5 ms·

It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.

by eljimmy 11y ago

alkonaut 11y ago
How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?
- abiox 11y ago
  if/when mcdonalds gets dinged with amounts more suitable to a mom 'n pop shop, they give zero shits.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court. The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishment, and the money would go to the government and not to whoever got a hot coffee. It's perfectly fine if a small business would be fined 1% of their revenue, and McDonald's would be too. I know this is probably some quirk of the US legal system but I really don't understand the benefits of having civil courts dealing with punishments that seem arbitrarily set by one part in the case rather than by law.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      ...to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's. Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        > vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed I suppose, and this would be a net win for everyone, except lawyers? > many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint Again isn't that a positive thing? If you feel a law was broken you tell the police, if it wasn't, you post a bad review? > that might be a better society Isn't the US legal system the odd one? I might be wrong here. What's the lawyers-to-population ratio or legal-fees-per-lifetime compared to other systems? I admit I have no data but my gut says "not good".
        jessaustin 11y ago
        Oh yeah I agree this would be a vast improvement. I don't think it will happen while the current Constitution remains in force, however. Certainly there's no legal way to rein in the lawyers. Preemptive for the "just send a letter to Congress" simpletons: for the half of Congress who aren't themselves lawyers, why will my letter be more persuasive than the very active lawyer lobby that gives them millions of dollars? Why will the lawyer president not veto your magical bill? Why will the lawyer judges in every court in the land not overturn it?
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  No, because you can't put a corporation in prison. Financial punishments are the most effective way we have to punish them.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    I think you misread my comment: I don't mind a corporation getting a steep fine -- my point is that it is a punishment and as such it should be handled in a criminal case. Letting individuals arbitrarily decide punishments and then processing them in civil cases it the crazy part. Not that a corporation can make a mistake and have to pay $100M, that happens everywhere, and that works. It would be equally crazy if A could sue B and demand B went to prison for 200years for no other reason than A finding it an appropriate amount of time.

It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.

by eljimmy 11y ago

It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.

How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?

abiox 11y ago
if/when mcdonalds gets dinged with amounts more suitable to a mom 'n pop shop, they give zero shits.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court. The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishment, and the money would go to the government and not to whoever got a hot coffee. It's perfectly fine if a small business would be fined 1% of their revenue, and McDonald's would be too. I know this is probably some quirk of the US legal system but I really don't understand the benefits of having civil courts dealing with punishments that seem arbitrarily set by one part in the case rather than by law.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    ...to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's. Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      > vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed I suppose, and this would be a net win for everyone, except lawyers? > many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint Again isn't that a positive thing? If you feel a law was broken you tell the police, if it wasn't, you post a bad review? > that might be a better society Isn't the US legal system the odd one? I might be wrong here. What's the lawyers-to-population ratio or legal-fees-per-lifetime compared to other systems? I admit I have no data but my gut says "not good".
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Oh yeah I agree this would be a vast improvement. I don't think it will happen while the current Constitution remains in force, however. Certainly there's no legal way to rein in the lawyers. Preemptive for the "just send a letter to Congress" simpletons: for the half of Congress who aren't themselves lawyers, why will my letter be more persuasive than the very active lawyer lobby that gives them millions of dollars? Why will the lawyer president not veto your magical bill? Why will the lawyer judges in every court in the land not overturn it?
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
No, because you can't put a corporation in prison. Financial punishments are the most effective way we have to punish them.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  I think you misread my comment: I don't mind a corporation getting a steep fine -- my point is that it is a punishment and as such it should be handled in a criminal case. Letting individuals arbitrarily decide punishments and then processing them in civil cases it the crazy part. Not that a corporation can make a mistake and have to pay $100M, that happens everywhere, and that works. It would be equally crazy if A could sue B and demand B went to prison for 200years for no other reason than A finding it an appropriate amount of time.