What you are wanting to do is relitigate the case. You become upset about specific facts or specific arguments. You say "boy what a dumb jury". But your solution is tort reform that simply makes recovery of damages much more difficult, regardless of the fact specific scenario.

You argue that the coffee was served at the right temperature. But the temperature of the coffee in one case does not bear any weight toward what legal remedies should be available. Tort reform that eliminates punitive damages doesn't just apply to the cases that offend you. What if McDonald's had kept their coffee at 211 degrees, one degree below boiling. They didn't, but your "tort reform" would protect them even if they had.

Let's go to the lawnmower case that may or may not exist.



So your solution is to make it harder to recover damages. But let's change the facts. Let's say that it was a new lawnmower. Let's say that there were plenty of available safety options that the company chose not to use because it would cost an extra $5. And let's say that the mower was being used properly when it went out of control and killed the little boy.

How do your proposed reforms prevent jury awards in your hypothetical case, but allow large awards in my altered hypothetical case?

First, let's get rid of the derogatory slant by calling it a hypothetical case
Family and Estate of Justin Eric Simmons v. MTD Products, Inc. (http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=&s=&d=39307)
#18 ? Simmons v. MTD Products Inc. | Virginia Lawyers Weekly (http://valawyersweekly.com/2007/12/21/18-simmons-v-mtd-products-inc/)
Judge Backs $2M Award in 4-Year-Old's Mower Death | Products (http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/judge-backs-2m-award-in-4-year-olds-mower-death.html)
http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-files/pdf/008-8-062.pdf

Secondly, I don't have any particular plan on tort reform except a desire to limit damage awards. Pain and suffering have certainly gotten expensive, lately. Do I sound like a heartless, soulless vermin? Maybe, but there must be some way to set a dollar amount on a fine based on what the company saved and profited in your altered case rather than the loss of life. If you're wanting to teach a business entity a lesson, then either determine the dollar amount the family lost, or determine a realistic fine to the company outside of the courtroom. Leaving it up to a collection of weeping jurors staring at the picture of a child isn't right, either.

FWIW, the collection of weeping jurors verdict was upheld by the trial court, and the state supreme court declined to consider the case. Presumably, though I was not present, neither the trial judge nor the clerks and justices of the state supreme court were prone to imitate weeping jurors as they went about their respective tasks, if such ever existed in that case in the first instance.

The 2 mil was awarded as three separate amounts, 500G each to each parent, and 1 mil to a brother of the boy who was turned into lawn food. Speaking for myself, based on the love of family and not my profession at all, the amounts do not seem at all egregious.

Just checked out this thread after a few days of skipping over it. Boy it went off topic fast!

I guess I'll take the blame for taking up the Chamber's side and disrupting Midtowner, my bad

First, let's get rid of the derogatory slant by calling it a hypothetical case
Family and Estate of Justin Eric Simmons v. MTD Products, Inc. (http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=&s=&d=39307)
#18 ? Simmons v. MTD Products Inc. | Virginia Lawyers Weekly (http://valawyersweekly.com/2007/12/21/18-simmons-v-mtd-products-inc/)
Judge Backs $2M Award in 4-Year-Old's Mower Death | Products (http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/judge-backs-2m-award-in-4-year-olds-mower-death.html)
http://valawyersweekly.com/wp-files/pdf/008-8-062.pdf

Secondly, I don't have any particular plan on tort reform except a desire to limit damage awards. Pain and suffering have certainly gotten expensive, lately. Do I sound like a heartless, soulless vermin? Maybe, but there must be some way to set a dollar amount on a fine based on what the company saved and profited in your altered case rather than the loss of life. If you're wanting to teach a business entity a lesson, then either determine the dollar amount the family lost, or determine a realistic fine to the company outside of the courtroom. Leaving it up to a collection of weeping jurors staring at the picture of a child isn't right, either.

I just read the ruling from the trial court. If you look beginning on page 15 they go into the manufacture of the lawn mower. The defendant's own expert witness agreed that a university study in 1972 had addressed one of the primary dangers of riding lawnmowers was children behind the mower, and that the company's solution to that danger only functioned when it was placed in reverse, not when it rolled backwards with the clutch engaged (which the defendant's own expert and the designer of the machine testified was an expected method of use of the lawnmower).

It looks to me like a very solid products liability case.

Now, as to your other statement. Do you know why we don't base fines upon what the company saved? Because it's not about how much you saved, it's about the injury you inflicted. Otherwise companies have zero disincentive to make products safer or to behave in a better manner. If ten people die and the company saves a thousand dollars, your proposed fine would be based off the thousand dollars they saved. "Here small child, sorry your daddy is dead. Here's your hundred bucks."

Outside of a courtroom? That's ridiculous. We settle these matters inside of a courtroom because that's the remedy set forth in the US Constitution. I'm going to trust to the judgment of weeping jurors much more than I am the grouchy old man on the internet.

FWIW, the collection of weeping jurors verdict was upheld by the trial court, and the state supreme court declined to consider the case. Presumably, though I was not present, neither the trial judge nor the clerks and justices of the state supreme court were prone to imitate weeping jurors as they went about their respective tasks, if such ever existed in that case in the first instance.

The 2 mil was awarded as three separate amounts, 500G each to each parent, and 1 mil to a brother of the boy who was turned into lawn food. Speaking for myself, based on the love of family and not my profession at all, the amounts do not seem at all egregious.
I realize I’m debating this issue with three lawyers, and I appreciate that y’all are defensive of your profession, but I remain convinced in my belief that there should be some sort of limit to damages awarded. As you noted, the court that upheld the settlement said that

The manner in which the damages are to be distributed is no concern of the defendant, and not under the control of the plaintiff [personal representative]. It is a question for the jury exclusively ... and basically (in my untrained opinion) was simply upholding the decision rather than to reopen any of the debate (that I'm sure was completely hashed out in the initial proceedings), determining to state that there was no flagrant error or mistake. Certainly the courts agreed with the jury's decision, but let's say that you can put a dollar amount on pain and suffering. Wouldn't you say that the parents would have greater pain and suffering than a 1 year old sibling? I'm assuming you find the $500K payments to the parents to be OK. What would justify the payment of $1M to his 1 year old brother? I'm not defending MTD products in any fashion. I just think that a jury (of, let's all admit it, 12 people not smart or lucky enough to get out of jury duty) set these amounts after at least a couple of days of doing what they don't want to do listening to what were certainly emotional arguments. Maybe the $1M to the 1 year old was based on the plaintiffs' lawyer saying, "You know, Joshua misses his brother in many ways that he doesn't understand now." I'll put my money on there being weeping jurors. I would argue that there ought to be better thought out processes to determine how much to pay a person for pain and suffering. Was it MTD products that caused them pain and suffering? The now (falsely) demonized The Stella Awards website questions the decision to sue the maker of a
16-year-old lawn mower because the mower didn't have a safety device that 1) had not been invented at the time of the mower's manufacture, and 2) no safety agency had even suggested needed it to be invented. that was clearly being used in a method not in concert with the manufacturer's instructions. The records show that the operator of the lawn mower:

He did not disengage the mower's blades. He did not shift into reverse, which would have disengaged the blades. He knew that by pushing in the clutch, he could mow backwards. He had done it before.
Much like I've not investigated the Ford Pinto, I've also not investigated MTD Products lawnmowers -- just relying on someone else's analysis. The decision could be right. I basically trust our court systems. I'm simply providing an example that shows why I believe we need tort reform in some fashion.

There's also this thing called a remitittur which would typically happen in a civil trial like that in which the judge, if he deems appropriate can reduce the jury award. It can also be reduced on appeal if it's too excessive (and there are some fuzzyish guidelines for what excessive looks like). If you slipped and broke your hip at a Wal Mart and a jury awards you 1 billion dollars, you'd better bet that's going to be reduced to something reasonable. We already have protections in place, but our founding fathers wanted us to have the right to have grievances decided by a jury--not corporate lobbyists who get special rules for their clients by writing legislation.

Also, back to the evidence department, you were asked to provide some examples of out of control awards. First, you produced a list which is fictional. Second, you produced one case which after hearing both sides, it now makes sense and what that jury did was totally defensible.

Why do we still need special rules for corporations so that we protect their profits when they kill and maim people?

And don't say this has anything to do with my livelihood. I do take personal injury and complex civil cases, but they might only be about 15% of what I do. I could drop those both tomorrow and my bank account wouldn't notice.

There's also this thing called a remitittur which would typically happen in a civil trial like that in which the judge, if he deems appropriate can reduce the jury award. It can also be reduced on appeal if it's too excessive (and there are some fuzzyish guidelines for what excessive looks like). If you slipped and broke your hip at a Wal Mart and a jury awards you 1 billion dollars, you'd better bet that's going to be reduced to something reasonable. We already have protections in place, but our founding fathers wanted us to have the right to have grievances decided by a jury--not corporate lobbyists who get special rules for their clients by writing legislation.

Also, back to the evidence department, you were asked to provide some examples of out of control awards. First, you produced a list which is fictional. Second, you produced one case which after hearing both sides, it now makes sense and what that jury did was totally defensible.

Why do we still need special rules for corporations so that we protect their profits when they kill and maim people?

And don't say this has anything to do with my livelihood. I do take personal injury and complex civil cases, but they might only be about 15% of what I do. I could drop those both tomorrow and my bank account wouldn't notice.

You're right. I don't want an ALEC law as the result of tort reform , but surely there's some middle ground between $100 per corpse and $1M to a 1 year old boy for a brother he like only remembers as one of Mom and Dad's stories or photos.

You're right. I don't want an ALEC law as the result of tort reform , but surely there's some middle ground between $100 per corpse and $1M to a 1 year old boy for a brother he like only remembers as one of Mom and Dad's stories or photos.

A jury can decide and we have all kinds of protections from excessive awards. Tort reform is a solution in search of a problem.

Since we are on this tangent, apply the follow the money principle. Who is pushing hardest for tort reform in the legislature? Who supports it outside the legislature? Who benefits financially most from tort reform? It is "Right to Work" deception with a different target.

In the FWIW column, a trial occurs when one or both sides aren't overly interested in finding that middle ground. Contrary to the belief of many who favor so called tort reform, the foot dragger avoiding efforts to find an acceptable settlement point is very often not some jackpot hoping, salivating plaintiff.

As for my earlier response, I couched my perspective as personal view and as outside professional perspective for a reason. I don't get involved in wrongful death cases, and I don't see that changing, ever.

I don't handle personal injury cases at all. For those who don't know, I am a public defender. Every case I have is assigned by the court.

Did you even read the OP?
Does Ron Howard have a book coming out about his days on the Andy Griffith Show? ;)