NationStates Jolt Archive

In today's society, there is a system that rewards money to victims of accidents.

Over the years, this system has used for cases ranging from someone losing a limb, to a person getting 'offended' by a tasteful picture of some human fleash.

The above are examples of REAL cases, both of which received generous handouts. There have been even more bizare cases in different countries.

Please give your opinion with an explanation and if you have any truthful examples of stupid compensation cases you have heard about, please do mention them.

The person who submits the most stupid, TRUTHFUL case is the winner!

No fakes please

*bump*

(You really shouldn't bump a dead thread...)

In Britain, the compensation culture has only just emerged after the government abolished legal aid and relaxed regulations on the insurance industry, allowing 'no win no fee' companies to start-up. It's been a disaster for the country - we've had schools cancelling trips because the can't afford the insurance, playgrounds being dismantled by councils because they might get sued, and rediculous claims against companies for things like 'I fell of my chair. It's all my employer's fault I'm so clumsy.'.

I dont think You'll find many Compo Bandits on this forum.

(You really shouldn't bump a dead thread...)

Why on earth not? This is an interesting topic I would've otherwise missed. Very often the "dead" threads have lots of potential life in them!

Remember the SwissAir flight that went down off Massachussetts in 1998? There were a number of Canadian Navy vessels involved in recovering some of the bodies.

So just yesterday I heard on the news that one of the Canadian navy guys is now trying to sue SwissAir for the "post-traumatic stress" he claims to have suffered while recovering bodies.

Jeez, the guy was in the military fer chrissakes! What if he'd been in combat and had to recover the bodies of his comrades? This guy sounds like an a-hole, I hope the judge turfs his case.

Um....

Yes.

90% of adverts on UK television are of a financial or legal nature.

Dead thread? its an interesting thread!

I heard of a story in America where a burgular tripped up on a wire whilst breaking into someone's house. He sued the owner and WON!! The owner had to pay him for 'damages'.

Why should a burgular get paid lts of money when HE was commiting the crime?!?!

My sis filed for a no-win-no-fee type dealy from one of them companies but never turned up for the court sessions - she racked up about £1,000 in penalties. Opviously, i'm not saying it was a direct result but she never paid up and the company went out of business.

I heard about this one burglar who sued a garage door opener manufacturer after being trapped in the garage of a house he broke into. He won.

I have never seen such one-sided poll results.

It's all down to the wording. 'Compensation Culture' puts quite a negative spin on it, so it will mostly attract its detractors. Also, it seems like mostly a working-class thing and i'd guess most NSers were middle-class.

(You really shouldn't bump a dead thread...)

Why on earth not? This is an interesting topic I would've otherwise missed. Very often the "dead" threads have lots of potential life in them!

I know it's interesting, and I missed it too, but if you read the Glossary Of Forbidden Actions in the Moderation forum, you'll find:

Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long disused thread; bumping threads that aren't used anymore.

(You really shouldn't bump a dead thread...)

Why on earth not? This is an interesting topic I would've otherwise missed. Very often the "dead" threads have lots of potential life in them!

I know it's interesting, and I missed it too, but if you read the Glossary Of Forbidden Actions in the Moderation forum, you'll find:

Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long disused thread; bumping threads that aren't used anymore.

I guess it depends on one's perspective on how long a thread a thread is inactive for, before it is considered "dead".



PravdaRai Britain: What is an "NSer?"

Erm...Nation-Stater?....for lack of a better word ofc.

I remember something about some woman getting a shitload of dead-presidents from macdonadls...only because she was too stupid to handle a cup of coffee.

I remember something about some woman getting a shitload of dead-presidents from macdonadls...only because she was too stupid to handle a cup of coffee.
Ah, I knew someone would bring this up. I was fished in by this story for years until I found out this:

The woman had pulled to the side of the road and went to move the coffee, which was over 20 degrees hotter than coffee would normally be. Why do we know this? It scared and mutilated her genitalia, something normal coffee would not do. In the court case McDonalds only response was "She should have stood up." The jury in the case was so offended by McDonalds lack of even a smidgeon of concern that they ruled against them. The amount? What McDonalds makes in the sale of coffee on a single day. Just coffee. Just one day.

The decision was oversimplified and swallowed by people such as myself as an example of litigation gone mad and the end result was changes in the laws that makes it even more difficult than it has been before to hold a corporation responsable for the things it does-less rights for us to defend ourselves.

It's all down to the wording. 'Compensation Culture' puts quite a negative spin on it, so it will mostly attract its detractors. Also, it seems like mostly a working-class thing and i'd guess most NSers were middle-class.

