As I sit and listen to a new client and discuss with them the facts of their potential claim I have found myself hearing from these folks that they are not like the “other” plaintiffs like the McDonald’s coffee case plaintiff. They go to great lengths to assure me that they are different than the others and that their case has merit.
I suspect that there are many other victims of negligence out there who chose to not bring a claim because of this irrational fear of being labeled one of “those” plaintiffs who allegedly use the system in a get rich quick scheme. Sadly many of those injury victims will have their medical treatment paid for by taxpayers like you and me or worse they will simply not get necessary treatment resulting in turning a treatable injury into a permanent disability.
When Stella LIebeck tried to put cream and sugar into her McDonald’s coffee sometime back in the early 1990’s she spilled the coffee into her lap causing 3rd degree burns in her groin which required a 7 day hospital stay and several skin graft surgeries to repair the burned skin. McDonalds had over 700 complaints that their coffee which was served at a temperature between 185 to 195 degrees and they chose to ignore those cases as a warning of potential injury to customers who may spill this coffee on to themselves or their children. Experts testified that at that temperature liquid will cause 3rd degree burn injuries within 2 seconds of contact with the skin.
Stella was found to be 20% at fault for this incident so her $200,000 compensatory damage award was reduced by 20% to $160,000. The remainder of her $2 Million dollar award was punitive damages that the jury felt the evidence proved was needed to finally get McDonald’s attention that they did in fact have a problem with this coffee. The judge later reduced the punitive damage award to approximately $600,000. The case was settled after that for a confidential sum.
This case has been used by the media, the politicians and the insurance companies as proof that our system is broken. It is far from broken and when you ask the injury victim if their damages should be arbitrarily capped by a legislature without any consideration as to the impact and injury has on them monetarily, emotionally and psychologically they will tell you no way.
While there is a very small population of indivduals who try to take advantage of the system those cases get tossed at the outset by the ethical lawyer who can see through a ruse. As a contingency fee lawyer I try to select cases that have merit that provide me an opportunity to get paid for my legal work. To suggest that I would take a frivolous case that likely will not result in any damages being offered or awarded flies in the face of simple economic logic. No attorney worth their reputation will take on case that likely will not result in a payment for damages at the end of the case.
We should never feel like we need to apologize for exercising our rights as an injured citizen to seek justice and to receive compensation for a loss that was not of your own doing.
