Punitive Damages And Tort Reform

[quixotecoyote]

How does he really compare to say the Corndog lawsuit against JREF?

Ol' George never really got anywhere with it, though. He'd be a good argument against the need for reform, at least with us.

On some of his other adventures, it might be said that he illustrates the need for swifter processing through the court system. All the results came back the way they werw supposed to, but it took a long iome

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ol' George never really got anywhere with it, though. He'd be a good argument against the need for reform.

How much did JREF spend fighting it though?

 

[quixotecoyote]

How much did JREF spend fighting it though?

An undisclosed amount of money.

How would this be different under any proposed reformed system? Would litigants get bounced by a clerk without any response required from those being sued?

 

[Meadmaker]

The way you describe it? Yes.

If the food is really so deadly, maybe you shouldn't be serving.

Your attitude is common, indeed prevalent. As we try to eliminate as much risk as possible in our society, such "high risk" activities like Cub Scout potlucks have to go.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Your attitude is common, indeed prevalent. As we try to eliminate as much risk as possible in our society, such "high risk" activities like Cub Scout potlucks have to go.

Especially if those providing said potlucks have your lack of concern when "the food is not typically prepared, stored, or handled safely."

 

[KingMerv00]

Your attitude is common, indeed prevalent. As we try to eliminate as much risk as possible in our society, such "high risk" activities like Cub Scout potlucks have to go.

You are the one that described it as unsafe not me. Were you being sarcastic?

If not, you deserve be be held responsible for your unsafe activities.

 

[KingMerv00]

Is there a way around this though? if one side doesn't want a scientificaly literate jury how do you prevent them from getting it?

Not easy to do unless you drastically change the jury selection process. I suppose you could encourage judges to overturn unreasonable jury verdicts more often but that just raises other problems.

I have wondered about profeshional juries with people trained to evaluate evidence.

The idea isn't without merit. The trick would be to make the jury pool big enough to avoid tampering.

 

[KingMerv00]

Bzzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing.

Asked and answered.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not easy to do unless you drastically change the jury selection process. I suppose you could encourage judges to overturn unreasonable jury verdicts more often but that just raises other problems.

That all depends on what the jury pool is like though doesn't it? If you get a bunch of scientificaly literate people you will have issues, but on average I don't think it would be that hard.

The idea isn't without merit. The trick would be to make the jury pool big enough to avoid tampering.

The other thing is that it would increase the cost of the legal system, as you have now to pay juries a living wage. Of course if you could save time by not having to explain basic science in the court room you might improve efficiency enough to justify it.

 

[drkitten]

You are the one that described it as unsafe not me. Were you being sarcastic?

If not, you deserve be be held responsible for your unsafe activities.

Basically, Meadmaker's entire position seems to be about avoiding responsibility for actions.

Food safety is a genuine issue. Those regulations didn't spring out of some bureaucrat's head, fully armed like Minerva -- they arose from people getting seriously ill and in some cases dying from failure to take issues of food safety seriously enough.

The Cub Scouts need to take food safety seriously. But the people who rent to the Cub Scouts need to take food safety seriously, too, because it's their job to vet the people and activities that take place in their hall and make sure that they're safe.

If the Cub Scouts really did run a tight enough ship, they could carry their own insurance and indemnify the hall, which would make liability in renting a non-issue. For that matter, if the Cub Scouts organization ran a tight enough ship, it could make sure that all the parents of the individual troops paid attention to food safety issues, and buy umbrella coverage for each of the individual banquets.

Why doesn't national do that? Because national aren't fools, and they know that people like Meadmaker don't take the issue seriously enough. It would cost national a fortune to get the food safety umbrella coverage, and they don't have that kind of money. And, of course, the local troop doesn't have that kind of money either.

But when the local hall rents to them, knowing both that the Cub Scouts don't take food safety seriously enough and that they're not carrying enough liability insurance to cover any incidents that might arise -- that means that the hall itself is knowingly creating a risky environment, which means that the hall itself is liable for any damages.

Basically, Meadmaker (and the Scouts) have three choices :
* Assume all liability for food safety incidents themselves
* Push the liability for food safety incidents off on the hall where they rent
* Pretend that there is no liability for food safety incidents, because that just couldn't happen.
* Eliminate potlucks

The courts won't let them do the third. The scouts are unwilling to do the first. The hall, also not being stupid, won't let them do the second.

What does that leave?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the Cub Scouts really did run a tight enough ship, they could carry their own insurance and indemnify the hall, which would make liability in renting a non-issue. For that matter, if the Cub Scouts organization ran a tight enough ship, it could make sure that all the parents of the individual troops paid attention to food safety issues, and buy umbrella coverage for each of the individual banquets.

I just wonder who in their right mind would insure a pot luck dinner. You have no way of knowing what sanitary conditions anything was prepared under.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are the one that described it as unsafe not me. Were you being sarcastic?

If not, you deserve be be held responsible for your unsafe activities.

Have you ever ordered a pizza and, an hour later, asked, "Who wants the last slice?"

If so, that food is unsafe.

And yet, I've done it, and I'm willing to do it again. Danger is my middle name!

But, in all seriousness, that's where a lot of food poisoning comes from. Potlucks, backyard barbeques, dinner parties, all of them feature food service practices that would get any restaurant shut down.

 

[drkitten]

I just wonder who in their right mind would insure a pot luck dinner. You have no way of knowing what sanitary conditions anything was prepared under.