The point is that these days, a lot of people are coming up with more and more ridiculous ways of claiming for 'damages' i.e. money. It started in America and has now come over here with 'no win, no fee' adverts. The trouble is it has grown out of control with more and more claims for situations for which most of them could easily be solved with a simple apology. This growing 'trend' has been called compensation culture.

In my opinion, compensation culture is one of the main causes for a lot of problems today. Councils, companies and other people have imposed bans on a lot of trivial things because they don't want to get sued.

I'm all for someone getting money they NEED if, for example, they loose a limb in a situation which isn't their fault. But someone getting lots of money for handling coffee at MacDonalds, or a burgular getting awarded for being trapped in a house, that is just plain wrong and anyone with common sense should realise that these 'cases' should have been thrown out at the first step.

Other examples of cases:

1) Women wins over 1/3 of a billion dollars after being paralyzed in a rollover in her SUV, which from police reports appeared to be her own fault. Her claim? The SUV, a Ford Explorer which passed with flying colors on all safety test had some "known problems", that Ford had not fixed because it would be too costly, and it was too late to do the modifications.
Result: Another bullshit win.

2) McDonalds sued over its food fattening various persons without enough warning of its fatty nature.
Result: Case tossed out

3) Car manufacturer Audi sued over an accident caused by the acceleration of one of its cars.
Result: Plaintiff won

4) A man driving a Ford Pinto hit a horse which went into the air, and crushed his wife.
Result: Victory for the plaintiff.

5) A psychic who went under radiation too long claimed it got rid of her psychic abilities, along with suffering other damages.
Result: The plaintiff won, but pyschic ability charge was thrown out.

6) Women hit by a baseball in the stands sues for damages.
Result: Case thrown out

7) Girl killed by errant hockey puck, no charges filed.
Result: All NHL arenas put up nets.

As for the coffee case, what actually happened is that holding the coffee between her legs, she attempted to open the coffee, while driving, and it spilled, burning her. Due to McDonalds normal policy of overheating, because most people who buy coffee from there are commuters and thereby shouldn't be drinking as they drive, should have been in the right, but wasn't as the women managed to win, despite her obvious stupidity.

Much of the "compensation culture" results from the money being given by juries. They really just don't care, and thereby give these massive, unnecessary results.

Lets not even get into the medical malpractice argument.

I heard about this one burglar who sued a garage door opener manufacturer after being trapped in the garage of a house he broke into. He won.
Actually, sorry, this one is probably not true: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp


I remember something about some woman getting a shitload of dead-presidents from macdonadls...only because she was too stupid to handle a cup of coffee.

McDonalds at the time was serving dangerously hot coffee that was too hot to drink and could cause 3rd degree burns if touched to skin for 2-7 seconds.

http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Other examples of cases:

1) Women wins over 1/3 of a billion dollars after being paralyzed in a rollover in her SUV, which from police reports appeared to be her own fault. Her claim? The SUV, a Ford Explorer which passed with flying colors on all safety test had some "known problems", that Ford had not fixed because it would be too costly, and it was too late to do the modifications.
Result: Another bullshit win.
I don't know about that one, but I have heard from a reputable source about Ford not fixing a known problem because it would cost them $8.40 per car to fix, but only an average of $5.80 per car to settle the cases where people were maimed or even killed by the fairly major fault.

McDonalds Sued Over Spilled Coffee...again.
Updated 7:14 PM ET January 9, 2001

MURPHYSBORO, Ill. (AP) - A southern Illinois woman is suing a McDonald's owner, Wal-Mart, a cup maker and her own mother over spilled coffee she says was too hot.

Teresa Reed claims in the lawsuit against Short Enterprises, owner of the Murphysboro McDonald's, that a cup of coffee she bought at the drive-through window in 1998 spilled and scalded her ankle, allegedly leaving a permanent scar.

Reed said the coffee, which the suit alleged was "served at a temperature too hot for consumption and hot enough to scald the human body," spilled and burned her after she placed it in a cup holder in her mother's car.

The suit, filed last month, seeks $450,000 from Short Enterprises, as well as from cup maker Cobb Manufacturing and Wal-Mart, the manufacturer of the cup holder.

The suit also accuses Reed's mother of negligence, saying Carol Sanders "owed a duty of care for the safety of others riding in her vehicle."

No one at Short Enterprises or Wal-Mart immediately returned a telephone message left by The Associated Press. A telephone number for Cobb Manufacturing could not be located.

