Suing corporations

[drkitten]

Well, the jury decides merit, doesn't it?

No. The judge can also make that determination by dismissing the suit before it even gets to the jury (often before the trial even opens), and that determination can also be made at the appellate level, nullifying the jury's decision.

 

[Bruce]

Please also note that I am not a lawyer or legal expert in any way. I'm honestly interested in learning from people here that know the system. Please forgive if I come off as trollish.

 

[brodski]

That sums up the way I think it should be nicely, Brodski.

Unfortunately, I don't think it works out that way most of the time in the U.S.

I would be very supprised if the actual process where vastly differnt in teh US.

[WILD SPECULATION]

I suspect that there is also a defence in the US stating taht you had done everying which was reasonable to prevent the incident, the only differnce is that in teh US juries have decided that is is "reasonable" to expect companeis to go to enormas lengths to prevnt the possibility of any accident, which leads to some of teh more extreem cases we hear abbout.
[/WILD SPECULATION]

 

[drkitten]

[WILD SPECULATION]
I suspect that there is also a defence in the US stating taht you had done everying which was reasonable to prevent the incident, the only differnce is that in teh US juries have decided that is is "reasonable" to expect companeis to go to enormas lengths to prevnt the possibility of any accident, which leads to some of teh more extreem cases we hear abbout.
[/WILD SPECULATION]

A greater problem is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- ignorance on the part of the American public. The "more extreme cases we hear about" are often misreported by the press to an audience too gullible or too lazy to actually get the facts.

One of the more famous "ludicrous" liability cases in recent memory, for example, was the woman burned by McDonald's coffee, who sued and won a substantial sum. Superficially, this is silly -- I mean, coffee is supposed to be hot, and everyone knows not to spill hot liquids on themselves and or they might get burned.

However, the actual claims in the case were differerent. The woman claimed, not that she burned herself on hot coffee, but that she burned herself very badly (I believe the actual injuries were third-degree burns) because McDonald's had a corporate policy (which she was able to document) and a standing practice (which her lawyers could confirm experimentally) of keeping their coffee extremely hot -- as much as twenty degrees (Fahrenheit) more than the industry standard.

Furthermore, she was able to establish, by testimony from McDonald's exectutives, that McD's as a corporate entitity both knew that they were keeping their coffee very hot and that they knew that there was an increased risk of burns from the coffee. She could also show that the company had considered warning customers about the increased risk from the hotter-than-typical coffee, and had decided against it. Not only that, but the executives also testified that they had no intention of changing their policy despite the demonstrated risk of serious injury.

Had McDonald's done everying "reasonably practical" to uphold its duty of care? Demonstrably not. It would have been practical to warn customers. It would have been practical to lower the temperature of their coffee to more standard levels. Furthermore, the company had explicitly considered -- and rejected -- both of these options, not because they were impractical, but because they would have hurt the bottom line.

Unfortunately, the message that the press reported wasn't "McDonalds deliberately makes and keeps their coffee more dangerous than its competitors," despite the fact that that was what was proven in court. So as a result, everyone now prints warning labels, "Caution : This coffee is HOT," to "protect" themselves from being sued.

And the real irony is, that label will not protect them in the event of another such incident. The problem wasn't with the coffee being hot. The problem was that McD's deliberately created and maintained a dangerous situation by corporate policy -- if I decide to start Drkitten's Coffee House and sell coffee, by policy, that is hot enough to be dangerous, all the warnings in the world won't help.

 

[brodski]

A greater problem is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- ignorance on the part of the American public. The "more extreme cases we hear about" are often misreported by the press to an audience too gullible or too lazy to actually get the facts.

The Stella awards have a lot to answeer for.


I wopudl not single Americans out for being ignorant on this point. I thnik it is prerty much a world wide phenonomia.

In the UK tehre has been a lot of debate ovtehr the "compensation culture" and many peopel belive that they chould be compensated for any ill that befalls them.

Howeaver teh fact is that whilst tehre are mroe cases, peopel are sueing sucessfuly less often.

A good article is here

despite stroing evidence that the "compensations culytrue is a myth) teh leader of our 2nd politcial party (the conservitives) proposes abbolishing the "human rights act" to prevent pepel sueing.

that would be very roughly equivelent to abbolishing teh bill of rights to protect comercial interests angainst legal action.

 

[drkitten]

Should innocent people (those who have nothing to do with the problem at hand) lose their jobs because of the mistakes or illegal activity of another employee/excutive?

Well, there's a general problem of mismanagement here.

Almost by definition, negligent companies are mismanaged. Disregarding truly pathological court cases (which are much more rare than the general public believes, as I have argued), the only way for your company to get involved in a very very large court settlement is for someone to mess up all the way up the food chain. Not only did Pedro not maintain the truck, but his boss didn't check that the truck was properly maintained, and his boss didn't check that Pedro's boss was running his division tightly enough and that corporate policies were being followed as they should be.

So while I agree that innocent people shouldn't lose their jobs for things that aren't their fault, I don't see any way to protect people from losing their job in the face of managment incompetence. The same team of management that decides to make coffee dangerously hot may well decide the next day to put anthrax burgers on the menu, and corporate sales/profits will plummet.

