Published on July 19, 2007 By Contego In US Domestic
Millions and millions. I guess we did it to ourselves; always asking "what would you do with a million dollars."

In recent talks about the sex scandals of the Church...and all of the others who don't receive their proper criticisms as well, I started to think about the millions and millions of dollars.

If I dump my hot coco (don't drink coffee) on myself and sue the local McBurger Hut, why do I get millions and millions? First, I'm not sure exactly how the courts ever decided the exchange rate of mental damage to dollars. I'd like so that exchange rate, and how it fluxuates.

I do want to take a brief moment to seperate out some issues before people stop reading and go straight to their rebuttal. I'm talking here about mental and emotional damages, not physical or financial ones. If someone can't go to work and provide for him/herself, then I agree that the responsible party should pay the person the same rate that they would have been paid otherwise. And if medical procedures are necessary to undo the damage caused, then I am all for the responsible party picking up the hospital bills. If in the effect of all of it the people sueing also want to put on the court costs, I'm not against that either. Why should the *innocent, if the really are, have to pay for the cost of setting things right?

My beef is with the mental and emotional damages part. Really, I think they should rename this part to "stick it to the man" fees. Because originally, it seems, these excessive means were used to encourage changing in policies and procedures to keep the same thing from happening again. However, people quickly realized that this was the new lotto. And it had much better odds of payoff. Just find any lawyer out there eager to try, and you've got a case for anything. Literally, anything.

"A surfer recently sued another surfer for "taking his wave." The case was ultimately dismissed because they were unable to put a price on "pain and suffering" endured by watching someone ride the wave that was "intended for you."" http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/LawFun/tabid/344/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/41/Outrageous-Lawsuits.aspx

Now, if you take away the ability to sue for mental and emotional damages, you will most likely take away people's lust for "easy" court money and the abuses that ensue, for a majority I believe. However, doing so then let's the responsible parties off the hook since they would have to pay, most of the time, minimal damages. So, I've been working out a solution.

Allow the people to sue for "stick it to the man" fees. There sometimes does need to be punishment either to encourage change or to discipline. But instead of giving the money to the people who are sueing, require that the "stick it to the man" fees are given to an established and sanctioned charity. Then everytime McBurger Hut is sued, Feed the Children or Make a Wish gets to help many more people now. The people who sue are still getting what they honestly deserve. And if those scammers realize that they will only recup basic and logical damages, they are going to be more likely to abuse something else other than our judicial system. It also allows the judges to walk away feeling like justice has been served to everyone.

There will be some exceptions; there are in most every case. But this is something that can bridge the majority of the frivalous suits.

Comments
on Jul 19, 2007

Those fees are purely subjective as they do vary from court to court and jury to jury.  It is a lotto, but with the states so high, and the down side virtually nil, any people, at the encouragement of ambulance chasers, are willing to play it.  Just look at the latest suit against Catepillar by the Corries.

Others have said that the lotto should go to a third party, and I agree.  Sometimes a penalty against the source is required to ensure they are more careful in the manufacture or delivery of their product.  But that does not mean the injured person should be set on easy street because of it.  Pay them for actual damages.  Leave the lotto to charities.

Welcome aboard again.  And as an FYI:  We have another poster (originally from Canada) living in Japan - her handle is momijiki.  Nice lady.

You will get to know many of the regulars over time, and even the infrequenters.  Overall, a pretty good group.

on Jul 19, 2007
I think it should go to charities set up specifically against whatever they're being punished for. Like, the McDonald's case should go to a burn victim charity. The cigarette cases should go to a lung cancer charity. And the charity should be chosen by the victim.
on Jul 19, 2007
the McDonald's case should go to a burn victim charity.


in the case of mcdonalds they were told that their coffee was too hot.

but i think the lady putting a hot cup of anything between her legs is asking to be burnt.
on Jul 20, 2007

My beef is with the mental and emotional damages part. Really, I think they should rename this part to "stick it to the man" fees. Because originally, it seems, these excessive means were used to encourage changing in policies and procedures to keep the same thing from happening again. However, people quickly realized that this was the new lotto. And it had much better odds of payoff. Just find any lawyer out there eager to try, and you've got a case for anything. Literally, anything.


You did leave out one thing though. Not only are people suing for a lotto like ending. The companies that are being sued also have the tendency of either settling out of court for a much less but still outrageous for the accident amount or they may not have much of a problem paying the money off and still doing what they were doing wrong cause chances are it will be a while before it happens again and they are probably saving more money doing it than they pay off.

I do like the idea of the extra money going to a charity. But then imagine the charities fighting over who deserves the money more. Oh Lord how I always find a downside to everything don't I?
on Jul 20, 2007
danielost,

I agree about the McDonald's lady. No excuses there. But at the end of the day we can't fix stupidity, we just have to minimize its damages. And I'm not talking about the stupidity of the lady nearly as much as I am the judges who can't make good just calls on things like these. Some strange cases have their reasons, but it seems that the vast majority of them aren't founded at all. Especially when the profession of lawyers, who would know best the issues, are critical, there is a problem with the courts.

Jythier,

Having the money go to charities designed to help the same cause isn't a bad idea at all. In fact, I'm sure that you could actually find very well established charities for most of the cases. However, I am against the idea that the victim gets to decide. I have no issue if they want to make a suggestion to the judge. But I foresee some issues with corruption of smaller charities, if not even the larger ones. For instance, if a charity needs more money, they might have one of their members create a frivolous lawsuit to get more money. While the "victim" would only get hospital bills etc paid, he/she might then decided that the SITTM (stick it to the man) fee go to their charity. And they might get a a kickback off of it. Or at the very least, their charity gets paid. But this still won't deter abuses as much as it would if it was decided by the judge. Granted, it might open up some on the side of the judge, but he/she can be easily tracked, patterns established, scrutiny applied, audits ran, etc. Having it come from a more central source is easier to track.

Dr. Guy,
Thanks for the warm welcome. Seems like a great forum here. I've enjoy it so far. Look forward to many great discussions.
on Jul 20, 2007

the latest once i like are the ones sueing becouse mcdonalds or burger king made them fat
on Jul 20, 2007
you know what i want to sue bill clinton for pretending to be the president