Rye member suing club over shower fall

[Mark Chaplin]

Shane - if your saying it's not obvious, then the OT won't help you.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, just a matter of protocol to help those in need. I have no problem with OT threads, especially the cricket ones.

[Dan King]

Lou Duran writes:
But my comment regarding personal responsibility has much more to do than with just litigation and defensive medicine.

Isn't that the whole point of torts, the responsible party should pay? Yes, people and companies don't take responsibility for their actions, and when they don't it is up to the courts to resolve the issue. What would you have someone do when McDonalds fails to take responsibility for their actions? Or is just the little guy who needs to take personal responsibility?

Cheers,
Dan King

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
  --Josiah Charles Stamp

[Lou_Duran]

Lou Duran writes:
But my comment regarding personal responsibility has much more to do than with just litigation and defensive medicine.

Isn't that the whole point of torts, the responsible party should pay? Yes, people and companies don't take responsibility for their actions, and when they don't it is up to the courts to resolve the issue. What would you have someone do when McDonalds fails to take responsibility for their actions? Or is just the little guy who needs to take personal responsibility?

Cheers,
Dan King

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
  --Josiah Charles Stamp

Dan,

I understand that you're attending law school so I take it that your questions are rhetorical.  EVERYONE should take responsibility for their actions.  Using a product incorrectly as in the McDonald example, slipping in a slippery shower, engaging in risky behavior, etc. is what I am talking about.  Somebody plows through a red light and T-bones you, by all means get your due from the responsible party.  Loser pays, in my view, helps identify just causes and ethical lawyers much better than the current system.  Knowing a little bit about human behavior, I do understand how those offering a greatly over-supplied service think more in terms of expanding causes, markets, and opportunities.  It is particularly dangerous when this group is mostly responsible for writing, enacting, and enforcing laws which compel submission under the power of the gun.

[Dan King]

Lou Duran writes:
Using a product incorrectly as in the McDonald example

McDonald's served their coffee 40 degrees hotter than anyone else, knowing this could result in burns, but figuring it still made economic sense with the payouts to people who got burned. How is that responsible? Yes, the grandmother also behaved irresponsibly and her damages were reduced to reflect her behavior. 

The slip and fall guy is suing Rye. He hasn't won anything.

The tort system works. Yes, it isn't perfect, but there isn't a lot of perfection in life.

I understand that you're attending law school so I take it that your questions are rhetorical.

Three months and an expert on all sorts of things. I actually went into law school believing the tort system needed fixing. I like it much better after learning more about it.

Cheers,
Dan King

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
 --Robert A. Heinlein

[JC Jones]

Lou Duran writes:
Using a product incorrectly as in the McDonald example

McDonald's served their coffee 40 degrees hotter than anyone else, knowing this could result in burns, but figuring it still made economic sense with the payouts to people who got burned. How is that responsible? Yes, the grandmother also behaved irresponsibly and her damages were reduced to reflect her behavior. 

My queston to you is how is it not responsible?  What if they have done the analysis and it turns out that they are economically better off serving the coffee at 40 degrees hotter than anyone else even after accounting for the legal expenses?

Legal costs are no different from any other transactional costs.

[Scott Stearns]

which way back to the architecture site....

[Lou_Duran]

Scott,

It took you much longer to chime-in on this post than to by-pass it to one more suitable to your interests. 

Dan,

Is the 40* statement your presumption?  I've had steaming coffee at any number of establishments.  There are some of us who like it hot and after thousands of experiences, have burned our tongue a few times, but not been harmed othewise.  From a liability standpoint, if an adult product is not being used as intended and someone is harmed, I have a hard time punishing the producer regardless of how deep his pockets are.

Certainly you are not surprised to learn at a CA law school that the tort system is imperfect but good?    Ask most any doctor or consumer products company's risk managers what they think.  I suspect that the POV is quite different.   

[Scott Stearns]

loser pays is a FAR more responsible system than the one the US has at present.

