Spring Break
Tort reformers, not frivolous lawsuits, out of control
Ben Tarr
Issue date: 3/3/09 Section: Commentary
They won how much for that?
These are the common cries of the tort reformers - those who believe that there are too many lawsuits in America. A tort is generally an act where private citizens, and not the government, harm each other illegally, usually due to negligent behavior. They generally believe that plaintiffs are awarded too much money in lawsuits for seemingly petty and insignificant acts. The tort reform movement is misguided and fails to account for all the facts of the case and fails to acknowledge the merit of most of these lawsuits.
A classic example of a case which the tort reform movement loves to mention is the infamous coffee spill at McDonald's. They will be quick to point out that the jury awarded Stella Liebeck $2.86 million, or two days of coffee profits for McDonald's, for spilling hot coffee in her lap while she was driving. This may sound frivolous and outrageous at first, but when one considers the surrounding facts, it does not seem so blasphemous.
Initially, Liebeck wished to obtain from McDonald's only the costs of her medical expenses, which totaled $11,000. However, McDonald's only offered $800 and brushed off subsequent requests for more compensation. Liebeck was forced to use the courts as a means of obtaining compensation, and during trial, expert testimony revealed that McDonald's served its coffee at temperature of 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas other establishments serve their coffee at much safer temperatures of 140 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Experts further testified that major burns could occur if such a hot beverage were to be subjected to skin for even two seconds, and if the coffee was held at 155 degrees, the burns would be minimal to non-existent.
In addition to the above facts, what is not mentioned about the lawsuit was that the $2.86 million award by the jury was reduced to $480,000 because Liebeck was appropriately deemed partially at fault. However, McDonald's ignored over 700 claims between 1982 and 1992 for serving coffee at excessively high temperatures, and something finally had to be done to force them to adopt safer standards. These facts are conveniently omitted from the tort reformers' case to curtail lawsuits. They focus only on the facts which advance their arguments, and not on all the facts of the cases.
These are the common cries of the tort reformers - those who believe that there are too many lawsuits in America. A tort is generally an act where private citizens, and not the government, harm each other illegally, usually due to negligent behavior. They generally believe that plaintiffs are awarded too much money in lawsuits for seemingly petty and insignificant acts. The tort reform movement is misguided and fails to account for all the facts of the case and fails to acknowledge the merit of most of these lawsuits.
A classic example of a case which the tort reform movement loves to mention is the infamous coffee spill at McDonald's. They will be quick to point out that the jury awarded Stella Liebeck $2.86 million, or two days of coffee profits for McDonald's, for spilling hot coffee in her lap while she was driving. This may sound frivolous and outrageous at first, but when one considers the surrounding facts, it does not seem so blasphemous.
Initially, Liebeck wished to obtain from McDonald's only the costs of her medical expenses, which totaled $11,000. However, McDonald's only offered $800 and brushed off subsequent requests for more compensation. Liebeck was forced to use the courts as a means of obtaining compensation, and during trial, expert testimony revealed that McDonald's served its coffee at temperature of 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas other establishments serve their coffee at much safer temperatures of 140 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Experts further testified that major burns could occur if such a hot beverage were to be subjected to skin for even two seconds, and if the coffee was held at 155 degrees, the burns would be minimal to non-existent.
In addition to the above facts, what is not mentioned about the lawsuit was that the $2.86 million award by the jury was reduced to $480,000 because Liebeck was appropriately deemed partially at fault. However, McDonald's ignored over 700 claims between 1982 and 1992 for serving coffee at excessively high temperatures, and something finally had to be done to force them to adopt safer standards. These facts are conveniently omitted from the tort reformers' case to curtail lawsuits. They focus only on the facts which advance their arguments, and not on all the facts of the cases.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
James Lee
posted 3/03/09 @ 4:07 PM EST
What a wonderful little exercise in liberal groupthink. I would expect nothing less from someone who is obviously not a business major. It is always easy to beat on the large multinational corporations that everyone hates anyway. (Continued…)
Joatmon
posted 3/03/09 @ 6:56 PM EST
As usual a reasonable solution to the problem under discussion exists somewhere between the two positions presented here. Why is it though that Conservatives almost invariably need to resort to personal attacks and insults against those they disagree with?
Post a Comment