NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

The gist of the article:
A guy sees his picture on a coffee jug, he says 'Hey, how did that get there?', procedes to remember that he did a photo shoot in 1968, and decides to sue Nestle.
This is fine, I have no problem at all with this.
My problem is that the judge gave him 15 MILLION dollars.
Yes, Nestle is a large international corporation, but 15 million bucks is still quite a lot of cash. So, guess whos going to suffer for it?
You got it, the employees!
Yup, the little Chinese kids are going from four cents an hour to two point five cents an hour. The guys in the US are going from slightly above minimum wage are going to minimum wage.
And I imagine prices will go up.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

No...but then again, I don't pay attention to media coverage of frivolous lawsuits, or let said coverage get under my skin to the degree it obviously does you.

I notice this is all to do with coffee. Are you drinking too much of it?

Maybe that's why you're getting uptight.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

The gist of the article:
A guy sees his picture on a coffee jug, he says 'Hey, how did that get there?', procedes to remember that he did a photo shoot in 1968, and decides to sue Nestle.
This is fine, I have no problem at all with this.
My problem is that the judge gave him 15 MILLION dollars.
Yes, Nestle is a large international corporation, but 15 million bucks is still quite a lot of cash. So, guess whos going to suffer for it?
You got it, the employees!
Yup, the little Chinese kids are going from four cents an hour to two point five cents an hour. The guys in the US are going from slightly above minimum wage are going to minimum wage.
And I imagine prices will go up.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

15 million probably isnt even a dint in nestle yearly profits, yet yeah your right they are going to be dropping wages

and ill add my two cents: you cannot use some ones image or otherwise copyright material without their consent or compensation, this is a ridiculous reward but its not frivolous per se

15 millions is 5 percent of the profit from Taster's choice from 1997-2003.
Considering that they were using his image since 1986, I think it's a fair assessment.

It may seems huge to you, but considering that with the help of his image, they made 300 millions profit on this particular product in a 6 years period, it's small potatoes for breaking the law. It's not even an incentive to stop doing it.

I can understand where the law suite came from, but the amount was simply outragous. I still feel it was wrong to use his likeness without compensation, but to pay him an insane amount like that, maybe there is something wrong with American Justice, or maybe there's just something we weren't told in the article.

Considering the money is supposed to include punative damages in cases where someone is wronged by a party's deliberate law breaking, and considering the profits that were made, not only directly, but also indirectly, it is indeed a ridiculous amount, since as another poster already pointed out, it is not enough to be a detterent.

Whether or not Nestle are such a scummy company, that rather than taking a profit loss, and/or trying to recoup the money by penalising those who allowed the company to become liable in the first place, they instead penalise employees obviously not responsible for the liability incurred, is not related to whether or not the payment is fair and equitable.

I do evidently recall a case where McDonalds actions caused an injury that should have been foreseeable to McDonalds (since it had happened more than once previously), and which they none the less chose not to act to prevent. As I recall they were asked by the injured party, to pay the costs of the injury, and they simply refused to do so, preferring to take their chances in court, which as I recall, didnt work out all that well for them. I guess the moral of that story is 'pay up when you cause damages, or risk paying more', or at least in my opinion, it would have been the moral of the story if MickeyD's had a less effective propaganda machine...

15 millions is 5 percent of the profit from Taster's choice from 1997-2003.
Considering that they were using his image since 1986, I think it's a fair assessment.

It may seems huge to you, but considering that with the help of his image, they made 300 millions profit on this particular product in a 6 years period, it's small potatoes for breaking the law. It's not even an incentive to stop doing it.

They should of given him the standard salary then for a person whos image is used for a product. He probably would of only been given 50-100 grand in royalities or less over the years for the use of his image.

So can Taster's Choice continue using his likeness, or are they losing $15 million and hiring a new model?

They should of given him the standard salary then for a person whos image is used for a product. He probably would of only been given 50-100 grand in royalities or less over the years for the use of his image.
Except that they broke a few copyright laws in the process, which is the entire point of punative damages.

Except that they broke a few copyright laws in the process, which is the entire point of punative damages.


true but still his image isn't worth 15 million dollars for punative damages hes just a regular guy. Its not like they stole a celebrities likeness and secretly sold products using the celibrities likeness.

They should of given him the standard salary then for a person whos image is used for a product. He probably would of only been given 50-100 grand in royalities or less over the years for the use of his image.

