K-9 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to read an entire thread (even a short one) before posting. Then you get people who ignore very valid points which run counter to their position… as if ignoring someone who is standing right in front of you because they're refuting something you said. Those are the two reasons so many of our discussions go around in circles. And it often boils down to the same thing: some people would rather hear themselves talk than listen to what others have to offer. Dude, you seriously need to CHILL! But thanks for making the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Dude, you seriously need to CHILL! But thanks for making the point. I NEED TO CHILL?!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I NEED TO CHILL?!?!?!? Yea you and that McDonalds lady both. A bunch of drama queens. What are you going to due next? File a frivalous lawsuit like her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 What are you going to due next? File a frivalous lawsuit like her? Maybe… are you gonna play court reporter if I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills! Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 This is crazy, Im sorry but she is dumb...I may as well sit on a blacktop driveway of one of the 40+ million dollar beach house homes and burn my cheeks and sue because Im a idiot and didnt know the hot driveway could burn my @ss.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 This is crazy, Im sorry but she is dumb...I may as well sit on a blacktop driveway of one of the 40+ million dollar beach house homes and burn my cheeks and sue because Im a idiot and didnt know the hot driveway could burn my @ss.... Driveways aren't built to sit on.... I mean c'mon, seriously?? *why do I allow myself to get sucked back in, everytime* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flutie Flakes Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Watch daytime television where every other commercial is for an ambulance chaser looking for a case. It is no wonder that there are so many frivilous lawsuits out there. Some people have an aversion to an honest days work, so after their "paycheck" for unemployment runs out (yes, I have heard people refer to both SSI and unemployment as "their paycheck"), they resort to this type of non-sense and get another kind of "paycheck". Edited August 17, 2012 by Flutie Flakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 You may want to rephrase your question but the short answer is it's the people who bring those frivolous lawsuits who pay for them because the vast, vast, vast majority of frivolous suits are identified and thrown out as frivolous. Actually, most personal liability lawyers work on a contingency, not a retainer, so the people who bring the suit, frivolous or not, pay little or nothing to roll the dice. The lawyer takes the risk that the suit won't pay out. If it does, he takes his chunk. The people who really pay for frivolous suits are the defendants. They pay in huge legal fees and lost wages for depositions, court, etc. It's a huge burden and it is used as leverage by personal injury lawyers to extort a settlement early in a case. And the vast majority of frivolous cases are not "thrown out" by the court system. They are thrown out by the personal injury law machine if they don't smell quick money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) outside the stadium? ? ? ? ? ? WARNING use sun screen WARNING drink water WARNING purse snatcher may be closer than you think WARNING breathe Edited August 17, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleaMoulds80 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) I think I'm gonna go to some random person's house. Sit on their metal chair and burn myself so I can sue them and make lots of money. Screw working. I'll suck it up and take one for the team. Edited August 17, 2012 by FleaMoulds80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Actually, most personal liability lawyers work on a contingency, not a retainer, so the people who bring the suit, frivolous or not, pay little or nothing to roll the dice. The lawyer takes the risk that the suit won't pay out. If it does, he takes his chunk. The people who really pay for frivolous suits are the defendants. They pay in huge legal fees and lost wages for depositions, court, etc. It's a huge burden and it is used as leverage by personal injury lawyers to extort a settlement early in a case. And the vast majority of frivolous cases are not "thrown out" by the court system. They are thrown out by the personal injury law machine if they don't smell quick money. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said "never go to trial" vs "thrown out". I never mentioned "by the court system" and that's not what I meant to imply. And I'm glad you bring up contingencies because that's the major reason most frivolous suits never see the light of day. Certainly you don't object to lawyers making a determination as to whether or not they'll make a profit for their work before deciding to take a case. In addition to lawyers never even considering filing a frivolous suit, there are additional tools that can prevent, dismiss, and correct abuse of the system in the form of the Summary Judgement and Directed Verdict. I don't wish to get into a huge discussion on tort reform. I'm only saying that this idea of frivolous lawsuits run amok is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flutie Flakes Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 But a very valid point that was made earlier was taking into consideration the money spent in defending such claims. Regardless of if it ever goes to trial, in many instances, businesses and individuals must "lawyer up" to defend such actions. A significant amount of money that in the case of commercial claims, is passed