Here we go again

[Ozarker]

Actually, what it will do is force most suits that happen today into binding arbitration. Franz would have probably come out much better that way and there is probably a clause in the insurance that allows it.

I got nailed that same way when my son was in an accident that was clearly caused by a County road crew. My best witness was the State Trooper that investigated the accident.

My insurance company had some type of deal with the county's insurer that caused my insurer to pay all the costs associated with the accident and get reimbursed a set amount by the county. But that meant that my son had to pay his deductible AND he had a chargeable event against his insurance. Bad news for a teenaged boy.

I demanded third party arbitration, as allowed in my insurance contract, and got it. In the end, my son did not pay anything, his car was fixed and he had no chargeable event on his record. I don't care what agreement they had with the other company.

The few that might get shafted by a loser pays system is nothing compared to the millions getting shafted by the current system. The woman that got 6mil for hot coffee in her lap didn't get 6mil of McDonalds money. She got 6mil of everyone's money that eats at McDonalds. She got the money of the min wage people that didn't get hired or that got layed off. She is the reason that the small shake that cost .95 cents three years ago cost $1.95 today. The reason that a large coffee that cost .60 cents three years ago cost $1.25 today. The cost of ingredients didn't go up that much over the past 3 years. The cost of doing business did.

As for incompetent doctors being protected by a loser pays system, if anyone is depending on the courts to deal with doctors they are playing ball in the wrong park. With some exceptions, civil courts don't generally punish doctors beyond monetary damages. Incompetent doctors have to be dealt with by the state medical boards that issue license to practice in that state. Criminal courts deal with criminal negligence cases.

I went to the doctor three weeks ago because I was getting some dizzy spells. My insurance company had to pay for a $1500 MRI on my head to eliminate what we already new wasn't the problem. They had to do that because the doctor has to cover his a$$. The doctor has to cover his a$$ because of the current system.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

I went to a local orthopaedics outfit with a knee problem (I've had seven surgeries on them over the years) and the first thing the nurse wanted to do was take X-rays. I declined and she became more than a little hostile telling me the doctor would want them and it was their "policy."

I explained to her that my "policy" was to talk with the doctor first and be examined. If, after that he felt X-rays might help I'd have them then. She left in a huff and when the doc was ready to come in my exam room I could hear her telling him her version of my uncooperativeness. As soon as he entered I introduced myself and said, "I'm the evil problem patient you just heard all about." He then apologized for her and we got along fine.

Though I never did get X-rays, the charge for them did appear on my bill. I contacted the administrator of the practice about that and got not only my X-ray portion refunded, but the entire $182 as well.

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>Incompetent doctors have to be dealt with by the state medical boards that issue license to practice in that state.</font color=blue>

Maybe in some states, but not in Texas. You might want to read the story in The Dallas Morning News today about our medical board at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/072802dnprodoctors.57c26.html>this site </A>. I think Texas is a haven (or should it be heaven?) for incompetent, uncaring, and/or crooked doctors.

 

[Ozarker]

That article doesn't change anything. It isn't saying that civil courts deal with medical license's. It is telling you that the body charged with that responsibility in your state is not doing it's job. Tort reform will have no effect on that issue one way or the other.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>Tort reform will have no effect on that issue one way or the other.</font color=blue>

Actually ozarker it will. Without the threat of higher insurance rates because of the scumbags mistakes the scumbags will be the winners and John Q Public will be the loser.

Litigation comes about when there is an injured party. If the professionals are held to high standards then there will be fewer injured parties.

We don't need tort reform. We need stricter guidelines with real punishment for those who break the rules or in other ways put the public at risk. This goes for doctors, accountants, stock brokers, officers of corporations, and even policemen. And yes, even contractors should be held to a higher power.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Morning Larry,

I guess it would be shocking to wake up one morning and find me as a veteran member out of nowhere here at TBN. A whole world of wregular and irwregular harvs and the only truly wroughtn one, well here, defending and lauding lawyers.