In a sense yes.

But the punitive damages are used for companies that know better. You can't use peoples images without their consent when it comes to profit.

The money given to the man is a proper amount for what the company made off of the product line.

true but still his image isn't worth 15 million dollars for punative damages hes just a regular guy. Its not like they stole a celebrities likeness and secretly sold products using the celibrities likeness.
It doesn't matter what his image is worth, you still can't use it.

true but still his image isn't worth 15 million dollars for punative damages hes just a regular guy. Its not like they stole a celebrities likeness and secretly sold products using the celibrities likeness.

Sure it is. Put an ugly picture on a product line and it will not sell. In some countries were literacy is bad, the picture is what people use.

Nestle is an old corporation and knew better. They got caught so they have to pay.

true but still his image isn't worth 15 million dollars for punative damages hes just a regular guy. Its not like they stole a celebrities likeness and secretly sold products using the celibrities likeness.
so let me get this striaghtL you are saying because some one is famous, their very image is worth more than yous? you are still a person, you own the copyright to your image unless you sign it over and the law doesnt care how famous you are, your lawyers do. welcome to the real world which doesnt reside in your imaginary one

His image probably did not dramatically increase there sales if they even increased the sales at all the same people would of still bought nestle. If they had a famous person on their ads they would of garnered increased sales from people because the would think "Well if so and so is endorsing it it has to be good." But no one is going to say "joe schmoe is sponsoring it so it has to be good." So his image is in theory worth much much less then a celebrity.

That'll come down on appeal. A lot in fact.

His image probably did not dramatically increase there sales if they even increased the sales at all the same people would of still bought nestle. If they had a famous person on their ads they would of garnered increased sales from people because the would think "Well if so and so is endorsing it it has to be good." But no one is going to say "joe schmoe is sponsoring it so it has to be good." So his image is in theory worth much much less then a celebrity.
Irrelevent, they still don't have the copyright to the picture. If they got charged less for using nobodies, they'd use nobodies.

Irrelevent, they still don't have the copyright to the picture. If they got charged less for using nobodies, they'd use nobodies.

Well he could hardly have had the copyright either, as he didn't actually take the picture. (unless it was granted to him by the photographer/whoever actually did).

Whether or not the man is a celebrity, he has been a part of their branding since '68. They're a big enough outfit to have figured all of this out, and compensated him accordingly.

They didn't, he took 'em to court, won, and now they've got to pay. Tough. no, the money shouldn't come from the worker's pockets - it should come from the shareholder's dividends. But we all know that shareholders are more meaningful to corporate culture than workers, don't we?

If the workers end up getting the shaft, don't blame the successful litigant - blame the corp. They're the beginning and end of all the trouble.

they do get charged less for using nobodies. When a corporation hires some random actor for a commercial they only get a few grand for the commercial and then some royalities. When a famous person is used in commercials they pay alot more because their sales will go up signaficantely. Look at Coca Cola they paid Chaz Palmatire(sp? the actor from a bronx tale) 2 million dollars for the Original Vanilla Coke episodes.

They did that because the knew a celebrity would generate alot of interests in their new release product and would significantly increase sales whereas some random guy off the street wouldn't of had the same effect. Therefore one is worth more then the other. And if they used ones image illegaly the more famous person would be worth more because he would have a greater effect.

the law doesnt care how famous you are, your lawyers do.

:D :D well said

IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

i do, but i doubt that you do. the case where it came out that mcdonald's kept their coffeee at 185 degrees, 50 degrees hotter than what other places serve coffee at, even though mcd's own quality assurance guy told the company that anything above 150 degrees poses a burn risk and is not safe for consumption. and where we found out that mcd's had refused to settle for $20,000 to cover the lady's medical expenses for the third degree burns over 6% of her body. and where we learned that mcd's had known about more than 700 similar burn claims in a ten year period.

mcdonald's had shown callous indifference to customer safety and the testimony of their own experts. they deserved what they got. and more.

They did that because the knew a celebrity would generate alot of interests in their new release product and would significantly increase sales whereas some random guy off the street wouldn't of had the same effect. Therefore one is worth more then the other. And if they used ones image illegaly the more famous person would be worth more because he would have a greater effect.
Irrelevant to the fact they can't use your image without express permission, welcome to the world of copyrights, now stfu

they do get charged less for using nobodies. When a corporation hires some random actor for a commercial they only get a few grand for the commercial and then some royalities. When a famous person is used in commercials they pay alot more because their sales will go up signaficantely. Look at Coca Cola they paid Chaz Palmatire(sp? the actor from a bronx tale) 2 million dollars for the Original Vanilla Coke episodes.

They did that because the knew a celebrity would generate alot of interests in their new release product and would significantly increase sales whereas some random guy off the street wouldn't of had the same effect. Therefore one is worth more then the other. And if they used ones image illegaly the more famous person would be worth more because he would have a greater effect.
It also boils down to contract. Celebrities have this nasty habit of having managers who deal more than the standard fee for their clients. There's no way someone like (pick your favorite celebrity) would do an add for a mere 2-3 ooo bucks.

Irrelevant to the fact they can't use your image without express permission, welcome to the world of copyrights, now stfu

I know about copyrights but I was stating that this was an excessive amount of money awarded for a claim like this.

Also under certain circumstances your permission is not needed for it to be used in a public venue. If a person willingly engages in an action in public and it is recorded and distrubuted the person has already given an implied permission for that to be shown to the public. Though that doesn't apply in this specific case I just wanted to put out the flaw in your statement.

It also boils down to contract. Celebrities have this nasty habit of having managers who deal more than the standard fee for their clients. There's no way someone like (pick your favorite celebrity) would do an add for a mere 2-3 ooo bucks.

true. but the celebrity has a bigger effect then the average person hence they are worth more.

i do, but i doubt that you do. the case where it came out that mcdonald's kept their coffeee at 185 degrees, 50 degrees hotter than what other places serve coffee at, even though mcd's own quality assurance guy told the company that anything above 150 degrees poses a burn risk and is not safe for consumption. and where we found out that mcd's had refused to settle for $20,000 to cover the lady's medical expenses for the third degree burns over 6% of her body. and where we learned that mcd's had known about more than 700 similar burn claims in a ten year period.

mcdonald's had shown callous indifference to customer safety and the testimony of their own experts. they deserved what they got. and more.

Also the amount was greatly reduced on appeal. It always is, unless you happen to sue BMW for scratching the paint on your car. ($30mil IIRC Gore v. BMW)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

The gist of the article:
A guy sees his picture on a coffee jug, he says 'Hey, how did that get there?', procedes to remember that he did a photo shoot in 1968, and decides to sue Nestle.
This is fine, I have no problem at all with this.
My problem is that the judge gave him 15 MILLION dollars.
Yes, Nestle is a large international corporation, but 15 million bucks is still quite a lot of cash. So, guess whos going to suffer for it?
You got it, the employees!
Yup, the little Chinese kids are going from four cents an hour to two point five cents an hour. The guys in the US are going from slightly above minimum wage are going to minimum wage.
And I imagine prices will go up.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.


How many of those coffee containers did Nestle sell? How much money did they get off of it? They guy most likely got a fraction of a percentage of the proceeds. No one is hurt but the CEO's pride.

true. but the celebrity has a bigger effect then the average person hence they are worth more.

In the eyes of the law, celebrities are not worth one cent more than you or I.

edit: I should say Ideally, in the eyes of the law....

How many of those coffee containers did Nestle sell? How much money did they get off of it? They guy most likely got a fraction of a percentage of the proceeds. No one is hurt but the CEO's pride.

no. because see earnings go down, when earnings go down the stock value goes down. when stockvalues go down the stockholders get upset and demand higher profits. To get the higher profits quickly they layoff employees or cut wages hurting those they hired.

In the eyes of the law, celebrities are not worth one cent more than you or I.

edit: I should say Ideally, in the eyes of the law....


on paper yes. in practice no.

true but still his image isn't worth 15 million dollars for punative damages hes just a regular guy. Its not like they stole a celebrities likeness and secretly sold products using the celibrities likeness.
This comment appears to indicate a lack of understanding with regards to punitive damages.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

IMO Nestle was lucky they didn't have to pay more. Can you say for certain how much money they made while using his image without permission? In multiple countries no less. This is more serious than coffee, and far from frivlous.

on paper yes. in practice no.
In a case like that, with the award being 5% of the profit from '97 to '03, a celebrity would have made the same amount percentage wise. It might have been more than 150 millions if the celebrity indeed helped sell more product.

I know about copyrights but I was stating that this was an excessive amount of money awarded for a claim like this.

Also under certain circumstances your permission is not needed for it to be used in a public venue. If a person willingly engages in an action in public and it is recorded and distrubuted the person has already given an implied permission for that to be shown to the public. Though that doesn't apply in this specific case I just wanted to put out the flaw in your statement.
no, its not. they have been using his image without the permission to use it or jsut compensation for 34 years, this is not an excessive amount

no. because see earnings go down, when earnings go down the stock value goes down. when stockvalues go down the stockholders get upset and demand higher profits. To get the higher profits quickly they layoff employees or cut wages hurting those they hired.
you have no idea what nestle's annual profits are do you?

no. because see earnings go down, when earnings go down the stock value goes down. when stockvalues go down the stockholders get upset and demand higher profits. To get the higher profits quickly they layoff employees or cut wages hurting those they hired.

Wait....you're telling me that people are going to suddenly stop buying Nestle products becaues some guy wants to get paid for the use of his face?

Wait....you're telling me that people are going to suddenly stop buying Nestle products becaues some guy wants to get paid for the use of his face?
No but they have to pay legal fees and punitive dammages. Their profit took a hit, whether you like it or not.

No but they have to pay legal fees and punitive dammages. Their profit took a hit, whether you like it or not.

If you really think that, you are a bit naive. The amount they have to pay out is barely a percentage of what they made on the item in question, much less their actual profits. It's like you taking a penny away from me at the end of the year and then going "NYAHAHA! Your profits went down!!"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

The gist of the article:
A guy sees his picture on a coffee jug, he says 'Hey, how did that get there?', procedes to remember that he did a photo shoot in 1968, and decides to sue Nestle.
This is fine, I have no problem at all with this.
My problem is that the judge gave him 15 MILLION dollars.
Yes, Nestle is a large international corporation, but 15 million bucks is still quite a lot of cash. So, guess whos going to suffer for it?
You got it, the employees!
Yup, the little Chinese kids are going from four cents an hour to two point five cents an hour. The guys in the US are going from slightly above minimum wage are going to minimum wage.
And I imagine prices will go up.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.


a) the lawsuit was NOT frivolous. The company illegally used his image to market - and profit from - their product. The fact is that Nestle could have settled for about half of what was awarded.

b) Your assumption that an award totalling 5% of their PROFITS on this single product in all of Nestle's product lines will somehow result in a 40% drop in pay to employees in one region of the world is entirely without merit. This amount - 15 million - is chickenfeed to a corporation of this size. Actually, it;s less than chickenfeed. It's petty cash.

c) The idea that Nestle will raise their prices to cover a one-time expense - which would then render them less competitive in a tight market - is equally fatuous.

If you really think that, you are a bit naive. The amount they have to pay out is barely a percentage of what they made on the item in question, much less their actual profits. It's like you taking a penny away from me at the end of the year and then going "NYAHAHA! Your profits went down!!"
Of course it doesn't put a dent in the stockholder's dividends. But their profit did indeed drop. If I take you a penny, you won't be bothered much but you did loose a penny.

But I'm not worried for Nestle. Hell, they can use it as a tax write-off...

No but they have to pay legal fees and punitive dammages. Their profit took a hit, whether you like it or not.
Are you suggesting that punitive damages might be some form of punishment....well, who'd a thought huh? :rolleyes:

So how come missing kids on milk cartons don't sue for damages?

:D

So how come missing kids on milk cartons don't sue for damages?

:D
Because their parents or legal guardians, those who can give consent, sign a document saying "go ahead"?

Of course it doesn't put a dent in the stockholder's dividends. But their profit did indeed drop. If I take you a penny, you won't be bothered much but you did loose a penny.

But I'm not worried for Nestle. Hell, they can use it as a tax write-off...
yeah it dropped... by .00273%... and thats pay out alone!!!shift+1

no, its not. they have been using his image without the permission to use it or jsut compensation for 34 years, this is not an excessive amount

From what I can tell he hasn't been adversely hurt by his image being on the box. They should of just given him back royalities and been done with it.

Wait....you're telling me that people are going to suddenly stop buying Nestle products becaues some guy wants to get paid for the use of his face?

Um no. Nestles net profits for this quarter will go down because they are going to be forced to pay out 15 million dollars in damages. So they will sell the same amount of products but they will be getting less profit.

From what I can tell he hasn't been adversely hurt by his image being on the box. They should of just given him back royalities and been done with it.
royalties of what? a 10th of a penny per sale? they wouldve had to pay out a shitload more then

Um no. Nestles net profits for this quarter will go down because they are going to be forced to pay out 15 million dollars in damages. So they will sell the same amount of products but they will be getting less profit.
oh yeah, a FRACTION OF ONE PERCENT

From what I can tell he hasn't been adversely hurt by his image being on the box. They should of just given him back royalities and been done with it.
So from what you can tell, if the victim of an illegal act can be compensated, the perpetrator should be allowed to go about their business without any punishment whatsoever, and never mind if this only encourages even more entities to hold the law in contempt...? Tell me, do you still expect anyone at all to obey the law once this idea takes hold....good luck with that...

Well I have a sugestion that if the money from this trials went into a pot and the victim get a fair amount and the rest goes to a public consumer watchguard organisation that for example inform about that product it safe and keep track of business behavior and also compansetas victims that is in despreatly in need of it like for example people with cancer and that is clearly in need of money for treatment but is suckered by the insurance company. But this is maybee a bit to socialiberal/socialist for america.

From what I can tell he hasn't been adversely hurt by his image being on the box. They should of just given him back royalities and been done with it.

They did. 5%. That's not unreasonable at all, when you talk about royalty payments.

I know about copyrights but I was stating that this was an excessive amount of money awarded for a claim like this.

Also under certain circumstances your permission is not needed for it to be used in a public venue. If a person willingly engages in an action in public and it is recorded and distrubuted the person has already given an implied permission for that to be shown to the public. Though that doesn't apply in this specific case I just wanted to put out the flaw in your statement.

It is hardly excessive. The company has used images for years. They know the process and they know what they should be doing as they have had plenty of practice. Punitive Damanages are awarded when it is felt the company did a big nono and didn't have a good reason.

Public domain is usable but in many cases, you have to get permission when profit is involved.

Finally, Punitive damanges are good in that if the company pulls the same "mistake" again, then they will really get raped as they didn't learn their lesson.
---------------------------
I am guessing you are a Liberterian or a Republican right?

royalties of what? a 10th of a penny per sale? they wouldve had to pay out a shitload more then

No people used in commercials and advertisements are given a set amount of residuals for the use of their image in advertisements. So they should of just given him what he would of been entitled to for the past 15 years as if they actually signed him to a deal.

They did. 5%. That's not unreasonable at all, when you talk about royalty payments.

For this type of thing you wouldn't get 5% of sales. You get royalities for just the use of your image. He would of probably gotten 100 grand or 2 for the 15 years if he was signed to a contract.

oh yeah, a FRACTION OF ONE PERCENT

And Stockholders will want someone to be held accountable because the value of their stock will decrease. So the company will make it up by layoffing a few people or cutting benefits and wages.

And Stockholders will want someone to be held accountable because the value of their stock will decrease. So the company will make it up by layoffing a few people or cutting benefits and wages.

there is no reaon to cut benefits or wages

oh no, instead of a 7% increase in profits it will only be 6.9973%!

And Stockholders will want someone to be held accountable because the value of their stock will decrease. So the company will make it up by layoffing a few people or cutting benefits and wages.

Ahh so the moral of the story is to never sue a company because they never do anything wrong?

Ahh so the moral of the story is to never sue a company because they never do anything wrong?
no no no, the moral of the story is admitting the company did wrong hurts the companies bottom line so its better to let them do as they please instead of making them do the right thing

For this type of thing you wouldn't get 5% of sales. You get royalities for just the use of your image. He would of probably gotten 100 grand or 2 for the 15 years if he was signed to a contract.
Right and 100 grand or 2 back in the 1980's with compounding interest = how much X 15 years....?

The point you seem to be completely overlooking is that it is considered desirable to have everyone obey the law as much as possible, and the means of doing this is deterring people from not obeying the laws. In order to do this we punish those who do not obey the laws. This makes sense, because otherwise entity A would realise that if they broke the law and got away with it, they would profit, yet if they didnt get away with it, they wouldnt loose, and so if entity A had any sense at all, entity A would realise it is in their best interests to break rather than obey the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

The gist of the article:
A guy sees his picture on a coffee jug, he says 'Hey, how did that get there?', procedes to remember that he did a photo shoot in 1968, and decides to sue Nestle.
This is fine, I have no problem at all with this.
My problem is that the judge gave him 15 MILLION dollars.
Yes, Nestle is a large international corporation, but 15 million bucks is still quite a lot of cash. So, guess whos going to suffer for it?
You got it, the employees!
Yup, the little Chinese kids are going from four cents an hour to two point five cents an hour. The guys in the US are going from slightly above minimum wage are going to minimum wage.
And I imagine prices will go up.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.



Aware at all of nestle's gross revenues or profits?
Dont make stupid things up like "nestle workers will take a pay cut for this."

You're attacking the most basic and important part of a government's role in economy: institutions which enforce contract law.

The lawsuit was not frivolous and Nestle foolishly rejected his previous offer to settle for something like $8.5M.

Nestle made a booboo, they were held responsible for it.

Between january and june of 2004 (6mo period) the nestle corporation reported sales of $33.5B and profits of $2,241,000,000.

Between january and june of 2004 (6mo period) the nestle corporation reported sales of $33.5B and profits of $2,241,000,000.
That's a lot of cocoa.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

Some of us might remember the McDonald's coffee lady better than you do. McDonalds served her coffee at a temperature too high for her to safely drink it without any sort of warning label. She only filed suit because they refused her a few hundred dollars to pay for medical treatment for her burns. The lawsuit was 100% justified.

Some of us might remember the McDonald's coffee lady better than you do. McDonalds served her coffee at a temperature too high for her to safely drink it without any sort of warning label. She only filed suit because they refused her a few hundred dollars to pay for medical treatment for her burns. The lawsuit was 100% justified.

I dont think his point was anythign to do with the legallity of the case or the fact that McD were in the wrong. It was the absolutely insane amount of damages awarded.

Personally i dont think punative damages should go to the victim, but to charity. Damages are paid to the the victim which are meant to approximate the amount of harm done. Punative damages are in excess of this and so, im my opinion, are totally wasted when they could actually contribute something to society while still serving their punative purpose.

Perhaps if this suggestion was implemented you'd have less pathetic lawsuits from people wanting to get rich quick.

Perhaps if this suggestion was implemented you'd have less pathetic lawsuits from people wanting to get rich quick.

Doubtful.

Charities might align themselves with lawyers to get the more lawsuit money(ie we will give you 60% of each judgement.

Doubtful.

Charities might align themselves with lawyers to get the more lawsuit money(ie we will give you 60% of each judgement.

Hmm. Ah well, even with the same amount of cases it'd be better having the money in the hands of charity then individuals.
Or, perhaps a better solution (depending on your faith in the current government) - use the money for government spending on education/welfare/etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

The gist of the article:
A guy sees his picture on a coffee jug, he says 'Hey, how did that get there?', procedes to remember that he did a photo shoot in 1968, and decides to sue Nestle.
This is fine, I have no problem at all with this.
My problem is that the judge gave him 15 MILLION dollars.
Yes, Nestle is a large international corporation, but 15 million bucks is still quite a lot of cash. So, guess whos going to suffer for it?
You got it, the employees!
Yup, the little Chinese kids are going from four cents an hour to two point five cents an hour. The guys in the US are going from slightly above minimum wage are going to minimum wage.
And I imagine prices will go up.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

It's not frivolous; they used his likeness without his permission. They have to pay.

Also, the woman in the McDonald's suit won because they were at fault. There had been other incidents where their coffee had seriously scalded people; McDonald's had been advised to lower the temperature of the coffee (212 degress F!) but refused to. The woman got third degree burns over her thighs and genitals in less than 10 seconds; it has been erroneously stated that she was driving a car (she was not) and that she put the cup either on the dash or between her legs (she did not).

Interestingly, what people DON'T tell you is that she initially asked ONLY for money to cover her medical bills, and Mickey D's told her to stuff it; that an appeals court subsequently lowered the judgement to a few hundred thousand dollars; and that as of the last time I heard, Mickey D's refused to pay even that.

I HATE frivilous lawsuites. I especialy hate when some bloody idiot of a judge gives the 'victim' a huge settlement as a smack to 'big buisness'. IM sure everybody remembers the infamous 'McDonalds Coffee lady'.

Actually, like most people, you obviously do not remember the "infamous McDonalds Coffee lady."