along to John and/or Jane Q. Consumer, et. al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBiker Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 "Dude" (if that is your real name), you can't seriously believe this. The old hag that spills coffee on herself...she had no responsibility, no prior knowledge that coffee was hot? She needs a label to tell her that? This dumb chick doesn't know that the color black attracts the suns rays? What, she was absent in science class the day this was being covered? You think that a label is going to prevent stupidity? This is gold digging at its ugliest. The good thing: it's in Texas, where common sense values still reside. If this was in NY or CA, oh boy. The bad news: although this should be thrown out, and her joke of an attorney should be laughed right out of court with her, it probably will not. Where do we draw the line as a society? When does a person become responsible for their actions? How are the Cowboys and Jerry Jones negligent? To be considered negligent you need to have a 1.) Duty Owed, 2.) Duty breached, 3.) Proximate cause, and 4.) Damages. The Cowboys have a duty to inform people that sitting on a black bench in 100+ heat could be hot? REALLY?!?!? Even if you were a complete Alien idiot from another planet, you should have felt the discomfort as soon as you sit down. If it was that hot, wouldn't the proper response would have been to quickly exit said chair? IF she sat there longer than 2 seconds she bears responsibility for not mitigating her "damages". if u thought this persons name was dude... ur dumber than the woman suing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Dude, when you have burns that are so serious that they require skin graffs it is very serious and excruciatingly painful. You are just making assumptions about this without any knowledge of the case whatsoever. Sort of like the woman who spilled the McDonalds coffee on her lap years back, everyone rushed to judge her, but until you see the photos of the burns she suffered (I'm sure you can google them, but they are grotesque), you really have no idea how serious it actually was. I've sat on plenty of benches in 100 degree heat and never once contemplated that they could cause 3rd degree burns through my clothes by doing so. I think this case may have some merit. You are stating facts w/o any knowledge. In the McDonald's case the coffee was EXCEEDINGLY hot due to McDonalds. Last I checked, the Cowboys do not control the sun or outside temperature. You are using her damages to prove her case. This is entirely faulty from a legal and logical standpoint. It does not matter if she got 1st degree burns. If you sit on a bench on a hot summer day and start getting hot, get up and move. Everyone knows they get hot. Do the cowboys need to remove the benches? Then people with disabilities sue. Install fans in the benches? NO. It sucks big time that got burned, but blaming someone else is not the answer. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said "never go to trial" vs "thrown out". I never mentioned "by the court system" and that's not what I meant to imply. And I'm glad you bring up contingencies because that's the major reason most frivolous suits never see the light of day. Certainly you don't object to lawyers making a determination as to whether or not they'll make a profit for their work before deciding to take a case. In addition to lawyers never even considering filing a frivolous suit, there are additional tools that can prevent, dismiss, and correct abuse of the system in the form of the Summary Judgement and Directed Verdict. I don't wish to get into a huge discussion on tort reform. I'm only saying that this idea of frivolous lawsuits run amok is a myth. You forgot to mention how much cost the defendant incurs in defending a frivolous suit. The cost of defense is so high that the Plaintiff and her greedy trial lawyer generally end up getting a settlement. It's legal extortion. There needs to be a looser-pays system like in England. Many lawyers take on suits they KNOW have no merit or chance of winning to score a settlement. Even if Summary Judgment or Directed Verdict (which is rarely entered) is obtained, the defense will have spent well over 100-200K by that time on legal fees and court costs. Edited August 17, 2012 by RyanC883 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Actually, most personal liability lawyers work on a contingency, not a retainer, so the people who bring the suit, frivolous or not, pay little or nothing to roll the dice. The lawyer takes the risk that the suit won't pay out. If it does, he takes his chunk. The people who really pay for frivolous suits are the defendants. They pay in huge legal fees and lost wages for depositions, court, etc. It's a huge burden and it is used as leverage by personal injury lawyers to extort a settlement early in a case. And the vast majority of frivolous cases are not "thrown out" by the court system. They are thrown out by the personal injury law machine if they don't smell quick money. Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 outside the stadium? ? ? ? ? ? WARNING use sun screen WARNING drink water WARNING purse snatcher may be closer than you think WARNING breathe While you say the above in jest, and it is funny, one problem consumers are faced with now is the overabundance of warning labels on appliances, etc. due to frivolous suits. As a result, the consumer ignores ALL the labels, including the 1-2 that are actually worthy of attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 You are stating facts w/o any knowledge. In the McDonald's case the coffee was EXCEEDINGLY hot due to McDonalds. Last I checked, the Cowboys do not control the sun or outside temperature. You are using her damages to prove her case. This is entirely faulty from a legal and logical standpoint. It does not matter if she got 1st degree burns. If you sit on a bench on a hot summer day and start getting hot, get up and move. Everyone knows they get hot. Do the cowboys need to remove the benches? Then people with disabilities sue. Install fans in the benches? NO. It sucks big time that got burned, but blaming someone else is not the answer. You forgot to mention how much cost the defendant incurs in defending a frivolous suit. The cost of defense is so high that the Plaintiff and her greedy trial lawyer generally end up getting a settlement. It's legal extortion. There needs to be a looser-pays system like in England. Many lawyers take on suits they KNOW have no merit or chance of winning to score a settlement. Even if Summary Judgment or Directed Verdict (which is rarely entered) is obtained, the defense will have spent well over 100-200K by that time on legal fees and court costs. if we assume this was fairly quick damage and not her sitting there for minutes saying "wow, my butt is getting really warm" i think its safe to say they used a material that wasnt fit for outdoor direct sun seating. that would be an issue. if shes sitting there cooking for 20 mins (which by saying she doesnt know how long she was seated) than its definitely a whole different conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) You forgot to mention how much cost the defendant incurs in defending a frivolous suit. The cost of defense is so high that the Plaintiff and her greedy trial lawyer generally end up getting a settlement. It's legal extortion. There needs to be a looser-pays system like in England. Many lawyers take on suits they KNOW have no merit or chance of winning to score a settlement. Even if Summary Judgment or Directed Verdict (which is rarely entered) is obtained, the defense will have spent well over 100-200K by that time on legal fees and court costs. Can you tell me what percentage of frivolous lawsuits actually go to trial? Can you tell me what percentage of those actually end in a verdict for the plaintiff? The idea that frivolous lawsuits have run amok and are clogging our court systems is a total myth. That's all I'm saying in this thread. Edited August 17, 2012 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 if we assume this was fairly quick damage and not her sitting there for minutes saying "wow, my butt is getting really warm" i think its safe to say they used a material that wasnt fit for outdoor direct sun seating. that would be an issue. if shes sitting there cooking for 20 mins (which by saying she doesnt know how long she was seated) than its definitely a whole different conversation. I agree, but the fact that others have sat on that bench and not suffered significant burns leads me to believe that the surface was safe for outdoor seating. Can you tell me what percentage of frivolous lawsuits actually go to trial? Can you tell me what percentage of those actually end in a verdict for the plaintiff? The idea that frivolous lawsuits have run amok and are clogging our court systems is a total myth. That's all I'm saying in this thread. Your questions have NOTHING to do with my post. My point was that most frivolous suits do not go to trial because it is way to expensive for the defense in the majority of cases to take the case to trial (or even to summary judgment stage). Frivolous suits can and do clog the court system. The "court system" is more than just a trial. It is largely what goes on before trial: motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, discovery, etc. This is why so many federal courts are developing ways to attempt to get rid of these cases early through mandatory mediation, etc. Again, that only results in the frivolous plaintiff getting unwarranted money. Your idea that frivolous suits are not running amok and clogging the court systems is a myth is based on nothing than your red-herring arguments that simply because they don't go to "trial" that they don't exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. You must be a plaintiff's attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Your questions have NOTHING to do with my post. My point was that most frivolous suits do not go to trial because it is way to expensive for the defense in the majority of cases to take the case to trial (or even to summary judgment stage). Frivolous suits can and do clog the court system. The "court system" is more than just a trial. It is largely what goes on before trial: motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, discovery, etc. This is why so many federal courts are developing ways to attempt to get rid of these cases early through mandatory mediation, etc. Again, that only results in the frivolous plaintiff getting unwarranted money. Your idea that frivolous suits are not running amok and clogging the court systems is a myth is based on nothing than your red-herring arguments that simply because they don't go to "trial" that they don't exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. You must be a plaintiff's attorney. No red herrings at all. Most frivolous suits don't see the light of day because they aren't deemed meritous by the lawyers hired to bring them in the first place. They never make it to the filing stage, let alone anywhere else in the system. That's a fact. If you can show me some statistics that back the claim that frivolous lawsuits are clogging our court systems, perhaps I can be persuaded. In the meantime, I'll assume you are one of those who thinks that ALL lawsuits of this type are frivolous and have NO merit because it's just somebody looking to make a buck. That NOBODY has EVER been injured through negligence or otherwise and NOBODY deserves to be compensated as a result of that injury. You must be an attorney on retainer for a large insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts