Yep, this is about as political as it can get, but I doubt if anyone here can come up with a gripe about it. ;D
Some years ago, Florida decided to allow the "Citizen's Initiative" method of ammending our Constitution. So far, this tool has been used primarily by liberal special interest groups to punch through things that have no business being in the Constitution. Things like the size of the mesh in shrimp nets, and the length of mullet nets, and the method by which hog farmers can protect piglets from the ponderous weight of their own Mothers.
I have been thinking for a while now, that those of us with a little bit of sense need to use this tool for the good of our citizens. Well, bless Goodness, I think it has happened. One of the items on the ballot for this November's election is a proposal that addresses the problem of grossly overblown settlements in lawsuits. No, it isn't a "Tort Reform" measure. Rather, it proposes that the actual person who has been damaged by a wrong will be the primary recipient of the proceeds of a successful suit. It demands that the successful plaintiff will recieve at least 70% of the first $250,000, and at least 90% of everything above that!
Please tell me, if you would, what person, other than a trial lawyer himself, could possibly vote against that! ;D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Yeah, but don't forget how many trial lawyers are in Florida!
Having lived under the tyrany of the mob, in California for 33 years, I know exactly what you mean. I left there when the Democrats managed to take over the Republican primary so they could choose both candidates for state and local offices. I hear that's all over with now, maybe CA is returning to the right. 8)
By the way do you think Zell Miller's a bit torqued at the rest of the Democratic party? I watched his speech at the GOP convention, and need a little guidance. ::)
Not to worry, Furby. The "personal injury attorneys" make up only about .02% of Florida's population. It's just that they take up about 20% of the TV ads.
I'm not posting this as a "Florida thing", but I see it becoming a national trend. This is the most innovative approach yet to the problem of excessive lawsuit awards. Juries will no longer feel that they have to award millions in order for the victim to recieve thousands. Florida is just leading the way, as usual. ;D
Basically, your law is saying that a lawsuit under $250.000 still can be handled for a mere 30%. There isn't any actual change for the bulk of the lawsuits. Just those more spectacular ones.
Yes, some of those lawsuits sound like someone is getting a bundle. But, a lot of those get turned back to the judge and they get reduced. You just don't hear about that part.
If the lawyer thinks he needs more money, wouldn't he just sue for more? That would make the awards even higher.
Most awards are high due to corporate arrogance. They kinda feel they can do anything they want, just because they have the economic and political muscle to do it.
The coffee incidence against McDonald's was based on corporate arrogance. The coffee was too hot, and they had numerous complaints. They did nothing and the woman got 3rd degree burns. She asked to be compensated for medical damages. They told her there was no way. She sued, won, and got the damages greatly reduced. McDonald's could have avoided the whole situation.
I'm not sure I would like that referendum on demand. Too many things sound like a good idea, and the electorate are usually too uninformed to make an intelligent decision. I bet most people aren't aware of the referendum until they enter the voting booth. Happens to me all the time. :D
Coffee needs to be hot. That is the reason I like McDonalds coffee. When you stick an open cup of coffee between your legs, what should she expect. I am sick of having to pay extra because people do really stupid stuff. Next will be someone suing McDonalds for frost bite while stirring there coke with there finger because there was too much ice in it. True, some corporations need to be sued, but too hot coffee just isn't one of them.
One of the first things my brother did when he got his WM was to put a little sign on it. " Before engaging saw blade, engage brain."
Regards the FL lawyers, I heard years ago (Product Liability conference) that the State of Kansas passed a law that was aimed at the ambulance chasing lawyers, that they could receive only 15% of any settlement. I heard that the lawyers left the state like rats from a sinking ship. Just what I heard, and don't know if it was true, nor whether it still is true.
But I like the idea. :)
I don't mind reasonable suits for people permanently injured by wrongful doing or neglect of a mfg. or other persons. However, I don't like big settlements to families as a result of a death. Somehow, making money off of a dead loved one just wouldn't seem right. That money can't buy happiness for their loss, IMO. Sorry if I step on someones toes, as once when I expounded on this, I learned I was talking to a man who lost his son in a small plane crash, and had won a lawsuit from the plane mfg. Still doesn't seem right, but I need to be more 'caring'. :)
In this country corporations are considered legal entities. Since sending them to jail or giving them the death sentence for their actions is not viable or out of the question, fining them for their actions is about all you can do to correct future actions.
A corporation really should receive a death sentence for some of its actions, example Bpohal India, where enough chemical gas was spilled to kill 3,000+ citizens.
Some of it does not make any sense, like suing asbestos and fiberglass makers that had no prior knowledge about the harmful effects of their products. Even with all the bad things, society greatly benefited from the products!
MacDonalds getting sued is a prime example of exactly why we need tort reform.
People have been making "boiling hot" coffee for thousands of years. This means 212+ F degrees, scalding water is 125F. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out putting boiling hot coffee between your legs might result in a major burn. Most guys I know would not be that arrogrant :-D
What the MickyD suit did not take into account is out of 4+ billion people served you are bound to have at least a few numb people that will manage to burn themselves with your product or choke themselves on a McNugget.
I think we need medical tort reform the most because some of these crazy lawsuits are driving up health care costs needlessly. I think if you chop off the wrong leg, yes, you need to be sued and well punished.
On the other hand, sometime nothing a doctor can do can make a difference and sometimes a doctor will make a mistake ... because they are human. All I ask is the doctor tries and is not grossly negligent (drunk as an example), not that they be perfect.
What really scalds me is those lawyers who sue doctors for malpractice and in the suit name EVERYONE involved in the surgery, regardless of their guilt. For instance, a surgeon could do the damage, but the anestheseologist who is also named in the suit did nothing wrong, his part was perfect. Nonetheless, the trial lawyer will blackmail him by saying that he is willing to spend huge sums of money to prosecute the case, thereby costing the innocent anestheseologist (or really his insurance company) tons of money to defend. So, they settle out of court by having him pay for something he didn't do. >:(
In many cases, the lawyers are taking fifty to seventy percent. Not only that, but the plaintiff has to pay taxes on the entire settlement, including what the lawyer got! Sometimes, a "successful plaintiff" actually ends up owing money.
I really like the part where the crooks only get 10% of the larger settlements. If they leave the state because of it, I'll be happy. ;D