The woman you are referring to is Stella Liebeck. A few facts about her case:

- Stella Liebeck did not want a trial and offered to settle for her medical bills alone ($20,000). The McDonald's Corporation chose to go to trial and lost.

- Stella was severely injured. At 72 years old, she suffered third degree burns on her on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas, required skin grafts, and was hospitalized for eight days.

- McDonald's knew its coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns. There were 700 other burn claims before this one that McDonald's ignored. McDonald's held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit (your coffee at home is 135 to 140 degrees)

- The jury awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

Perhaps people aren't familiar with the meaning of punitive.

Main Entry: pu·ni·tive
Pronunciation: 'pyü-n&-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: French punitif, from Medieval Latin punitivus, from Latin punitus, past participle of punire
: inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment
- pu·ni·tive·ly adverb
- pu·ni·tive·ness noun

Main Entry: punitive damages
Function: noun plural
: damages awarded in excess of normal compensation to the plaintiff to punish a defendant for a serious wrong

The whole idea is to punish. If you charge 250,000 dollars to a company that makes 10 billion dollars a year, not much of a punishment. If a company is very wealthy, it takes a lot of money to make them feel like they've been punished.

From what I can tell he hasn't been adversely hurt by his image being on the box. They should of just given him back royalities and been done with it.

THe amount that they gave him *is* the amount that back royalties would have been, most likely.

its nice to see that there is actually someone with brains making comments , I can't stand those people that are choosing to be blind to the world. The stupid coffee lady and now this! they should get a freakin job instead of trying to make money off of someone elses sweat and tears.

Some of us might remember the McDonald's coffee lady better than you do. McDonalds served her coffee at a temperature too high for her to safely drink it without any sort of warning label. She only filed suit because they refused her a few hundred dollars to pay for medical treatment for her burns. The lawsuit was 100% justified.



I know its there are drink holders in the car but people should put 100% concentration on their driving not trying to drink hot coffee. she was a retard and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a reality check.

I know its there are drink holders in the car but people should put 100% concentration on their driving not trying to drink hot coffee. she was a retard and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a reality check.

She wasn't driving, her son was. And the car was parked.
Now who's the retard? :P

The whole idea is to punish. If you charge 250,000 dollars to a company that makes 10 billion dollars a year, not much of a punishment. If a company is very wealthy, it takes a lot of money to make them feel like they've been punished.

As i said before - why should the victim get the punative damages?

its nice to see that there is actually someone with brains making comments , I can't stand those people that are choosing to be blind to the world. The stupid coffee lady and now this! they should get a freakin job instead of trying to make money off of someone elses sweat and tears.
oh you mean like making money off of the use of someones image without just compensation or express permission?

I know its there are drink holders in the car but people should put 100% concentration on their driving not trying to drink hot coffee. she was a retard and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a reality check.

She was a passenger.

its nice to see that there is actually someone with brains making comments , I can't stand those people that are choosing to be blind to the world. The stupid coffee lady and now this! they should get a freakin job instead of trying to make money off of someone elses sweat and tears.
Nice try, but if you actually read the article, you would have known that this guy is actually working right now.

You would have to go back and look at whatever contract was signed in 1968 when they took the pictures (which I am sure nestle convieniently "lost") since the photos were part of a photo shoot and not "in a public place" copyright laws would apply and because of lobbying by disney and the like, copyrights go on nearly forever now.

this lawsuit will have a greater effect than the miniscule (for nestle) amount of the award, companies legal depts will now be checking to make sure that all the images they use were properly "bought" or contracted so they do not get hit with a lawsuit

I know its there are drink holders in the car but people should put 100% concentration on their driving not trying to drink hot coffee. she was a retard and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a reality check.

She wasn't even in the driver's seat - she was a passenger. She was also in a *PARKED* car, as she asked the driver to stop while she put cream/sugar in her coffee. Try a little research before you make an ass out of yourself.

As i said before - why should the victim get the punative damages?

Well, the simplest answer is, "Who else?" Federal or state governments? Far too much incentive for the judges to raise the damages as high as possible. As it stands now, the punitive damages are a sort of reward to the plaintiff for bringing corporate wrongdoing to light. Do they encourage frivolous lawsuits? Perhaps, but they also encourage serious ones, and if as the cost of keeping corporations accountable we're going to get a few frivolous lawsuits, I say that's far better than allowing justified suits to slip through the cracks because potential plaintiffs decided there was nothing to be gained by taking their cases to court.