Forums | MacLife

Do losing plaintiffs in a civil suit have to pay the total court costs?

Nope. It's different from Canada. Also unlike Canada, there's also no limit to the potential "pain and suffering" damages.

Actually, there are in some areas of law (e.g., medical malpractice) in some states.

after reading this story about a guy throwing up, I threw up after hearing about the lawsuit. I'm suing that bastard!

[whisper]Another lame frivilous thread about lame frivilous lawsuits.[/whisper]

another lame frivolous post about lame frivolous threads about lame frivolous lawsuits

Many lawsuits that people often claim are "frivolous" have merit, in my opinion...the "McDonalds coffee" lawsuit being one of them.

I'm sure the producers of "Fear Factor" are just loving this.

"Goody! Loads of free coverage!"

And I don't see how this sort of lawsuit can be stopped without altering the constitution, perhaps dangerously so (for who can be trusted to decide where the line should be drawn between a seriou and frivolous lawsuit?).

Trust the same people you are forced to trust now, a panel of judges. Make the filing of crap like this a serious criminal offense with large fines and jail time. Eliminate the 'nothing to lose' aspect and people will change.

Maybe, but Schnicky has a point. You have to be extremely careful with that sort of stuff, or beforelong any legitimate lawsuit that, let's say, "certain parties" don't agree with might be deemed frivolous.

I think this sort of stuff would be better filed under "contempt of court". No seperate legislation required.

,xtG
.tsooJ

Many lawsuits that people often claim are "frivolous" have merit, in my opinion...the "McDonalds coffee" lawsuit being one of them.

To the point that McD's knew that their coffee was hotter than it should be and that it was injuring many people, yes.
[snip]

But this idea (the coffee being too hot) is not necessarily true--let the the details of that case (or at least what we can know of them) speak for themselves--I'll note that this site is a hostile witness.

The restaurant had been warned previously.

The woman sued only for medical bills...the resulting judgment came out of McDonald's unwillingness to settle initially.

What, for brewing and serving coffee at the recommended temperatures?

Just because her lawyer was able to convince a jury just shows that "you can fool some of the people all of the time." At what point does this woman become responsible for her own actions? And she didn't sue for the medical bills: she asked for compensation for her medical bills and subsequently sued when McDonald's refused.

You've provided facts from a single source.  I dare say neither of us know the full extent of the facts in this case.  Coffee should be served at 200 degrees and consumed "immediately?"  C'mon!

Did McDonalds, at that time, sufficiently warn their customers?  Was the coffee served in a proper container?  Who was best positioned to spread the costs in this case?

The jury did find her partially responsible.  McDonalds had settled several other similar lawsuits concerning medical bills from such incidents.

The page I cited is a summary of others. If you can dispute any of those facts, then please do so. You should also contact the creator of that page--I'm sure that he would very much appreciate a clarification of any of the facts.

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction....If it will be a few minutes before it [coffee] will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

Source, the National COFFEE Association, unless you like "flat, underextracted coffee." That I have to quote this shows that you likely did not read the page I cited.

Do you need a warning when handling hot beverages? If so, how can you get out of bed in the morning without the proper warnings? "I must sue the maker of my house and the linoneum floor maker for not posting a warning over my bed (in a font large enough to be seen without wearing glasses) that the floor may be cold when I step on the floor, 'cause when I did so morning I injured my ankles when I quickly drew back my feet...hey, I shall sue the maker of my bed, too, for making this dangerously hard bedframe! They should all be providing warnings on all of these dangerous things!"

Of course, what is the warning on the cups now? "COFFEE is HOT!" like that would have made any difference in this case.

"Was it in a proper container?"??? Exactly what are you expecting McDonald's to do--provide crush- and spill-proof cups with every serving? If she had been handed a cup and it collapsed in her hand because of flaws in design or damage to the cup, then she would have a case. If the server had dropped the cup into her lap while she was waiting at the drive-thru window, then she would have a case. But if I took a cup in hand and crushed it--burning my hand in the process--why should I be able to sue anyone?

"Who was best positioned to spread the costs in this case?" Why should this be on any matter, unless all you are interesting in is "deep pockets"? If you need surgery due to cancer, should you sue Microsoft because it is in the "best position to spread the costs"?

As the Stella Awards page says: this particular case has become the one which almost everyone in the US cites as THE prime example of the tort system gone wrong. It's my opinion that because Stella "won" that this has encouraged idiot cases like the one NokX cited to begin this message.

probably the solution is for McDonald's to stop selling coffee at all. Its clearly too dangerous for the population to deal with. And those hamburgers are a choking hazard.

Speaking of hot, has anyone tried the apple pies. Those things are scorching hot. Burnt the hell out of my tongue. Lawsuit, lawsuit!

I have a suit pending against Baskin & Robbins. I had one of their ice cream cones and ate it really fast. And I doubled over in pain from the ice cream headache. Why the hell is the ice cream served so cold?

Don't they know the pain and suffering they're causing? Clearly, the ice cream is served too cold. Why its frozen. You can see the ice particles sometimes. If I stand outside in the cold I freeze to death, if I stick my tongue on a flagpole in the winter its gets stuck. Clearly food should not be served at these temperatures!!!!!!!!

...and just because one loses a lawsuit doesn't mean the suit itself was frivolous.

Think how damaging such legislation could be against the 'little guy' if he were expected to pay the costs for a large corporation that he loses a lawsuit to?

And just because some dolt wins a multimillion settlement doesn't mean the suit WASN'T frivolous.

Hows about instead of making the little guy pay the costs, make the lawyers bringing the frivolous claims to court bear the burden? Make the little guy pay a smaller share, as they would receive a small share were they to win. Law firms are as rich as some of the companies they sue (very often through extorting - er, suing - said companies for billions). I'm sure they can handle paying when they lose. They expect big corporations to pay up when they lose.

I'm a big supporter of no caps on damages against lawyers bringing frivolous suits.

Hows about instead of making the little guy pay the costs, make the lawyers bringing the frivolous claims to court bear the burden? Make the little guy pay a smaller share, as they would receive a small share were they to win. Law firms are as rich as some of the companies they sue (very often through extorting - er, suing - said companies for billions). I'm sure they can handle paying when they lose. They expect big corporations to pay up when they lose.

No.

I know it's all the rage to dog on lawyers and such, but legal representation and the availability thereof is vital in a modern society. Not all lawyers are filthy rich. And by putting such a burden on the lawyer, you are endangering the availability of legal representation to people with less moeny to throw away. No way are law firms going to hedge this financial risk themselves; they'll offload it unto their clients.

In other words, it'll make an already unbalanced system even more skewed in favour of the people with the deep pockets.

,xtG
.tsooJ

First, a frivolous suit has to actually make it to a judge to be thrown out.
Many companies settle simply because it's cheaper.
Second, I have a very hard time believing it's as small a problem as claimed. My purely anecdotal evidence has about 5 local examples of total crap that was nothing more than a scam on the 'deep' pockets.

I have a very hard time believing it's as small a problem as claimed. My purely anecdotal evidence has about 5 local examples of total crap that was nothing more than a scam on the 'deep' pockets.

Over what period of time and in comparison to what total number of suits? Out of those 5, how many of them were thrown out? How many were awarded in favor of the plaintiff? The media plays up this stuff because it's propaganda whic  is based on a straw man argument intended to engender public support for making it more difficult to sue. . . another form of de-facto deregulation ultimately aimed at reducing the legitimate damands made on corporate entities.

It's amazing how many peeps are willing to accept spurious arguments aimed at causing them to vote against their own socio-economic self interest.