On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:06:24 -0700, "* * Chas"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>
><clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:06 GMT, still just me
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0500, !Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
>> >>documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
>> >>training at all.
>> >>
>> >>It's an every day thing.
>> >
>> >It will go higher than that. I had similar, but lesser injuries and
>> >spent $13K in medical costs alone. If the kid really has permanent
>> >injuries, they will have to send quite a bit more his way.
>>
>>
>> A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
>> handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges, one
>> of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their head.
>> The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO PERMANENT
>> INJURIES.
>> If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100
>> grand.
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>Some very interesting anti-plaintiff precedents have been set here in the
>US as a result of the exorbitant settlements for frivolous claims of the
>past 10-15 years - the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit is a good example.
Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.
Second, McDonalds knew the coffee was scalding hot. Their own internal
memos recognized and discussed it. The 160 degree serving temperature
was in their manual (All franchises are required to follow "the
manual" to the letter). Third, they had over 600 previous claims filed
against them for the same issue documented in their own records.
(Their employees and records testified to this point) Fourth,
McDonalds claimed that they made the coffee extra hot because people
"drank it when they got home" but this point actually cost them dearly
in the case when their own employee testified that their market
research showed that people drank their coffee in their car, not at
home.
In short, their own records and employees sunk their case by showing
their obvious knowledge of the problem, the fact that it had been
repeatedly addressed, and their negligence in correcting a dangerous
situation.
In addition, the woman did not initially sue them. Note that she was
so badly burned that she required substantial skin grafts. She asked
them only to cover her medical bills of about $10K. They refused. It
wasn't until then that she hired an attorney. Lastly, the award she
received was reduced by a Judge to about $600K - which, considering
the 600 claims, McDonald's gross negligence, and their corporate
worth, was a pittance.
>These large settlements have encouraged unscrupulous trial lawyers (also
>known as "ambulance chasers") to pursue more borderline cases. The result
>has been that many bona fide claims for real injuries have been minimized
>or outright denied.
I agree there. But the mentality now (see above) is also that any case
with a large award is automatically suspect and the plaintiff a
scammer.
>The number of "slip and fall" claims have proliferated to such a point
>that the burden of proof has been set so high that many legitimate lawyers
>do not want to take on these kinds of cases.
Personal Injury lawyers always seem ready - although cases of lower
injury level are given minimal time and attention and assigned junior
lawyers.
>It seems that many insurance companies here in the US have a policy of
>quickly settling frivolous claims while vigorously fighting claims for
>real injuries.
no $hit.
>I recently settled a property damage suit for less than my out of pocket
>legal expenses. Allstate Insurance spent over $250,000 and 4 years
>defending against a claim that originally could have been settled for
>under $10,000. I took their "take it or leave it" settlement offer
>because they suggested that the case could be stretched out another 2
>years if I didn't.
Yep, I know the problem. It's a strange mentality. A car nearly killed
me on my bike with obvious liability by the driver. Instead of
offering me a minor settlement (and covering medical expenses they
were legally required to cover anyway under state law) they fired the
first shot by sending me a bill for damages to the car. Guess what I
did next.
>So in the case of Wal-Mart and the defective bike, they may or may not
>settle quickly. Many insurance companies are making low "take it or leave
>it" offers.
I think the liability in this case is way too clear... but you never
know...
