OT what is wrong with American courts?

[rubthebuddha]

bs is right, but we have a greater problem:

whether or not these stories are true isn't at issue, because it's easy to call bull****. the problem lies in the fact that we wouldn't be all that surprised if a jury was dumb enough to award in such a way.

as the expression goes, do you want to trust your fate to 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty?

[Losttrak]

Well, a few of us here were surprised. I think that alot of people are being swayed by propaganda and television. I have been in courts several times and they were very critical, intense affairs and no one was given much latitude. If anything like those cases every truly occured it would be a tragic fluke that would be appealed and summarily rejected.

[Kristoffer]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
With all the sperm our soldiers pumped into your women during WWI and WWII, your wrists should spill American crude as well.

psssst, american soldiers never touched our soil .. but yeah, sure

[MasterKiller]

I think a lot of jurors go out of their way to award outrageous money settlements because it makes them feel like they are sticking it to the man.

[Losttrak]

psssst, american soldiers never touched our soil .. but yeah, sure

Naw I distinctly remembering my grandfather's memoirs saying he, "peed out the bomb-bay doors when he was flying over Sweden," in a flying fortress.

[Kristoffer]

he was just grumpy coz none of our women wanted to touch his wee wee. I'm sure your ugly-ness runs in the family, nothing to be ashamed of really

[Losttrak]

Now since American soldiers never set foot in Sweden and apparently saw his "wee wee" as you put it... that means they saw it swing by as he flew by at 30,000 feet. I'd say thats a helluva compliment, ugly or not.

[Kristoffer]

lol

[Merryprankster]

It's time once again to review the winners of the annual "Stella Awards". The Stella's are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds.

You do realize that at the time, McDonald's heated their coffee to nearly 180 degrees (fahrenheit, that's about HOT in Celcius), and that the Shriner's hospitals, which handle burn victims, had sent them several letters requesting that they please turn down the heat to 160, which is plenty hot, but has significantly less chance of causing burns? It takes an assload of heat to raise and lower the temperature of water and that 20 degree difference would likely have kept her from serious injury.

Further, she suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns as a result of the spillage, to her groin and inner legs, had to undergo several surgeries to correct it.

Yeah, she spilled the coffee, but it was foreseeable, w/respect to McDonalds, that somebody would spill their coffee in their lap. McDonalds was therefore negligent. The simple act of turning down the heat would have saved her significant surgery time, recovery, pain, etc. That's all it would have taken. It's not like she climbed over a fence, broke into McDonald's and poured coffee on her head.

This is the most cited "frivolous" suit on the internet, and most people don't even know the facts.

As far as what's wrong with our justice system? Nothing. We have so many lawyers and cases for one beautiful, glorious reason - everybody feels they have access to the U.S. court system. The fact that even the imprisoned, poor and stupid can be heard is a virtue, not a bad thing.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Radhnoti

I'd love to hear Judge Pen's opinion on this stuff...

MP you're right. In one of the McDonald's coffee spill cases (it is my understanding that there were more than one), the manager of that McDonalds intentionally turned the heat up on the coffee. His reasoning: He was annoyed at some old timers that hung out there every morning. One of the ladies lost all sexual function due to the burns in her private area. How much is an orgasm worth fellows?

Jury Nullification is a trikey issue with a court. While juries are free to ignore the law, there is a debate as to whether attorney's (as both officers of the court and as an advocate of their client) can argue that a jury do so. Actually a good illustration of jury nullification is the movie "A Time To Kill." Not a great movie, but that's what the jury had to do to exonorate Sam Jackson's character. A strict interpretation of the law meant he was guilty of murder no matter how morally justified he was at the time he committed the act.

Also the British Rule vs. The American Rule regarding payment of litigation. It sounds appealling. Actually most court's civil prcedure rules allow for this on a limited basis with the repayment of discretionary costs to the victor of a lawsuit. this does not include attorney's fees and that's where the real rub in this debate lies. The American Rule encourages people of limited means to bring litigation without fear of paying the fees of the corporate lawyers hired to defend company X. This is seen as a progressive system that allows access to the courts by the poor. It also can encourage frivilous lawsuits but the risk of that is then born by the party that is most able to afford the risk: the rich company.

The founders of our justice system felt that the British Rule would discourage people from bringing valid lawsuits for the risk of paying costs on a suit that might be valid; however, one that they ultimately lost (it does happen people win that shouldn't and people lose that shouldn't too). In thier estimation, it was better to encourage them to use the courts (and, in theory cut down on self-help justice and crime that the poor may be more inclined to engage in) then to make everyone pay as they go. My thinking is that each state could decide this for its own, but I'm not aware of any state that allows the British Rule across the board in its litigation.

And, yes Rad, most lawyers agree with the American rule for the job security it provides!

[Merryprankster]

The American Rule encourages people of limited means to bring litigation without fear of paying the fees of the corporate lawyers hired to defend company X. This is seen as a progressive system that allows access to the courts by the poor. It also can encourage frivilous lawsuits but the risk of that is then born by the party that is most able to afford the risk: the rich company.

Bingo. Access anyone....anyone?

I'll take frivolous lawsuits as the price of access.

MP you're right. In one of the McDonald's coffee spill cases (it is my understanding that there were more than one), the manager of that McDonalds intentionally turned the heat up on the coffee. His reasoning: He was annoyed at some old timers that hung out there every morning. One of the ladies lost all sexual function due to the burns in her private area.

Hmmm... the facts as I am aware of them is that official company policy was 180. Lemme check.

[rogue]

Didn't know that about the McD case. Shines a different light on it.

[Merryprankster]

http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/m/mcdo...ffee-case.html

good summary here.

[Radhnoti]

Judge Pen - "And, yes Rad, most lawyers agree with the American rule for the job security it provides!"


I KNEW IT!


...lawyers...

[4everblu]

True, it wasnt American but Nazi sperm pumped into Swedish women

Just a taste:http://www.coronetbooks.com/books/swed0136.htm

Ah, the neutral Swedes! ***** envy at its worst. Unable to defend yourself you decide to bend over for the Nazis.

When there is America bashing to be done, it always seems the Swedes are first in line.

Arsehole
When an American bleeds, its blood red. The same blood that was shed so your sorry ass can live in freedom. The same bood that was shed to remove the Nazis from your soil. The same blood that was shed by real men willing to die to protect their families and way of life.

Do you enjoy your life in Sweden? How does it feel to know that you and yours had nothing to do with it.