, that was a 'frivolous' lawsuit and was thrown out by the judge as being "wholly without merit"! :evilgrin:

I've got one for ya'! How about Enron being awarded a $270,000,000.00 settlement from the state of California recently after ripping us off for almost $9,000,000,000.00? :(

[Zorra]

48. Edwards is making the freepers heads explode.

[donhakman]

50. Edwards Shmedwards

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. He's Even Driving Some Out Of The Closet

-:)

[rustydog]

54. ONCE again...

if a lawsuit is frivolous, a judge will toss the case faster than Bush tossed his TANG flight suit in '72.

That lady who got millions had 4th degree burns...that is when skin just sloughs off to the touch. This was in her crotch, sensitive tissue there and it was fallling off.

McDonalds had received complaints for months that their cooffee at that restaurant was too hot and IGNORED the complaints. THAT makes you liable in our court system.

Lawyers are part of the fabric that holds this nation together and is an important factor in defending the constitution and Bill of Rights.

Please stop falling into the Republican rant of evil lawyers being the problem. they are the cure to a corporate disease that does not care whom it kills or maims in the name of the almighty dollar.

[Zomby Woof]

55. oh fer fuck's sake

The McDonald's thing again!

By the time the issue was finalized she got enough to cover her medical expenses and not much else. The multimillions never quite materialized. But it doesn't make a sexy headline. Plus, Rush and his ilk use it for anti-lawyer propaganda and talking points, such as "We must stop tort abuse like the woman at McDonald's!" Don't let the facts get in the way of the truth now.

You try living with 3rd degree burns all over the insides of your legs and tell me you wouldn't fight for every scrap of money you could get. I know I would. Healthcare is an expensive enterprise.

[fob]

56. bush*co et al were the first ones to run to hire a lawyer and get them

in front of their packed supreme court in november 2000, why is it good enouogh for them, but not for you? You must not be one of his "queda". "Queda" means Base in english.

That's how you support him as a Trial Lawyer, that and donate money to Kerry/Edwards '04!!

[Hekate]

58. You say: "Wouldn't you like him on YOUR side in time of need?"

Plenty of people in this country need a good lawyer to speak for them when they are wronged.

My son was wrongfully fired from his job, under circumstances that left him severely shaken. A local lawyer (who made the news when she won a gender-discrimination case against the police dept) is taking his case without being paid up front. Neither she nor my son is expecting to win the lottery with this case, but we do hope that justice will be served.

As for medical cases, we the little people are going to need some good representation in the future, especially since the courts have decided we don't really have the right to sue our HMOs.

Hekate

[tkmorris]

60. Enron........... Haliburton .................Bechtel.....................

Anderson Accounting.......... Tyco......... American Airlines......

Stand up straight, smile sadly, stare straight into the camera and recite those names. Then tell em that you think America could use a good trial lawyer right about now.

:beer:

[juajen]

71. Are you buying into the "frivolous lawsuits" propaganda?

I have 25 years experience as a legal administrative assistant and let me tell you, lawyers do not take frivolous lawsuits. Since they have to put up all the money to prosecute a case, and believe me the expenses can get horrendous, they rarely take a case that could leave them holding the bag. I have worked hours and hours on cases going to trial, along with four or five assistants and a couple of paralegals. The time and expense would be wasted on a frivolous lawsuit. Lawyers are not into wasting time and money.

Yes, there are sometimes outrageous sounding judgments; however, these are usually appealed by the opposing attorneys; or, the judge lowers the amount. In some cases, the judge lets the amount remain high for punitive purposes.

Also, do not buy into these cases raising the costs of malpractice insurance for doctors. Insurance companies are the culprits here, not lawyers. If their stocks do badly, they raise the price of insurance. Caps on awards, to my knowledge, have never lowered the price of a premium charged to a doctor. Please correct me, if you can prove otherwise.

Everyone should thank God every day for trial lawyers. They earn the money they make, for the most part; though, I do sometimes think their rewards are excessive, especially when it is a class action lawsuit. That could be easily solved by capping the percentage after a lawyer makes a certain amount of money. Every lawsuit is a gamble. Even when the case is vetted by attorneys and staff, you could always get a bad jury or judge and lose everything you have put into a case. That's why the rewards are high if you succeed. Without lawyers, IMHO, we would all be a lot worse off, considering that corporations are out of control already

[Bluebear]

141. Thank you for that post.

[PretzelWarrior]

76. BUWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!! Very easy! Defender of good? Justice for

the little guy? It is very easy to pit him and his battles--MANY of the battles around the USA where juries award to consumers who are beaten black and blue by psycopathic corporations.

We need someone who will fight for the little guy like he did in his legal career.

When we are getting screwed by Ken Lay and his buddies....the criminal trials won't work. We need the civil law to monetarily bring justice to people who have lost their life, limb, and sometimes livelihood because of corporate greed and malfeasance.

[merh]

77. according to the CNN poll listed at the below thread, we don't have to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1938092

[Solly Mack]

78. What's to counter? The republican lie about "trial lawyers"

being the root of all evil is laughable.

Don't blame the lawyers for high cost...blame greedy fucks who don't mind killing people with bad food, bad drugs, bad business practices, and bad working conditions

[moondust]

82. We must learn to hate anybody who challenges the rich and powerful.

It's one of the core themes/values of the Republican plutocratic cultural revolution.


Of course the trial lawyer does not deliver the verdict or award the damages but the judges and juries that do are mere robots so...

[deacon]

83. Why is it wrong that he is a trial lawyer? bush/Cheney love lawyers...

Thats how they won Florida; with more lawyers than Gore. And, they sure seek them out for advice on how to get around the Geneva Conventions, and preparing answers for the Plame case, and present during their appearance before the 911 panel. They love lawyers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. My Mom Had Her Leg Amputated As A Result Of Medical Malpractice...

And thanks to a skilled trial lawyer she was able to receive compensation for her injury but she will have to wait for the next life to get her leg back...

Sorry, pal, but when I hear folks makes gratuitous insults about trial lawyers my blood boils...

The courtroom is the last place in America where the proverbial little guy and the big corporations are on the same footing and that's why the Pukes hate it...

I believe in the McDonald's case the verdict was reduced on appeals...

There are plenty of checks in the system to prevent frivolous lawsuits...

1) You can be held financially responsible if you bring a frivolous or non meritorious case.

2) A lawyer who continues to bring frivolous or non meritorious cases can be brought before the ethics board of the bar association.

3) A judge can overrule a jury in a civil case and reduce the amount of the verdict or throw it out entirely

4) The verdict can be reduced or thrown out on appeal...

5) No lawyer is going to invest his time and money in a case that lacks merit...

The Pukes spin this issue like every other issue...

How do you know when a Puke's lying?

His lips are moving...

[Swamp Rat]

86. He's a "People's Lawyer!"

Freepers call him a "trial lawyer" with a nasty snarl. I can happily respond, "oh no! He's a "People's Lawyer" who looks out for regular Americans protecting them from greedy corporations and bad people."

By the way, I heard Thom Hartman's show this evening and he said that "most tort cases are corporations against corporations."


Geaux Kerry and Edwards!!!

[Blue Wally]

89. One very simple philosophical shift

Compensatory damages go to the victim (and their lawyer)

Punitive dmages go to the court (and the public treasury).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Why Should Punitive Damages Go To The Court And The Treasury And Not The

Victim?

[Blue Wally]

91. Because

The purpose for compensatory dmages is to compensate the victim for costs, pain, and suffering. The victim is made whole.

The purpose of punitive dmages is to punish the perpetrator of the tort which is a state interest. Giving the punitive damages to the victim is overcompemnsating him.

[rpannier]

95. Your definition of the purpose of punitive damages is

correct. My father sat on the federal bench for over 30 years and said pretty much the same thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. If A Drunk Doctor Amputates The Wrong Leg The Amputee

is the direct victim not society...

[rpannier]

97. Punitive by legal definition

is a wrong against society -- NOT the individual. Your amputation scenario is covered under malpractice and damages related -- not punitive. Nice try though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. First Of All You Can Collect Punitive Damages As

Part Of A Medical Malpractice Case...There is no separate law for medical malpractice that excludes punitive damages as part of the remedy... Especially under the scenario which I described... There are instances in case law where physicians had to pay punitive damages because they committed negligent acts while under the use of drugs...