A jury awarded Stella Liebeck of New Mexico nearly $2.9 million in 1994 after she was burned by spilled McDonald's coffee two years earlier. A judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, and she eventually settled for an undisclosed sum that was under $600,000.

Neither Reed nor Sanders could be reached for comment by The Associated Press. Their telephone numbers are not publicly listed.

Reed's attorney, Eric Long, was out of the office Tuesday and did not immediately return a phone call by The Associated Press

The last time I got something at McD's that was hot, I noticed that there were at least 6 or 8 labels on the cup that read Caution: Contents HOT or something to that effect. Sheesh, if you get a cup of hot coffee, wouldn't you expect it to be hot?
#12:29:41 PoST by GalFromTheBay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The suit also accuses Reed's mother of negligence, saying Carol Sanders "owed a duty of care for the safety of others riding in her vehicle."

Obviously Reed shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place(or walk and chew gum at the same time).Her mama should get an extra large child restraint seat for her car, and drive the moron around herself.
#12:30:18 PoST by nothingnew

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a63594b0514.htm

The first thing you'll note about "compensation culture" is that there is rarely a statistical justification for the outrage that it generates--most of the cases cited are purely anecdotal.

The second thing you'll note is that a lot of the more egregious cases tend to be either dismissed or their awards are significantly lessened on appeal, and incidentally, this fact is rarely cited in TV news reports, and cited sporadically in print. The McDonalds Coffee Case is a good example: people often comment how you can win millions by slopping coffee into your lap, but they don't bother with the fact that no one actually has won millions that way. On appeal, that amount was reduced to less than $600,000.

The third thing you'll note is that if you actually bother to look at some of the cases, the awards become much more justified. For example, in the case of the McDonalds Coffee case, McDonalds had been repeatedly warned that they were serving coffee too hot, and that said coffee was a danger to individuals. The person in question got third-degree burns on her genitals after the coffee slopped on her and seeped through her clothing. For reference, a third-degree burn means that the flesh is completely destroyed, usually through charring. Would you like to have part of your genitals permanently destroyed or disfigured because some idiot couldn't turn down the heat on the pot because of corporate policy, a policy they were warned repeatedly to stop? I know I wouldn't.

What does all this add up to. Well, partly you could say that "compensation culture" is less a case of systematic abuse on the part of citizens as it is corporate news programs cashiering on the sensational story of the day, in this case some person getting more than is traditionally awarded in court. The fact that the court system has built-in defenses against this, or that no system is entirely foolproof, or even that if some digging were done, this "outrageous" award wouldn't seem so outrageous, is conveniently ignored.

In the larger sense, however, it seems more and more a tool by which corporations evade the responsibility for their actions. It's no surprise that Texas, which has some of the most strict anti-legal protections for corporations, also has some of the worst environmental conditions in the country, and that dumping of toxic chemicals is on the uptick. Why? Because it's less expensive for them to pay the $250,000 max penalty and proceed with the dumping (after which they won't have to pay into the Superfund system to clean it up, because of changes in EPA regulations by our current President), than it is to give a damn about Texans. Maybe instead of commenting on the outrage of compensation culture, you should try commenting on the outrage of the poor having to live with increased rates of cancer or other germ-line diseases because some corporation cares more about the bottom line than people's well-being, or how insurance companies typically use the threat of lawsuits as a justification to jack up prices and drive doctors to the wall.

The last time I got something at McD's that was hot, I noticed that there were at least 6 or 8 labels on the cup that read Caution: Contents HOT or something to that effect. Sheesh, if you get a cup of hot coffee, wouldn't you expect it to be hot?

*sighs* Yes, you'd expect it to be hot, but still at a temperature that you can drink. If you'd tried to drink the coffee she was served, you'd have needed emergency treatment for burns to the mouth, tongue and throat.

RTFL:
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Ok, who voted no?

In today's society, there is a system that rewards money to victims of accidents.

Over the years, this system has used for cases ranging from someone losing a limb, to a person getting 'offended' by a tasteful picture of some human fleash.

The above are examples of REAL cases, both of which received generous handouts. There have been even more bizare cases in different countries.

Please give your opinion with an explanation and if you have any truthful examples of stupid compensation cases you have heard about, please do mention them.

The person who submits the most stupid, TRUTHFUL case is the winner!

No fakes please

oh really now? i'd like to know what context this was in

Um....

Yes.

90% of adverts on UK television are of a financial or legal nature.

Agree entirely... "John Smith fell off a ladder at work... we got him £12,000..."

Sheeesh... Serves him right for being so careless... :shock: