Modern day...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by NusuniAdmin, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. NusuniAdmin macrumors 6502a


    Nov 19, 2003
    Things are crazy nowadays. Especially lawsuits, nowadays there are plenty of lawyers willing to go with cases like these:

    Barely any programs run on my 20 year old computer, can I sue over it?
    I stubbed my toe on a chair, can I sue the chair company?
    I had a burnt fry at mcdonalds, can I sue over it?
    Some kid threw a snowball at me, can I sue over it?
    A little kid almost hit me on his first time on a bike, can I sue?

    And the grand fanale:
    I got fat eating at mcdonalds, can I sue over it?

    Personaly, I have heard of cases like those (except for the computer one). Have you guys heard of that new national law their trying to pass that is going to make sueing restaraunts for the amount of fat you got illegal. This is one great step to making america somewhat better...if it is possible...that is....
  2. wdlove macrumors P6


    Oct 20, 2002
    We can have badly needed Tort reform if the Republicans gain a larger majority in the Senate. The Democrats are beholding to lawyers, large contributors. So any reform would hurt their income. The House already passed the Bill that you mentioned. It's reported to have litted chance in the Senate. But in 2005 hopefully it will.
  3. Counterfit macrumors G3


    Aug 20, 2003
    sitting on your shoulder
    If they had actually hit you, maybe.

    Well, it seems you can. But will you win? I hope not :p

    wdlove: I suppose that depends on what kind of Republicans get control. If "good" Republicans get in (i.e. not the bitches of corporations. Yes, they do exist), then maybe some progress in this area could be made. If "bad" Republicans (i.e. corporate bitches) get in, progress in this area would still be made, but then there would be lots of stuff most of don't want happening, and the bad would most likely outweigh the good.
    Of course, that could be avoided if a judge/jury would go ahead and set a precedent for these kinds of cases.
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020


    Nov 14, 2003
    Washington, DC
    You all should try reading about countries where rule of law is weak, and then see if you really want to get rid of the lawyers.
  5. rainman::|:| macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    i agree. senseless litigation and golddigging torts are the byproduct of a good legal system, and as you'd hope in this good legal system, they're almost always shot down. Anyway, civil suits are a foundation of civil liberties, so we must live with them-- and where do we draw the line between an "ok" lawsuit and a pointless one? i certainly wouldn't want my valid lawsuit thrown out just because it's on the same subject as a previous suit, that was dismissed as being trivial...

    for instance, the obesity suits can be traced back to the original tobacco settlements... again, people using the product, many times in defiance of common knowledge, suffering health problems. tobacco suits are widely celebrated, for the most part. Why is it OK to make tobacco companies pay for wrongful deaths, but not McDonalds? this is hypothetical, i really don't care about the answer, but you get my point.

  6. NusuniAdmin thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Nov 19, 2003
    hehe, pretty soon on mc donalds hamburger wrappers: "Surgeon general's warning: This product may make you obese, and cause all sorts of caner. Plus, it is possible this hamburger has a few hundred different cows in it"
  7. Neserk macrumors 6502a


    Jan 1, 2004

    I only agree with suing a restaurant if they misinformed you about the health of their food! If they claim it has 500 calories when it has 1000 then I think I should be able to sue!
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    Around 1966, Congress started changing the tort liability laws away from negligence as a primary reason for an injury claim. Over time--and with various other changes--we got away from the concept of "Oops! Accident!" and into today's notion that for every injury of whatever sort, somebody must be at fault. Couple this idea with the "Deep Pockets" doctrine, and you wind up with today's litigious society.

    IMO it's less that we have some strong body of law than it is that people want to get paid for falling down, even if their own kid caused the fall. (Austin, Texas, lawsuit for a woman's fall. She won damages.) While many defendants do win, the legal costs have become somewhere between too high and plumb outrageous...

    The flip side of the coin, of course, is that if you are indeed really injured by somebody else's negligence, the delays built into the system, plus the appeals process, mean justice delayed. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied, as a fella once said...


Share This Page