Obviously there are scenarios where punitive damages should go to the victim:


Here's a nice definition of punitive damages and an example of it benefiting the victim..


http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/damages_punitive.htm


I'm glad your daddy's a federal judge... My daddy owned a candy store....


Nice try though

Kisses:


Brian

[Blue Wally]

113. In what way............

Did the punitive dmages in the OJ Simpson case benefit the victim? Even if Simpson had paid the punitive dmages (which he has not), there was no way to make the families whole. The punitive damages were to "punish" Simpson since he was not punished (to the families' satisfaction by the criminal courts.

Compensatory damages are to make the victim of malpractice or other torts "whole". Punitive dmages are just that. Removing the lure of punitive damages would reduce a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. You're Conflating The Law And Your Opinion..

If you want to take the position that punitive damages should be outlawed or the proceeds should go to the state that's fine but as a legal principal the proceeds go to the victim...



As far as frivolous lawsuits the bar can punish attorneys who bring non-meritorious cases and if you bring a non-meritorious you can be liable for legal costs of the party you are suing...



Let me give you an example of the difference between a pain and suffering or non economic damage award and a punitive damage award though I thought the O J Simpson example was a damn good one...

If Joe Blow accidentally runs a red light and paralyzes someone the person is entitled to compensation for his pain and suffering or non economic damages....

If Joe Blow was legally intoxicated and ran a red light and paralyzes someone that person would be entitled to compensation for his pain and suffering as well as punitive damages because that person was reckless...

Pain and suffering awards are usually reserved for cases where there is negligence and punitive damage is reserved for cases where there was recklessness or malice....

[Blue Wally]

130. Joe Blow runs into me................

1. Joe is an illegal immigrant driving without license or insurance. I get nothing for my pain and suffering and I get no punitive damages. Joe might get some criminal punishment (if he doesn't jump bail). Joe pays nothing.

2. Joe is legal or native-born and has insurance but nothing else. I get compensatory damages and punitive damages up to the limits of his insurance. Other policy holders in that insurance company see their rates go up. Joe pays nothing.

3. Bill Gates runs into me. Ka-ching, ka-ching, I (and my lawyer) have hit the jackpot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Do You Not See The Difference Between A Neglegent Act And A Reckless Act

and why the law has a different formula for punishing the two?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. Do You Not See The Difference Between A Negligent Act And A Reckless Act

and why the law has a different formula for punishing the two?

[Blue Wally]

134. I know the difference

How much you recover has very little to do with how negligent or reckless the other person was. It has everything to do in how deep the other person's pockets are. If a corporate-ownded or rich person's vehicle slams into you regardless of cause, lawyers will be stacking up in line to get your business. If the other guy had no insurance and no assets, you will get nothing and lawyers won't give you the time of day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. That Might Be An Argument For Insurance Reform

but I don't see how it's an argument to eliminate punitive damages....


If a person harms someone through negligence or carelessness the monetary penalties are not as great as if the person acted recklessly or maliciously...

Criminal law operates on the same principal.. If Jayson Williams is playing with his gun and accidentally shoots his chauffeur he will probably be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide but if Jayson Williams hides outside his chauffeur's home and then puts a bullet behind his ear he would probably be charged with first degree murder....

Criminal law like civil law distinguishes between negligent and malicious acts and doles out punishment accordingly...

[quaker bill]

93. It is not the trial lawyer who awards damages

It is the ordinary people on the Jury who award damages. In most places it is not only the ordinary person, but one who has happened to register to vote.

Edwards should stake a claim to his profession as a matter of pride, as he has done. He should explain the ways in which he has represented the stories of ordinary people in front of a jury of ordinary people in the faith that these ordinary folks would see that justice was done.

The complaint about jury awards is nothing less than a statement by monied capitalists that they object to ordinary people being granted the power to seize their money in the name of justice.

The ultimate power resides in the people, as it should in a democratic society.

[rpannier]

94. Read his book...

it will give you enough information to deflect the pukes.

[TryingToWarnYou]

99. Ill listen to what they have to say about those evil trial lawyers when..

Bush, Ken Lay, Limbaugh and the rest get rid of their TRIAL LAWYERS.

[OneTwentyoNine]

100. My brother was nearly killed by an idiot driver 35 years ago.....

If Bush and his RW Corporate masters had their way back then he probably would have gotten an apology and $100.00.

Facts are that he was in the hospital for over a month,had numerous plastic surgery's to his face and was left with little sense of taste or smell.The amount he has to pay for life insurance is very high.

He sure as hell found a trial lawyer for this "frivolous" lawsuit and got a settlement.


Don't believe the RW "talking points" BULLSHIT that all these suits are useless and frivolous. Of course they'll only bring up ridiculous cases,many that never ever see the light of day in a courtroom. The cases where real harm and suffering occured will be the ones they NEVER talk about.

David

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. I'm With You...

My mother had her leg amputated as a result of medical malpractice...


The physician's insurance company spent nearly $2,000,000.00 to litigate a case they could have settled for $250,000.00 plus medical costs...


I testified in front of Jeb Bush's handpicked panel to reform medical malpractice laws... It was a sham...

[Cheswick2.0]

103. ACCCCCCCCCCKKKKK YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINED WASHED!!!

Hurry to your next deprogramming center and check in immediately before it is too late! :fear:

What is wrong with the woman who was seriously burned by hot coffee, being able to bring suit against McDonalds? From my understanding McDonals has been asked and warned and conjoled and they still insist on keeping their coffee at a ridiculously high temperature. Maybe loosing some money on the deal will educate them before they do even more damage. What if that woman had taken a big swallow of the coffee instead of spilling it in ther lap? She could be dead from the shock of burning her throat.

What about a hospital so unorganized and over booked with surgeries that they take off your wrong leg? Instead of removing the one with cancer, they take the other one. Here in Pa, if the tort reform folks get their way you would be entitled to no more than 250k.

Trial lawyers are the only people fighting this issue on your behalf. Instead of being grateful you are spouting right wing talking points. How are you serving your own interests by doing that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. They Want To Limit Pain And Suffering Awards To $250,000 in Florida.

and at the federal level...


Let's say a physician is negligent in perfom prostate surgery and you end up impotent...


Under that scenario you could not collect more than $250,000.00

[Cheswick2.0]

105. Isn't that ridiculous?

But by all means let's vilify the trial lawyers. :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Here's Another Case Which Is True

The woman who had a radical mastectomy on both breasts because the doctor diagnosed a cancer she didn't have...


Under that scenario her pain or suffering or non economic damages would be limited to $250,000.00...


Here's the kicker... At a recent American Medical Association meeting a reconstructive surgeon minimized the woman's loss and said through reconstructive surgery she could get breasts as good as news...


To me it's a personal responsibility issue... I have beau coup automobile insurance...

For two reasons...

1) I want to protect my assets

and

2) God forbid I have an accident and hurt somebody I want to be able to make them whole...

[GOPisEvil]

108. They did that here in Texas. Did malpractice insurance go down?

Nope.

Now the hospitals can make the case that it is less expensive for them to let you die rather than care for you.

Also, our attorney general, who was paralyzed in a freak accident and received millions in a settlement, supported "tort reform". Typical, eh?

"Tort reform" is biased against the poor, because if you're rich, you can be compensated above the $250,000...this is ghoulish as it assigns greater value to rich people over poor people.

[GOPisEvil]

106. Everyone hates trial lawyers until they need one.

Now, if you'll educate yourself and stop buying into Republican propaganda, you'll see that your argument is fallacious.

I bet you think "tort reform" is a great idea, too. It is - for insurance companies.

[kori]

109. How do we support a trial lawyer???

You need to even ask??? Do we want as Vice President someone who supported and helped individuals against negligent corporations or Cheney who represents negligent corporations????

What is even the question here? We need tort reform but not the kind the repukes keep pushing we need to shorten the time that it takes for individuals to be compensated for injuries from negligence not limited awards.

[louis c]

123. Kori, with all due respect,

if you need to ask that question, you really need to spend quite a lot of time on DU.

Read and do your home work.

[kori]

159. Sorry Louis C I do not know what your response means

Maybe I did not make myself clear. I do not see the words trial attorney as dirty words, just as I do not see liberal as a dirty word. The point I was trying to make is would you rather have as Vice President a man that helped individuals seek justice against corporations that caused harm or do you want a man that is in the pocket of and still making significant money from Haliburton. I was not asking a question I was answering the one asked in the original post.

[Redleg]

110. So you are going to condemn Edwards for the deeds of others?

Remember that juries decide the initial reward.

[cap]

111. we dont hear much about the boring cases

that stop abuses of safety regulations, violations of environmental and health regulations, etc.

[vetwife]

112. How much is your child's life worth or your leg? We need trial lawyers

What we don't need is supreme court justices who think they can rule our lives. He earned his money. HE isn't Ken Lay, Dick Cheney or a regular frat boy who was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

When someone talks really bad about Trial lawyers, think of Erin Brockevidge and all of those who died because of the Energy companies. It was the John Edwards folks who said their lives were worth something. Remember PG& E and think back on Karen Silkwood of Kerr McGee. Those energy and big corporations don't care about your life or your limbs ! Can you defend yourself? Can you trust the government to make sure you are safe? Case closed !

[elehhhhna]

114. Dammit.

My neighbor (40, mother of 2 kids, 10 & 12) is DYING...any day now...from undiagnosed cervical cancer. After SEVERAL gyno visits (oh, it's okay, you're probably starting menopause...") she went to a different doc who could SEE cervical cancer during a routine exam. (Ladies, y'all know you don't SEE IT intil it's very much advanced, if at all). Sorry for the graphic nature of this post but after a year of various chemo & treatment @ one of the best cancer centers in the world, she is very near death. Her son is my daughters best friend. He's been staying over with us at night--poor kid can't stand to see what's happend to his beautiful Mom. I'm crying as I write this. The family hasn't even mentioned the word "lawsuit" but you YOU want YOUR wife/mother/sister to put her life in the first doctor's hands?

Didn't think so.

[Monte Carlo]

115. You're f-ing kidding me, right?

Trial lawyers have gotten a bad reputation lately, but there's no reason to lump Edwards in with the McDonalds thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

119. There is nothing wrong with the McDonalds thing

[Az]

116. Oh for crying out loud. Stop listening to Rush

The coffee case is a perect example of how the right slimes the people in order to increase the corporations power. They give you half truths and outright lies and then spin them into a web to blind you.

McDonalds had been told repeatedly that they were serving their coffee at too high a temp. They consistantly ignored the warnings and demands to decrease the temp. So when an accident occurred and resulted in injury exactly as the warnings tried to stop the lawyers were exactly correct to sue them for neglegence.

A corporation will only do what it is compelled to do. Freetrade nuts claim that the system is entirely self correcting. That if the corporation does something the public does not want or harms the public there are means to correct it. But then when the public avails itself of its corrective paths available they complain about the greed of trial lawyers. Trial lawyers are how We The (freaking) People deal with corporations that are running over us. The government has been defanged and can no longer defend us against these wolves and we only have the lawyers to depend on now. But when we go to them the corporation's shills accuse us of being cruel to the corporations. This is utter nonsense. Will the right not be happy until we simply lay down and take whatever the corporations decide to do to us to extract the last of our blood from our bodiesl?

[troublemaker]

117. The first step is to stop believing RW lies about the McDonalds case

The lady who spilled coffee in her lap suffered serious burns to her belly, legs and genitals. The coffee she was handed wasn't what you and I think of as hot coffee. It was MUCH hotter than any restaurant normally serves coffee.

This story was spun everywhere as someone spilling coffee on herself. You and I have spilled coffee on ourselves and it hurts, but it's not the end of the world. The problem was that it was not the same as coffee you and I have spilled on ourselves. In its effect on human tissue there is an *immense* difference between 160 degrees and 190 degrees. It's the difference between pain and redness versus tissue destruction.

McDonalds made a choice to turn the heat way up on their coffee so it would remain hotter longer for carry-out orders. In doing so they raised the temperature well above our everyday reasonable expectations of the temperature of a cup of coffee--from 'very uncomfortable' to 'capable of causing serious injury.'

[Hailtothechimp]

156. Think about this analogy.....

Say a mop bucket spills over onto the floor of a business. If the business will clean up the water on the floor, the customers of the business will be safer. Is that enough, by itself, to make them do this? Maybe yes, maybe no.

BUT,

the threat of causing an injury to a customer and, even worse, the threat of expenses spent to fight that customer's "frivolous" lawsuit will ALWAYS be enough to make the business clean up the water on the floor. Sometimes the threat of litigation is enough for businesses to change their practices for the better.

And don't think this doesn't apply to practicing medicine, either.

[bitchkitty]

118. Wasn't the lady in question very elderly?

And didn't she suffer third degree burns?

I don't see the shame in being a successful lawyer. They're the only things that stand between us and them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. People Keep Ignoring The That The Verdict Was Reduced...

After the insurance companies lose in court they tie the case up in Appeals Court which can take years...


To avoid this many aggrieved parties take a settlement infinitely less than what the jury awards...

[mbee]

120. Corporate trial lawyers are fine and dandy, but trial lawyers for the

little guy are strictly prohibited. Does anyone know how many trial lawyers were summoned in the pug war-room in FL for Selection 2000? Contrast that with the number of lawyers Gore had. Does anyone here have the numbers on this because we need to have these answers ready for the brain-dead jerks that think it's a good idea to do away with trial lawyers!

[calico1]

122. Edwards is Kerry's running mate....

And since you already stated you would not vote for Kerry based on the smoking ban in public buildings in Mass. what does Edwards record matter to you since you won't be voting for them anyway?

:eyes:

[opihimoimoi]

126. The Same way we support the "CEO Cheney" of Haliburton who

happens to be one of the Prime contractors in Iraq recieving billions in no bid contracts.

The Same way we support Bush who still is not ready for Prime Time.

And both failed in the jobs to protect America, to see America moves ahead, to make America a Happy place. Instead we got 2 wars and a bunch of coffins, alerts, and tons of inspectors digging through your panties every time you approach the airport.

Our best hope for America lies in the direction of change. The BushCo had their run and they LOST it, dropped the Ball, fumbled.

Osama still on the wanted List.....

[MidwestMomma]

127. The same way you get kids to eat broccoli

Pour some cheese over him? :shrug:

[Bombtrack]

129. How do we support police and still condem the one's who beat minorities?

Yeah, they're both idiotic questions.

[whosinpower]

133. If Edwards is able to scare the corporations a little

Then great for us. As far as I am concerned there is too much corporatism in American politics today - too much in favour of big industry and too little in favour of the people. Enron double-billing? No problem, the Supreme court says, that is out of our jurisdiction. Halliburton caught time and time again with suspicious over-billing....no problem, from now on, we will not summarize what Joe American taxpayer is paying for. God, the list goes on and on and on.....

His trial lawyer experience is a good thing IMHO. Wall street may not like him much, but too bad.

[kayell]

135. If you want to attack lawyers, attack corporate lawyers that fight tooth

and nail to avoid having to pay any damages for the most grievous injuries that their companies have caused.

Of course, as someone noted above, you certainly do seem to be easily swayed by some odd "problems" like the MA tobacco regulations.

Poor beleagered and abused corporations. Poor, suffering tobacco companies. Why can we not give them our understanding, appreciation and trust? *sniffle*

[sangh0]

136. more flamebait from napi

who won't vote for Kerry because he supports smoking ban, but still pretends that s/he cares about whether or not Kerry will win

[West Coast Democrat]

142. I noticed that too!

[napi21]

144. OK, I admit, I was being unrealistic about the smoking thing.

I was really pissed that state after state keep passing these restrictions and I don't like it. I wasn't as pissed at Kerry as I am at government in general. But you're wrong about the flame bait. I don't hate Kerry, but I do hate the Shrub. And no, I won't be voting for some 3rd party candidate. Dean was my first choice, but he just didn't make it and I accept that.

As far as the trial lawyer thing goes, I wasn't trying to bait with that either. It's really tough to counter arguments when big stories like the coffee case hit the news. I was only trying to find some arguments I hadn't used before.

Too bad some of you think I'm part of the opposition.

[Snoggera]

145. I don't think you're the opposition

I think you're maybe 12, and doing your best.

Your reply above is "disingenuous". Look at the original post, if you have forgotten what was written there.

Have a good day and don't forget to eat all your vegetables.

Damn, I'm pissy today.

[napi21]

147. 12! Ooooo, THANK YOU!

I'm 61. Not that that matters. Too bad you think I'm disingenuous. I've been called a lot of things in my life, and some were well deserved, but that's a new one.

[Snoggera]

151. You're welcome!

I like treading new paths, and am mildly misunderunannoyed at this.

