Know your city

[hoya]

I don't know what they've lobbied to have done to "reform" workers compensation, so I won't address that at all, but, come on. Even you, a lawyer, can see that there's a need for tort reform, can't you?

I can't. Perhaps you can show me some real cases that have come up in the last 10 years that will prove such a need. Not "this lady I heard of got sued by the criminal who got a splinter while breaking into her house", but real cases.

[Midtowner]

I don't know what they've lobbied to have done to "reform" workers compensation, so I won't address that at all, but, come on. Even you, a lawyer, can see that there's a need for tort reform, can't you?

Maybe, but hard caps on non-economic damages? Elimination of joint and several liability? Protections for the manufacturers of dangerous products? Just about everything they've done has been to put a thumb on the scales of justice in the favor of billion dollar companies at the expense of the victims of their insured. And rates haven't gone down. And they get away with it too. I'll bet you can't tell me what joint and several liability is without running an internet search. I'll bet you can't tell me how hard caps on non-economic damages will be able to put a price tag on human life. It's okay, you're not a lawyer. These are some complex things and the legislature who is passing these things doesn't even really understand what they're doing for the most part. I recall during the 2011 or 2010 tort reform efforts one of the Chamber legislators was being questioned in committee and couldn't even answer questions about the bill because he didn't write it.

There are some good blogs like this fully discussing the issue. Sorry to hijack the thread. The Chamber though, while doing a good job for business has WAAAY too much influence in state politics and anyone, conservative or liberal being that influential isn't a good thing for the rank and file plebs.

http://oklahomacity.legalexaminer.co...conservatives/

[Dubya61]

I can't. Perhaps you can show me some real cases that have come up in the last 10 years that will prove such a need. Not "this lady I heard of got sued by the criminal who got a splinter while breaking into her house", but real cases.

The Stella Awards

Time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States.

Here are this year's winners:

5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

5th Place (tie): 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000. In my opinion this is so outrageous that it should have been 2nd Place!

4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time, by Mr. Williams who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.Walton was trying to s neak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

1st Place: This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back & make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, th e RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mrs.Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons around.
Here is the official website: The True Stella Awards: Exposing Lawsuit Abuse with TRUE Cases

These are from the mid-aughts, as recent as 2007. The guy that wrote "The Stella Awards" has moved on from his research and solicitation for info. Has anything been done since 2007 that would cause these actions to not be possible today?

[Dubya61]

Maybe, but hard caps on non-economic damages? Elimination of joint and several liability? Protections for the manufacturers of dangerous products? Just about everything they've done has been to put a thumb on the scales of justice in the favor of billion dollar companies at the expense of the victims of their insured. And rates haven't gone down. And they get away with it too. I'll bet you can't tell me what joint and several liability is without running an internet search. I'll bet you can't tell me how hard caps on non-economic damages will be able to put a price tag on human life. It's okay, you're not a lawyer. These are some complex things and the legislature who is passing these things doesn't even really understand what they're doing for the most part. I recall during the 2011 or 2010 tort reform efforts one of the Chamber legislators was being questioned in committee and couldn't even answer questions about the bill because he didn't write it.

There are some good blogs like this fully discussing the issue. Sorry to hijack the thread. The Chamber though, while doing a good job for business has WAAAY too much influence in state politics and anyone, conservative or liberal being that influential isn't a good thing for the rank and file plebs.

Oklahoma 2011 Lawsuit Reform ? The Dividing Line Between the Establishment and Real Conservatives | Oklahoma City Legal Examiner | Oklahoma City Oklahoma Personal Injury Lawyer

You're right, that it's not my field, and I've no doubt that tort reform could easily go down the wrong path. But there certainly are some head-scratching things out there that make news in favor of tort reform.

[Midtowner]

The Stella Awards

Time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States.

Here are this year's winners:

5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

5th Place (tie): 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000. In my opinion this is so outrageous that it should have been 2nd Place!

4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time, by Mr. Williams who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.Walton was trying to s neak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

1st Place: This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back & make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, th e RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mrs.Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons around.
Here is the official website: The True Stella Awards: Exposing Lawsuit Abuse with TRUE Cases

These are from the mid-aughts, as recent as 2007. The guy that wrote "The Stella Awards" has moved on from his research and solicitation for info. Has anything been done since 2007 that would cause these actions to not be possible today?

Oh for the love of God...

snopes.com: Stella Awards

ETA:

What we all just witnessed there (and I'm going to pick on Dubya a bit, don't take it personally) is how woefully ignorant most folks are on this subject. As you saw, his opinion had been largely colored by totally false stories and half truths put out there by the insurance lobby to influence public opinion. Just for funsies, I went into court records to search for that RV case. It doesn't exist.

Tort reform is the most un-conservative "conservative" thing out there. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility but not if that personal responsibility is something which will make businesses pay the people they maim and kill.

