Litigation Frenzy ??

[David Ziglin <davidz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Day Thoughtfully Wrote :

<<<Good luck to Richard with the legal stuff.  You guys over
there have got to stop all this litigation crap.  It's
starting to spread to this side of the atlantic now.  Isn't
there some legal precedent to say that people should at
least use the common sense they were born with or don't
people there realise that hot coffee burns you if you spill
it. Presumably the person taking litigation reads these
posts,  lets hope he is suitably ashamed of himself.>>>

Some may recognize a certain irony in what I am about to suggest; however,
one cannot be a philosophical Skeptic only some of the time and only when
self servingly convenient.

Myth, urban legend, misinformation, partial information, misinterpretation,
disinformation, and outright information distortion permeates the USA at
least.  There are those in our society who wish to promote the belief that
we are supersaturated in litigation of the frivilous and dishonest kind.
The example of McDonald's and its hot coffee - alluded to above - is only
one example of many that is presented to the public as proof of the abuse
of litigation.  At the same time it is only one example of a case that has
been misunderstood by a generally ill informed public by an ill informing
media.

This misunderstanding, of course, is precisely what some folks hope for.
If the public believes that our courts are permeated with frivolous and
even dishonest lawsuits, it will support laws that will limit our right to
seek redress.  Our friends in countries outside the USA may not realize
that there are a great many politicians in the USA who are alied with
corporate interests and who wish to make laws that will limit claims -
again, on the basis of their being "frivolous."

In the case of the woman who was severely injured by hot coffee, I have
often heard ordinary citizens who smelled a rat say " What the hell do you
expect to happen?  You can't drive a car and eat breakfast at the same
time."  A good point but not to the point.  The woman who held McDonalds
responsible for her injuries was parked when the incident occurred.  She
was not being reckless.

Much to the delight of the corporate propagandists and their political
chums, the ordinary citizen has made the point perhaps millions  of times,
"hot coffee burns."  Indeed.  What is not commonly understood because the
truly self interested most carefully and purposefully fail to mention it -
a form of propaganda - is the FACT that McDonalds had created a relatively
new policy whereby coffee was heated well beyond the norm and, as the
burned woman demonstrated, well beyond reason.  Why?  There can only be one
reason, the hope that ultimately this would be a selling point;
essentially, "our coffee stays hot longer."  More essentially than that,
the coffee temp was jacked up unreasonably for the sake of profit.

Are there frivolous claims made by citizens in hopes of profit rather than
redress?  Certainly.  Are any and all contrived law suits permitted into
the court system - certainly not.  However, that is certainly what some
wish for you to think.  ( BTW - the aforementioned corporate self servers
have in fact already been at least partially successful in  establishing
modest limits of redress for the injured citizen. )

In regards to the automobile business, I have encountered over the years
countless examples of customers being ill treated by repairers.  For
example, how many non auto savy women have you met who on the advice of
their most recent auto repairer had installed a new battery for the third
time in 18 months?  And how many people have you met who have said in
response to the idea of seeking justice through the legal system, "It's
just not worth it."

The HOT COFFEE metaphor above with its missing details and context has been
repeated by the ill informed and manipulative over and over and over again
and in many thousands of different forms.  This is an example of "National
Inquierer" education.  These myths are no different from claims of the
supernatural and "alternative healing" and other pseudoscience that are in
fact supersaturating a gullible society.  ( As has been demonstrated
endlessly throughout the history of the world, a little learning is a
dangerous thing. )

Having said that, please understand that I do not believe for a moment that
all law suits are legitimate in some final sense ( INDEED, I DO NOT!! ) and
neither do the courts.  And, yes, I am well aware of juries who are filled
with sympathy for a victim and wish to offer that victim something to
balance the pain and from whatever source may be available - even on
occasion the deep pocketed innocent.  Justice, ultimately, is only a seven
letter word.  We need to work on that hard.

What concerns me is that there are those who wish to take the right to sue
from the ordinary man for the protection of the dishonest and irresponsible
and under the guise of eliminating the "frivilous."

For those who are irate about the supposed out-of-control litigation that
can be seen everywhere, imagine that your child had been killed or
permanently injured as the result of a manufacturer's attempt to save $.50
on a part as in the Ford Pinto case and that your child's death was
"redressed" with a check for $50,000.  Or imagine that you asked your
little boy to hold that scalding cup of coffee over his lap for a moment
when it was too hot to handle.

Finally, in regards to John Day's last sentence above, I agree whole
heartedly.  My hunch is that a litigator as in the "KRUSTY" situation, once
identified, would find himself with few AD friends especially when the
entire context were made known.

Thank you for your consideration

David         East Troy, Wisconsin

A First Amendment Absolutist

Just restored 750F - in need of a new paint job
'66 Duetto - for road and track
74 Le Mans Blue GTV - well worn and Wonderful

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

End of alfa-digest V7 #90
*************************