Of course lawyers needed to be on my list of professionals that need to be more professional. It was an obvious and very unprofessional error on my part to not put them on the list.

This early in the morning I can't think of a profession besides lawyering that is so biased against one side of a situation. It sure as heck isn't preaching salvation or repairing the car or making the plumbing work. Even your accountant isn't so aligned with your best interests as your attorney is supposed to be.

When you hire an attorney his one and only interest is in your best interest. He's there to insure you get the best deal possible under the circumstances. Of course that means if the other party is their own attorney and they lose their shirt and their pants too, well, they should have hired their own attorney, fighting fire with fire you might say. After all the attorney isn't there to insure there is justice. He's there to insure that his customer gets the best possible deal for them under those circumstances.

They get their bad rep from the losing party of course. The reason they lost their shirt and pants on the deal wasn't because they were stupid or did something totally ignorant. They lost them and their socks too just because some attorney was crooked and heartless.

As for the statement about the attorneys waving dollar bills in front of folks being a problem in our society. To blame all attorneys for that would be like saying shoe sales people shouldn't be trusted because the used car dealer at the local tote the note lot screwed a friend. When in fact the local tote the note dealer was the only one who would bet on the friend for credit and deserved to be rewarded for taking the chance.

The fat food lawsuit is going to be an interesting one. I find it intriguing that an attorney would take it on. The motivation has to be self serving of course, that's what makes humans tick. The attorney might be a smuck going for the publicity.

But then again the attorney in question might be an idealist on a quest for justice. Or it might be a situation where some real sharp cookie has found a point of law that is relevant and appropriate and we might be entering a whole new world defining just what personal responsibility really is. Then again some attorney might have one of those customers that insist on plunging ahead darn the consequences. And the attorney is only an advocate for the client. His function is to advise first and the do what the client wants to the best of his her ability that is appropriate under the law. If the lawyer has told the customer they don't stand the chance of a snowball in death valley in July but that client wants to take that chance then he has to take that chance.

After all in today's climate that client might find the attorney's fee money well spent if he can get interviewed by Matt Laurer instead of Jerry Springer. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[RoyJackson]

"If the lawyer has told the customer they don't stand the chance of a snowball in death valley in July but that client wants to take that chance then he has to take that chance."

I reckon they're hoping the Fast Food companies will settle out of court. I hope the judge determines this is a frivolous case and tosses it out with prejudice.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

What I'd like to see come out of this Roy is a new perspective of just what each of us has as far as liability in that thing called "personal responsibility". I see a great opportunity for some wonderful discussions. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[dummy]

Personal Responsibility?? An idealistic approach, don't you think? Why should anyone be responsible for themselves when they can blame anyone and everyone else? Nothing in their lives is a direct result of what they have done. Some of the statements I've heard, "Work, nah, don't feel like it, I'll wait for my government check to come in. The way I was raised was wrong, my mom stayed home and my dad worked too much (or vice versa) and both of them were way too strict. My parents never did anything for me except to feed, clothe and house me. Heck, I didn't even get a new car when I got my drivers license. The only reason I'm in jail is because my dad's second wife doesn't like me (from a 40 year old guy that's been in and out since he was 19)." And the list goes on. So you see Harv, it's not my fault this is a long post, it's TBN's for having the forum./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[dmccarty]

ejb,

Bgott may also have heard my retelling of the untold McD
coffee story.

This was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago.

The quick story is that McD's has a free refill policy on
coffee. So to save a few cents they make the coffee to
hot to drink quickly. I was burned by the coffee a few
years ago because of this by the way. There is NO WAY
anyone can drink this coffee. McDs has had many complaints
and lawsuits on the issue but continued to keep the coffee
to hot. JUST TO SAVE A REFILL OR TWO.

McD's pattern of behavior is what cost them 6 Million. I have
heard since then that they still have the coffee to hot. McD's
figures its much cheaper to have a few burned people and
lawsuits than than to lower the temp......

For once the Boob Tube was correct... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Later...
Dan

 

[McLuen]

Harv,
I am not a guy that thinks lawyers are all bad or the problem.
There are good lawyers, and I use them when my business needs help with legal issues. I do think the idea of personal responsibility is eroding, and that is not good for our country.
I also feel very strongly that a lawyer with any integrity would not take this case. IMHO.

 

[Ozarker]

Do you really beleive that good doctors are good only becasue of the threat of being sued? That is strange.

No Harv, it won't. Ultra high insurance is spread out among the good as well as the bad doctors. It makes all doctors raise rates to meet the costs and hurts John Q public across the board. The proper solution for bad doctors is for the governing body to take action to remove their ability to practice.

You don't protect the public by simply making bad doctors pay more to continue in practice. That is sort of like giving a drivers liscense to someone after his 4th or 5th DWI. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

According to the article posted, the currennt system doesn't seem to be doing much to protect people in Texas.

 

[bgott]

Thinking about it I did hear it from you. Sorry I didn't remember so I could give the proper credit where it was due. My memory is kind of funny that way. I can remember just enough of a lot of things to go on a search to find the rest of the story if it's important. Einstein himself said it was a waste of time to memorize stuff you could look up. And before fifty of y'all post to keep me from having any delusions, I realize I'm not Einstein! /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

 

[crown]

Personal responsibility? That sounds good unfortantly it is my experience that people love to blame someone or something for all the mishaps that occur in their lives.
We all make choices we need to live with them not necessarly like them but live with them ah yes personal responsibility would be a welcome idealism (Maybe one day).

 

[dmccarty]

Bgott,

No need for a sorry! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif What I *** WANTED *** to say
was the I wrote up a big long post about McDs awhile ago.
It might be interesting to go search for the post. I don't
think I was even remotely close to having that come across
in what I said! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Now that bit about Einstein and memorization is pretty good.
It certainly is true. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif And TBN is one heck of a good
database! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Later,
Dan

 

[Frank_Mulligan]

I really can't comprehend much of a 'fix' for our current judicial system. In my opinion the whole mess is caused by people blaming others for their own ignorance or errors. We do need a system protecting us from negligence, either from a product or an individual, that also disallows fivilous lawsuits. I've written to my representatives and congressmen about the need for tort reform. I've heard nothing from them./w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif

I think 'common sense' should be a viable defense for some of these companies. Everybody knows coffee is hot! Everybody knows smoking is harmful to your health! Everybody knows fast food is full of fats and salts! If you dont, you admit you are an idiot, and you deserve to revisit grades 1 through 8.

Here's my list of what is wrong with the tobacco litigation:

-Cigarettes were not popular until WWI, when the US army issued them to the soldiers. Should the government shoulder some blame?

-Cigarettes have had a product warning on them for years now, and is one of the only products that has such a prominent warning, if any at all.

-The government currently, and has done so for the last several years, makes more money off of taxes on the smokes than the manufacturer does.

-The human body can pick up disease, cancer or otherwise, from any number of sources. Proving that a particular product caused a disease in a particular individual seems rather like an implied notion. This thereby instantiates the point that everyone knows smoking is bad for one's health.

-Since everyone knows smoking is bad, doing so, you run the risks, and should be responsible for your own actions. They don't call them 'coffin nails' for no reason.

-Tobacco State settlements are in large, NOT going towards health programs or anti-smoking programs. The States would probably go bankrupt if they lost the tax revenue.

I could go on and on, but even I'm getting tired of reading my post!/w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif

Finally, anyone who thinks this is punishing some old company CEO's is being foolish. The company's either go out of business, or raise their prices. In the end, it is YOU, the consumer, who pays for these lawsuits whose sole purpose is to make lawyers rich.