Good luck to you! And may your heart always be young but your mind be strengthened by the years.

[Snoggera]

137. oh man

who, with knowledge of the case (she received 3rd degree burns) condemned the verdict?

"But we all know of a lot of really dumb and excessive verdicts have happened over the last 15 to 20 years that really had no merit and a crazy jury awarded them anyway."

Speak for yourself.

"I'm not sure how to counter the bad judgements that I know also happen all the time."

That's just plain ridiculous.

I eagerly await your next horseshit post.

[TexasSissy]

140. Did you not see my earlier post about the truth about tort reform?

I posted a message earlier today called "GOP hits the tort reform button." It directly mentions the coffee spill case. The coffee spill case involved an elderly woman who had to undergo skin grafts and multiple surgeries. She tried to settle for $10,000 (McDonald's wouldn't settle). This same type of coffee injury incident had happened over 700 times before. She filed suit as a last resort. McDonald's still wouldn't settle. The jury awarded her 2.4M Dollars, which was decreased on appeal. She settled with McDonald's for even less. It was only then that McDonald's quit serving boiling coffee.

I work in the legal field (not a lawyer), so I've had occasion to see numerous personal injury cases. I work on the defense side. I have rarely seen a frivolous lawsuit. When a lawsuit IS frivolous, the defense just files a motion with the court claiming frivolousness. The court can throw the case out as a frivolous lawsuit, and make the plaintiff pay all the court costs and the defendant's attorney's fees. It is rare for a frivolous lawsuit to get filed.

Most lawsuits get filed because the insurance company won't settle. Insurance companies choose to settle usu. only when it's economically feasible...not because of whether its insured was truly wrong or not. If a case is small, and the insurance companies KNOWS that it's a fraudulent case...the insurance company will usu. settle, anyway, just to get rid of the case. You and I pay for that. If a case is large, however, ins. cos. usu. force it to trial because most juries won't give large awards, so they think they can either win or end up paying less than if they had settled. It's strictly a monetary thing.

Jury awards too large? Overly large jury awards are usually lowered by appellate courts. I guess the appropriateness of the award size depends on your point of view: If you were the man in Florida whose foot was accidentally amputated by a surgeon, you might think a large award is appropriate (esp. since the REAL gangrene foot had to then be amputated, leaving you without any feet at all). Real case in the 1990's.

The old saying is too true: No one likes a trial lawyer, until he needs one.

Most lawsuits, even those with huge awards, are BUSINESS lawsuits. Corporations suing corporations over silly things they could have settled. But the Repubs don't advertise those.

Medical malpractice? The problem is not the lawsuit by a mother for an infant injured at birth. The problem is the American Medical Association's failure to properly police its physicians and kick out the bad ones who repeatedly are negligent or worse. If you think a doctor has been negligent in his treatment of you, and you to another doctor....try to see if you can get him to admit the prior doctor did anything wrong. It's an order where they hang together, right or wrong.

Finally....Abe Lincoln was a trial lawyer.

[NightOwwl]

143. Have you seen the picture?

I had a link at one time (this was a few years ago, when the McDonald's case was first making news) to a picture of her burns. It was not a pretty sight and that was no frivolous lawsuit.

[RetroLounge]

146. Poop and more poop.

Whatever...

RL

[UdoKier]

150. For every silly verdict/settlement...

There are 100 very well-founded ones. And as was the case with the coffee lady, the awards are often reduced substantially in the end.

Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out by the judge, so calling them that is a GOP lie, and the suits that DO go to court only account for a tiny amount of what the health insurance industry extorts from us.

[Mr.Green93]

153. because trial lawyers are the new force in the party

surpassing the labor unions. (imho)

[onecitizen]

154. First of all.........

there is nothing WRONG with being a trial lawyer! You've fallen into their trap! Someday, you'll need one yourself and you'll have a whole new attitude. Think about it!

[gulliver]

155. Lawyers put Bush in office. Also, Bush tried to be a lawyer ...

... but was rejected by Univ. Texas Law School. Sounds kind of like sour grapes.

[bigbillhaywood]

157. He actually defended me when I was accused of molesting

an underage chimpanzee (I pled to a lesser included charge). Maybe I could do a spot on a campaign commercial for him?