|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
No, I am not drinking. And, yes, I now see that you did not claim you knew the attys who defended McDondald's but rather that you knew attys who told you the decision was right -- "defended the decision," you said.
Whatever.
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| If a jury hears the case... |
For all I know, Huffdaddy, if it gets that far, the jury might just award plaintiff $10 million or more in punitive damages. This is certainly the way things go in civil litigation these days.
I offerred Kuros my white flag and we planted it in each and every cheese-infested Quarter-Pounder, remember? At least until McDonald's learns to finally secure its dangerous dairy products like everybody else. Take that, drive-through order-takers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, guys, guys!!!!
Holly Lightning!!!!
Chill!!!!!!!!!
Well, although I do feel that McDonalds does always seem to phuck up my order (when I go, every 7 months or so), it does not mean I'm going to get a lawyer. Has it occured to anyone that............
1. It was an accident, and $10 millio is quite ridiculous?
2. The customer failed to check the order, considering the seriousness
of the request?
3. The customer put cheese on the order AFTER it was given, knowing
the outcome of this?
| Quote: |
| Lastly, dmbfan, you have to learn to title your threads better. 'Oh, dear?' How does that pull me in? |
Well, you're in...aren't you? But..OK....I'll work on it.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| $10 million is really nothing to McDonald's at the end of the day... |
Understood. But McDonald's Corp.'s take should bear no relevance at all to the punitivate damages issue.
How does net profit establish egregious, reprehensible wrongdoing or support that its behavior is so bad that it ought to be punished in this particular fact pattern (Quarter-Pounder hold-the-cheese -- I keep repeating that, hoping that someone besides me will pick up on the absurdity of this case...can you not see the cheese on a hamburger you are about to eat...? Should you not bear any responsibility at all for what you eat...? Are we like helpless infants...?)
Also, got this from Wikipedia's "Punitive Damages" summary...
| Quote: |
Punitive damages are a focal point of the "tort reform" debate in the United States, where numerous highly-publicized multi-million dollar verdicts have led to a fairly common perception that punitive damage awards tend to be excessive. However, statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.
In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.
In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996), the 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.
Most recently, in Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007), the Court ruled that punitive damage awards must be limited to the harm caused to the individual plaintiffs involved in the litigation at hand, although harm to others may be a criterion in determining the reprehensibility of the defendants' conduct. |
Now, I do have access to Nexis-Lexis and Westlaw and could get the case reports on these cases. But I will not post them here because it is proprietary information and I do not want to risk losing my privileges. So Wikipedia's summary will have to do.
What, in your estimation, Kuros, is McDondald's "degree of reprehensibility of conduct" in getting this drive-through, Quarter-Pounder hold-the-cheese, order wrong...?
Or how about this summary, from the above cite? "...any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional." Plaintiff's brush with death (!) produced medical bills of $700. According to this, he ought not get more than $7,000 in punitive damages -- and really, according to the 4:1 ratio, he ought to get about $2,800. I would grant that -- provided plaintiff gets sent to counseling on learning how to friggin' look before you eat.
And, lastly, the above-cited cigarette case would seem to establish grounds for denying plaintiff's mother and friend any award. Would you agree that that sounds reasonable...? |
First of all, is your access to Nexis-Lexis and Westlaw through an educational institution? Just curious.
I don't know how much comparitive negligence applies here. While it is relatively discernable whether cheese has been lathered on a burger I bite into, there are other ingredients which could be added to food which are harder to discern.
I was aware of the Legislative campaign for 'tort reform.' Again, let's meditate on the always suspect concept of 'reform.' I was not aware of the recent Philip Morris case. I know that this is a really hot political issue because high-profile tort lawyers are also top Democratic Party donors, which is part of the reason why Bush restricted all class action lawsuits to Federal jurisdiction. IMO, this was a disgusting move, quite different from legislating limits to tort awards, and a huge blow to local level class-action suits such as those involving multiple tenants in a building containing lead paint.
But I want to take this to PM to discuss any of the individual cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
Has it occured to anyone that............
1. It was an accident, and $10 millio is quite ridiculous? |
I don't believe anyone hear has said that the guy deserves $10 million.
| Quote: |
| 2. The customer failed to check the order, considering the seriousness of the request? |
Said by many here.
| Quote: |
| 3. The customer put cheese on the order AFTER it was given, knowing the outcome of this? |
We're still waiting on the cheese samples to come back from the lab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