So my suggestion is simply : don't work for incompetents if you want to make sure that your boss doesn't mess up and lose your job for you.

 

[Thanz]

I think my point is pretty much being understood here, unlike many of my other rants. To put it more concisely:

Should innocent people (those who have nothing to do with the problem at hand) lose their jobs because of the mistakes or illegal activity of another employee/excutive?

Should they? Well, ideally, no. But as sort-of stated by new drkitten, management incompetence that results in the loss of an innocent party's job isn't exactly new, or confined to the legal arena. Sometimes the mistakes are just plain old stupidity.

Let's say that you are a line worker for a car company. The car company is going to build a whole new vehicle at your plant, and the current production there is being transfered out. You think - great! a new vehicle! Steady work. But what if the new vehicle is some sort of abomination the likes of which have not been seen since the Aztek? Your plant slows down, and eventually closes, because the car sucks. Now you have lost your job due to the incompetence and mistakes of those in the design/marketing area - nothing to do with you.

Assuming the answer is no, how could such situations be avoided? I'll leave the situations and details open, but let's try to focus on this question. I think it happens often enough to merit serious discussion (a rare thing coming from me). Thanks.

The only way to really avoid it is to not make the mistakes. That doesn't help much, I know, but sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Put another way, you don't have any real protection from the boneheaded mistakes that others in your company make that don't actually injure other people - like the Aztek. Why should you get some special protection from mistakes that DO injure other people?

 

[brodski]

The only way to really avoid it is to not make the mistakes. That doesn't help much, I know, but sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Put another way, you don't have any real protection from the boneheaded mistakes that others in your company make that don't actually injure other people - like the Aztek. Why should you get some special protection from mistakes that DO injure other people? [/B]

Of course you could theoreticaly have the situation where the goverment guarntees every job, funding unsucessfull buisneses from taxation.

Howeaver I think that may be considder a little too left of center for anyone here to suggest

 

[Bruce]

The "more extreme cases we hear about" are often misreported by the press to an audience too gullible or too lazy to actually get the facts.

We are often too busy or not interested enough to look up the facts. We used to think that was the job of the press, but sadly, we are realizing that it's not. The internet is helping though. At least we have quick access to free information.

 

[Daylight]

Bruce

You bring up an interesting point. A lot of executives hide behind corporations which protect their bad behavior. But, also a company is hurt being held liable for an individual employees mistake.

For the victim, it’s them against large corporate muscle that can use some very intimidating tactics and threats.

Here’s an example. Say there is an abusive boss. This boss, belittles the employee’s, takes credit for others work and is verbally abusive. As an employee, you should find another job or transfer out of the department.

But, the economy is poor and there are no jobs to go to and you’re stuck until the economy improves.

Let’s take it up a notch. The boss is really abusive. Really gets off on being the king and abusive to the lower forms under them. Say one day you’ve been pushed to your limit and defend yourself and go to HR and complain. The Boss finds out and this starts the Boss on a vendetta against you since you dared challenge their authority. The Boss starts spreading personal lies about you, alters your work and then publicly tells everyone holding it high how incompetent you are. Finally, the Boss writes you up making nothing but false accusations, and you get fired because of it.

Being smart, you’ve documented everything and can prove everything. A perfect retaliation case, with a strong case of harassment and slander.

Here’s the interesting point you make. This case should be easily solved. You sue the boss. If you can’t afford an attorney, at a minimum you can take them to small claims court and plead your case. A $5000 judgment would hurt most and might change the behavior.

But, you can’t. This is a corporation. Company executives are protected. So you have to sue the corporation. Not many attorneys will take the case because the effort to bring a case to settlement is too much effort. You also face off against some very good corporate muscle, again scaring off more attorneys with the delay tactics they use. Unless you’re rich, which most of us are not, you have no recourse.

HR, even though you present irrefutable evidence, will protect the boss and make sure you are fired ASAP. If they help or discipline the Boss, they admit guilt, which helps a lawsuit against them. If they keep you around, that gives you more time to gather more evidence.

Say though, you find an attorney, and win. The corporation is the loser and the boss is still protected. Their cost of doing business goes up which they pass on to the consumer.

Somehow, being held accountable for your actions has been lost to us.

 

[Kerberos]

Unfortunately, the message that the press reported wasn't "McDonalds deliberately makes and keeps their coffee more dangerous than its competitors," despite the fact that that was what was proven in court. So as a result, everyone now prints warning labels, "Caution : This coffee is HOT," to "protect" themselves from being sued.

I was once using my fathers hammers, and he asked me if I could tell which country it was from. I was a little at a loss as to how I was supposed to know this, until I noticed it carried a warning against hitting yourself over the fingers. I kid you not.

 

[Bruce]

Say though, you find an attorney, and win. The corporation is the loser and the boss is still protected. Their cost of doing business goes up which they pass on to the consumer.

Somehow, being held accountable for your actions has been lost to us.

Oh, so that's how horrible and abusive bosses manage to stay in power.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, so that's how horrible and abusive bosses manage to stay in power.

Well, that and the pacts with Satan.



Whom I recommend to all my friends!

 

[brodski]

Well, that and the pacts with Satan.



Whom I recommend to all my friends!

I allways recomend Beelzebub, he may be number 2, but he tries harder.