Someone who was paid a hell of a lot of money. If you write a large enough check, someone will underwrite anything (unless there's actively a law against it).

In the case of Cub Scout potlucks, it's not even that hard to come up with a reasonable expected risk. If, at a guess, one in thousand potlucks has an incident with about $10,000 in damages (numbers I plucked out of thin air, of course), then the expected payoff per dinner is about ten bucks. Charge $100/dinner and you've got a very nice steady income stream with a ninefold ROI. I'd be happy to find something like that that would give me a 900% return on my money....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bzzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing.

Did you even read what you cited? The Dow-Corning implant suits were settled. There was no judgment of damages. A cap on punitive damages would not have come into play in this situation.
From your cite (my bolding):

This led to numerous lawsuits beginning in 1984 and culminating in a 1998 multi-billion dollar class action settlement.

But thanks for your attempt at being patronizing while supporting the point I've been making.

 

[Dunstan]

The only problem with this is that punitive damages are, by and large, a non-issue. They simply don't come up that often (the stats I've seen suggest that fewer than 4% of cases have punitive damages awarded at all) and case law restricts punitive damages to a relatively small multiple of actual damages. The idea that I could win a few hundred in actual damages and a few million in punitive damages is quite literally untenable.

The other issue is that, generally speaking, punitive damages aren't covered by insurance. Now, that's not a big deal if you're suing a Fortune 500 company, but if the defendants are small to medium-sized businesses and/or non-wealthy individuals, then any big punitive award is probably not going to be collectible anyway.

 

[KingMerv00]

Have you ever ordered a pizza and, an hour later, asked, "Who wants the last slice?"

If so, that food is unsafe.

And yet, I've done it, and I'm willing to do it again. Danger is my middle name!

Assuming you take that risk you are consenting to the danger in advance so there is no liability.

But, in all seriousness, that's where a lot of food poisoning comes from. Potlucks, backyard barbeques, dinner parties, all of them feature food service practices that would get any restaurant shut down.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Potlucks are filthy disease infested hellholes but shouldn't be held liable? Why?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Potlucks are filthy disease infested hellholes but shouldn't be held liable? Why?

WTF? I've been to hundreds of pot luck dinners. Nobody sick, nor ill.

What are you onto here?

 

[Meadmaker]

I have always thought of tort reform as tort deform. Mostly, I hear about it from corporations and their lap dogs and lobbyists looking to shirl responsibility for bad conduct.

Them, and guys who want to hold Chess tournaments in church basements.

The irony is that we've created a legal landscape where in order to do business or host a function that involves the public, you need experts on safety, and human resources, and insurance regulations, and lawyers to fight off the lawsuits, both frivolous and legitimate, or alternatively, you have to pay a lot for someone else to do so. This legal storm is more easily weathered by large corporations than small business or community organizations.

In other words, your desire to zap the corporations has the effect of zapping their competition.

 

[Meadmaker]

Basically, Meadmaker's entire position seems to be about avoiding responsibility for actions.

Food safety is a genuine issue. Those regulations didn't spring out of some bureaucrat's head, fully armed like Minerva -- they arose from people getting seriously ill and in some cases dying from failure to take issues of food safety seriously enough.

The Cub Scouts need to take food safety seriously. But the people who rent to the Cub Scouts need to take food safety seriously, too, because it's their job to vet the people and activities that take place in their hall and make sure that they're safe.

If the Cub Scouts really did run a tight enough ship, they could carry their own insurance and indemnify the hall, which would make liability in renting a non-issue. For that matter, if the Cub Scouts organization ran a tight enough ship, it could make sure that all the parents of the individual troops paid attention to food safety issues, and buy umbrella coverage for each of the individual banquets.

Why doesn't national do that? Because national aren't fools, and they know that people like Meadmaker don't take the issue seriously enough. It would cost national a fortune to get the food safety umbrella coverage, and they don't have that kind of money. And, of course, the local troop doesn't have that kind of money either.

But when the local hall rents to them, knowing both that the Cub Scouts don't take food safety seriously enough and that they're not carrying enough liability insurance to cover any incidents that might arise -- that means that the hall itself is knowingly creating a risky environment, which means that the hall itself is liable for any damages.

Basically, Meadmaker (and the Scouts) have three choices :
* Assume all liability for food safety incidents themselves
* Push the liability for food safety incidents off on the hall where they rent
* Pretend that there is no liability for food safety incidents, because that just couldn't happen.
* Eliminate potlucks

The courts won't let them do the third. The scouts are unwilling to do the first. The hall, also not being stupid, won't let them do the second.

What does that leave?

QFT

ETA: Of course, it is not so much quoted for "truth" so much as quoted for being an extremely good statement about the legal environment that exists today.

If I were writing the rules, the First Baptist Church, or Pack 666 wouldn't be held responsible if someone gets sick on Mrs. Smith's Tuna Surprise. I, for one, would be willing to take the chance on eating it, and not blame the hall where I ate it. However, I don't make the rules and, as a result, option 4 above is the increasingly chosen option.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm proposing tort reform where scientists determine scientific facts, not juries or judges. Make the plaintiff prove the scientific claim by accepted scientific means before the lawsuit can proceed.

When a scientific claim is at issue, that's pretty much what happens under the status quo. It's usually called a battle of expert testimony. I think an ordinary jury is bright enough to tell when there is a scientific consensus (based on the testimony of the battling experts).

I suspect most suits don't hinge on scientific questions though.