[Dubya61]

Oh for the love of God...

snopes.com: Stella Awards

Sure, enough. All of those I listed I drew from their "NOT the real Stella Awards" section (damned that they'd have their own fake page), but they do have several on there that Snopes hasn't declared to be fake.

See:

#4: Ron and Kristie Simmons. The couple's 4-year-old son, Justin, was killed in a tragic lawnmower accident in a licensed daycare facility, and the death was clearly the result of negligence by the daycare providers. The providers were clearly deserving of being sued, yet when the Simmons's discovered the daycare only had $100,000 in insurance, they dropped the case against them and instead sued the manufacturer of the 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. A sympathetic jury still awarded the family $2 million.

from 2007.

[Midtowner]

Sure, enough. All of those I listed I drew from their "NOT the real Stella Awards" section (damned that they'd have their own fake page), but they do have several on there that Snopes hasn't declared to be fake.

See:
from 2007.

Googled it, couldn't find a single news site reporting this. Just a bunch of blogs and people repeating what they read on the already discredited list. Also, just glancing at it, let's assume everything in there is true, just like with the McDonald's hot coffee case, the devil's in the details. The real Stella for whom the list was named was richly deserving of what she got considering McDonald's culpability. It's not as if the creators of this list, again, assuming they're not just making up lies, are going to discuss why that jury might have been sympathetic.

The true facts of the hot coffee case if you're interested:

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

But the McDonald's case is instructive. The only way to stop a corporation from doing things which kill and maim customers in the name of profit is to make that activity unprofitable. If the company knows it can be smacked with a huge jury award and they have no way of predicting how much, they're going to be more careful. Read up about the Ford Pinto case where Ford knew statistically that something like a $15 fix per car would prevent hundreds of people from being killed or maimed, but predicted that the profits lost on that fix would be more expensive than fixing it, so Ford made the decision to kill and maim people for a little profit. It was all in memos, very cut and dry. Thing is-- Ford was hit with a HUGE jury verdict which revolutionized the cold calculus of auto safety in favor of the consumer.

[hoya]

Edit:

Oops, ninja'd by Midtowner.

[Dubya61]

Googled it, couldn't find a single news site reporting this. Just a bunch of blogs and people repeating what they read on the already discredited list. Also, just glancing at it, let's assume everything in there is true, just like with the McDonald's hot coffee case, the devil's in the details. The real Stella for whom the list was named was richly deserving of what she got considering McDonald's culpability. It's not as if the creators of this list, again, assuming they're not just making up lies, are going to discuss why that jury might have been sympathetic.

The true facts of the hot coffee case if you're interested:

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

But the McDonald's case is instructive. The only way to stop a corporation from doing things which kill and maim customers in the name of profit is to make that activity unprofitable. If the company knows it can be smacked with a huge jury award and they have no way of predicting how much, they're going to be more careful. Read up about the Ford Pinto case where Ford knew statistically that something like a $15 fix per car would prevent hundreds of people from being killed or maimed, but predicted that the profits lost on that fix would be more expensive than fixing it, so Ford made the decision to kill and maim people for a little profit. It was all in memos, very cut and dry. Thing is-- Ford was hit with a HUGE jury verdict which revolutionized the cold calculus of auto safety in favor of the consumer.

The Roanoake Times reported on the filing of the lawsuit, but not the settlement.
Lawn mower death prompts parents to file $6 million lawsuit - Roanoke.com

Further, the "Stella Awards" webpage includes all the actual facts your source cites, plus:

Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

I've not done any research into the Ford Pinto case (short of driving one in my youth), and I don't dispute your comments in that regard.

[hoya]

The Roanoake Times reported on the filing of the lawsuit, but not the settlement.
Lawn mower death prompts parents to file $6 million lawsuit - Roanoke.com

Further, the "Stella Awards" webpage includes all the actual facts your source cites, plus:

I've not done any research into the Ford Pinto case (short of driving one in my youth), and I don't dispute your comments in that regard.

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.

#4: Ron and Kristie Simmons. The couple's 4-year-old son, Justin, was killed in a tragic lawnmower accident in a licensed daycare facility, and the death was clearly the result of negligence by the daycare providers. The providers were clearly deserving of being sued, yet when the Simmons's discovered the daycare only had $100,000 in insurance, they dropped the case against them and instead sued the manufacturer of the 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. A sympathetic jury still awarded the family $2 million.

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?

[Dubya61]

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.
#18 ? Simmons v. MTD Products Inc. | Virginia Lawyers Weekly
Judge Backs $2M Award in 4-Year-Old's Mower Death | Products
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.

[kevinpate]

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.

[bradh]

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

[hoya]

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.
#18 ? Simmons v. MTD Products Inc. | Virginia Lawyers Weekly
Judge Backs $2M Award in 4-Year-Old's Mower Death | Products
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.

[Dubya61]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Dubya61]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[CaptDave]

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.

[kevinpate]

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.

[hoya]

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.

[Larry OKC]

Did you even read the OP?

Does Ron Howard have a book coming out about his days on the Andy Griffith Show?