NationStates Jolt Archive


Repeal Common Sense Act II

Cousteau
22-12-2004, 02:57
The proposal to repeal reads as follows:

The media has seized on this concept of frivolous lawsuits. We receive chain e-mails telling us of ridiculous sums for self-inflicted pains. As a result, it enjoys great grassroots support. We often hear only the most brief synopsis of the proceedings, while the minute details that decide the verdict are left out.
The Common Sense Act II specifically mentions "burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee". This is a nod to the case of Ms. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, NM. Her victory was based on the fact that McDonalds had (as was routine) heated her coffee to 180 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature McDonalds knew could cause third-degree burns in seconds. (Ordinary coffee is kept at around 140 degress F.) Despite her attempts to settle for $20,000 (to pay her hospital costs: she was hospitalized for eight days and needed skin grafts), McDonalds refused. She had no choice but to sue. See http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp for more information on other false reports of frivolous lawsuits.
In truth, laws restricting lawsuits such as this often work only to prevent unjustly injured people from receiving money they badly need. Insurance companies have been using these reports to inflate premiums for years, as was shown in California with the passing of Proposition 103. California's strict tort reform had failed to stem rising rates- but Proposition 103, which forced insurers to justify cost increases caused rates to plummet.
These suits are almost always dismissed when taken to court. The rare winners are thrown out on appeal. I beg you to stop a massive civil rights breach in the making. We will not raise taxes by doing so. We will not clog the courts by doing so. Please repeal the Common Sense Act II- all it takes to know you should is common sense.

I'm sorry the temperatures aren't in metric- I wasn't thinking. 140 F= 60 C, and 180 F= 82 C. Please help reverse a resolution that both infringes on basic civil rights and protects large insurance companies (a.k.a. "The Man") from being forced to give out the money they owe.
TilEnca
22-12-2004, 03:08
But even if this instance was not as dumb as it sounded, you can't deny there have been a lot of total nonsense law suits that should be stopped.

If you crash while wiping up milkshake you spilled, you should not sue the people who gave you the milkshake.

If you moon someone and then fall out the window, you should not sue the people who made the window


All in all I think that this prevents people from acting like stupid idiots and getting money for it, and should also actually let us use the courts for what they were designed for, and not for protecting the rights of people who don't appear to have been born with any more sense that The Powers gave a rock.

(OOC)
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=14

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=149

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=154

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=170

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=19

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=157

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=96

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=12

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=9

This last one, by the way, really proves the point about the brains/rock thing
(IC)
My point, if I haven't made it yet, is that sometimes, once in a while, people actually have a case in suing someone for something that, at first glance, seems stupid.

But most of the time they don't. And we have better things to do with judges and lawyers time in TilEnca than to say "Yeah - we know that the chainsaw didn't say you couldn't stop it with your genitals, but....."
Frisbeeteria
22-12-2004, 03:13
Ms. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, NM.
McDonalds
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
California
Proposition 103.
Based on the above-quoted words, this repeal is illegal. Per Before you make a proposal ... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) (the UN rules sticky), you can't reference real-world events or people in the NSUN.

Sorry. Work it up again using only NS references. Dem's da rules.
TilEnca
22-12-2004, 03:33
Based on the above-quoted words, this repeal is illegal. Per Before you make a proposal ... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) (the UN rules sticky), you can't reference real-world events or people in the NSUN.

Sorry. Work it up again using only NS references. Dem's da rules.

(smirk) I just put up a whole bunch of other reasons why the proposal is a bad idea, and now you tell me it's illegal? can I sue you for this? (smirk again)
Frisbeeteria
22-12-2004, 03:52
(smirk) I just put up a whole bunch of other reasons why the proposal is a bad idea, and now you tell me it's illegal? can I sue you for this? (smirk again)
Talk about your poor legal research.


Seriously though, somebody needs to put together a decent Tort Reform proposal for the NSUN. Common Sense II sucks.
Tassemark
22-12-2004, 21:45
Or maybe the need for expensive lawsuits could be done away with by implementing a mandatory national health insurance policy backed by the state. And maybe those bizarre amounts of money given to the victims is the reason why private insurance costs are so high - afterall it is the insurance companies who pays at the end and therefore their customers - that is ordinary people like you and me.

But maybe i dont get it since im European...