Re: Starbucks Baristas Union Drive Comes at Key Time

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:44:08 +0100, "Bertie Doe"
<montebrasite4@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Steve" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3umg941t2qp5jnf5m4584smg691cok5g6u@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:06:53 +0100, "Bertie Doe"
<montebrasite4@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The recent compensation case "Hot Coffee versus Genitalia" and
"Victim versus Wet Supermarket Floor" is just a taste of things to come.

I hate to throw cold water on a good rant, but the "Hot Coffee versus
Genitalia" case had a very small compensation award. The, IIRC, 4
million final award was 99% punitive. A very good argument could be
made that 4 million is not very punitive to a 69 billion dollar
company.

You're saying that the size of the compensation, awarded by the jury, should
be based on the wealth/share value of the business or businessman.So 2
customers suffer identical injuries/trauma. One sustains it in a Starbucks
and the other at 'Joses' Coffee Cart'. One gets a a 6 figure settlement, the
other is still trying to get the case off the ground. For some strange
reason, the lawyers who were crawling over the Starbucks victim, are too
busy to help.

I didn't make the theory up, it's the law.
Punitive damages are awarded to a plaintiff as both a punishment and
deterrent to the defendant.
Any punishment, (punitive damages), awarded against Jose would be
determined by Jose's "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct".
If Jose made an unintentional booboo, instead of the crap McDonald's
pulled as in the case you cite, the plaintiff would not be awarded
punitive damages.
Compensatory damages would likely be roughly the same in each case.
Third degree burns have a cost of care roughly equal throughout the
U.S.. The wild card would be ancillary losses suffered by the
plaintiff.


Insurance premiums are a factor of risk analysis. Insurance costs are
rising because the risk of loss is rising. That's because companies
are actually doing the things that they are being sued for and losing
their cases, not because trial lawyers have an in with the
politicians.
This suggests that the lawyers aren't the problem, but the businessman
is, doesn't it?

You're absolutely right, I retract everything, it's the businessmen to
blame, there are no victims and the lawyers and law-makers are just there
for the ride.

Well shucks, that seems like a pretty big jump from my premise.

Could we agree to this:
There were over 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at
McDonalds before that case. McDonalds had settled the claims out of
court previously, but refused this particular plaintiff's request for
$20,000 in compensation for her third degree burns. McDonalds served
the coffee at 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7
seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. Although
McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot they testified that
they had never consulted with burn specialists. To McDonald's
embarrassment, the Shriner Burn Institute showed documentation that
SBI had previously warned McDonalds not to serve their coffee at 190
degrees. So the jury came back with $160,000 for compensatory damages,
not unreasonable for third degree burns, and because McDonalds was
found to be guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct"
punitive damages were awarded.

Now, who is the bad guy here? The lawyers, the plaintiff, or the
company that ignored over 700 "warnings" and the opinion of a
well-respected burn clinic?
I'm just sayin'.
.