9 ms·

I don't disagree with the sentiment of the article given the examples provided, i.e. Wells Fargo. That said, given the climate for frivolous lawsuits brought b

by redm 9y ago

I don't disagree with the sentiment of the article given the examples provided, i.e. Wells Fargo. That said, given the climate for frivolous lawsuits brought by "shakedown" attorneys, it opens the flood gates for something far worse. Maybe a better compromise is to allow for binding arbitration UNLESS the company is found guilty of fraud or other illegal activity, such as Wells Fargo. Alternatively, perhaps tort reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits would remove the need for arbitration.

xphilter 9y ago
Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?
- ythn 9y ago
  Couldn't patent trolling also fall into this category (the category of legal "shakedowns")? If so, there are some stats on that. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-dispute-report https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...
  - darpa_escapee 9y ago
    I've never seen patent trolling fall into this category, probably because patent trolling is a viable way for firms to make money and being held liable for consumer injuries isn't.
  - michaelt 9y ago
    While patent trolling is a legal shakedown, I don't see the relevance to binding arbitration?
  - xphilter 9y ago
    As the other commentator mentioned, how is this related to consumer lawsuits?
ahhhhhhhhhh 9y ago
The court system should be able filter (and if that's a problem they should solve it on their end), we shouldn't just throw out an entire avenue because some people abuse it
preinheimer 9y ago
I found this Adam Ruins Everything episode on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit & Tort reform really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E if you'd like to jump to where they talk about frivolous lawsuits it starts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s Some notes: - Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong. - The number of frivolous lawsuits in the US is actually pretty low. - The lady burned by the McDonalds coffee was really hurt, and was only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee, who refused to serve it less hot.
- ascagnel_ 9y ago
  HBO produced a documentary [0] on that case a few years ago. I would recommend not watching it, only because they show the hospital photos of Stella Liebeck (the plaintiff in the case), and they are absolutely horrible. [0] http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee And many of these were sequential, so McDonalds had been told multiple times that their coffee was too hot, and they just refused to do anything about it.
- will_brown 9y ago
  I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case... 1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid; 2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by the coffee from this McDonald's and others, and in prior cases the courts ordered McDonald's to turn the temp down based on expert testimony; 3. mcDonalds refused to comply with prior court orders, because a cost benefit analysis, you see truckers love their coffee boiling hot bc it stays hot longer, and it made financial sense to keep there main market happy and pay these lawsuits out rather than truckers potentially go elsewhere for coffee; 4. To punish McDonald's for ignoring prior court orders they awarded the woman punitive damages (while not rare is out of the norm), and she was awarded (I think) $3M in punitive damages which equals 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales; 5. Lesser known is McDonald's appealed the judgement and it was reduced, they and all other big companies took the original award and created the anti-litigation PR campaign we all know today, lady spills hot coffee and court awards millions
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
I'd prefer it if, if you get sued, for any reason, you get a defensive 'pre-trial' with a public defender that does all the work, while you do nothing. No discovery, no anything. Since this isn't a 'full' defence, the plaintiff has a higher chance of winning than in a real trial, which he only gets after winning the pre-trial.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by redm 9y ago

xphilter 9y ago

Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?

ythn 9y ago
Couldn't patent trolling also fall into this category (the category of legal "shakedowns")? If so, there are some stats on that. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-dispute-report https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...
- darpa_escapee 9y ago
  I've never seen patent trolling fall into this category, probably because patent trolling is a viable way for firms to make money and being held liable for consumer injuries isn't.
- michaelt 9y ago
  While patent trolling is a legal shakedown, I don't see the relevance to binding arbitration?
- xphilter 9y ago
  As the other commentator mentioned, how is this related to consumer lawsuits?

ahhhhhhhhhh 9y ago

The court system should be able filter (and if that's a problem they should solve it on their end), we shouldn't just throw out an entire avenue because some people abuse it

preinheimer 9y ago

I found this Adam Ruins Everything episode on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit & Tort reform really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E if you'd like to jump to where they talk about frivolous lawsuits it starts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s Some notes: - Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong. - The number of frivolous lawsuits in the US is actually pretty low. - The lady burned by the McDonalds coffee was really hurt, and was only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee, who refused to serve it less hot.

ascagnel_ 9y ago
HBO produced a documentary [0] on that case a few years ago. I would recommend not watching it, only because they show the hospital photos of Stella Liebeck (the plaintiff in the case), and they are absolutely horrible. [0] http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html
mpweiher 9y ago
> only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee And many of these were sequential, so McDonalds had been told multiple times that their coffee was too hot, and they just refused to do anything about it.
will_brown 9y ago
I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case... 1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid; 2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by the coffee from this McDonald's and others, and in prior cases the courts ordered McDonald's to turn the temp down based on expert testimony; 3. mcDonalds refused to comply with prior court orders, because a cost benefit analysis, you see truckers love their coffee boiling hot bc it stays hot longer, and it made financial sense to keep there main market happy and pay these lawsuits out rather than truckers potentially go elsewhere for coffee; 4. To punish McDonald's for ignoring prior court orders they awarded the woman punitive damages (while not rare is out of the norm), and she was awarded (I think) $3M in punitive damages which equals 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales; 5. Lesser known is McDonald's appealed the judgement and it was reduced, they and all other big companies took the original award and created the anti-litigation PR campaign we all know today, lady spills hot coffee and court awards millions

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

I'd prefer it if, if you get sued, for any reason, you get a defensive 'pre-trial' with a public defender that does all the work, while you do nothing. No discovery, no anything. Since this isn't a 'full' defence, the plaintiff has a higher chance of winning than in a real trial, which he only gets after winning the pre-trial.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]