[Bill_McBride]

Can I sue them for some of the bad lies I had in Sept.?

Most of our bad lies were self-inflicted!   

[Mike Hendren]

Is is possible that this old naked gent inadvertantly bumped uglies with another old naked gent in the shower, fell down and concocted this story to cover up his embarassment?  After all, isn't that what happens, "when a body meets a body coming through the Rye?"

Mike

[Steve_ Shaffer]

"Loser pays" in tort litigation in the US would create more business for those companies who are presently in the business of auditing law firm billings for duplicity, over staffing and unreasonableness, among other things.

http://www.devilsadvocate.com/Articles/audit.html

I could tell many stories about over staffing cases from my days in a major law factory...ooops I meant firm, in Philadelphia.

More importanly, it would deny access to the courts to the less fortunate among us who rely on the contingency fee (and the attorneys who pursue these cases and fund the investigation and litigation costs) to pursue  tort claims. If these clients were to lose their case, I'm sure many of them would be judgment proof.

I have no problem with "loser pays" in commercial and corporate litigation.

[Doug Siebert]

I've always felt the solution to large awards was to only allow an injured party to collect compensatory damages, and punitive damages would be required to go to charity, jointly agreed upon by both parties, and must be one that neither party has any connection to at all.

Lawyer fees couldn't include any portion of the punitive awards, which would go a long way towards stopping frivilous lawsuits since they could only look forward to a large payday in truly serious cases where the compensatory damages would be large (i.e. death or very serious injury)  Perhaps the lawyers could be allowed to take a portion charitable contribution tax deduction rather than the other parties, since IMHO neither of them should benefit from it.

Doesn't help with frivilous lawsuits by 72 year olds that may fall regardless of the surface, and only say something two weeks after they probably fell at home and claimed it was elsewhere as they saw a way to grab some extra cash, but one problem at a time...

[David_Elvins]

Scott,

Interesting story but some private clubs are quite tetchy about the publication of unauthorised photos.  Fingers crossed that taking a photo of Rye Golf Club and publishing it in a National newspaper without permission of said club has no repurcusions on your standing at your club or in your travels. 

[JC Jones]

I could tell many stories about over staffing cases from my days in a major law factory...ooops I meant firm, in Philadelphia.

I  as a refugee from such a place.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

If the Rye lawsuit fails at trial, the claimant will pay the club's legal fees. I'm sure this claimant isn't judgment proof.

In the US, punitive damages are actually awarded in a very small percentage of tort cases(less than 2% nationwide) and the median award is approximately $50000 according to one source. Moreover, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages must be reasonable, as determined based on the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, and any criminal or civil penalties applicable to the conduct. In State Farm Auto. Ins. v. Campbell (2003), the Court held that punitive damages may only be based on the acts of the defendants which harmed the plaintiffs. Any ratio higher than 10:1 is suspect and most high awards are reduced to about 3:1. Punitive damages are taxable as opposed to compensatory damages for pain and suffering which are not.

What's all the fuss about?

 

[Scott Warren]

Scott,

Interesting story but some private clubs are quite tetchy about the publication of unauthorised photos.  Fingers crossed that taking a photo of Rye Golf Club and publishing it in a National newspaper without permission of said club has no repurcusions on your standing at your club or in your travels. 

David,

You're assuming that I/a colleague didn't contact the club to get comment, check facts and inform them of the photo. Being the honest sort of journo I am, all of those things occurred.

[Jason McNamara]

What's all the fuss about?

The goofy jump in logic that says because a defendant is hit with punitive damages, said damages should automatically go to a plaintiff. 

You indicated the median award amount, but what's the mean?

And btw, 2% is a figure that looks great (like the median award amount, designed to downplay the impact).  But how many thousands of awards are we talking about?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jason,

A quick google revealed this:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1412864

[Scott Warren]

which way back to the architecture site....

You mean the threads like this one, and this, and this one too... etc?

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!