America, land of the....sued

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Spectator
Here in Canada a women tried the same thing. She tried to sue Imperial tabacco because she could'nt stop smoking. The Juge condemned her to 2 month in jail for (sorry I only know the legal terms in french) waste of time for the court (outrage a la cour) and bashing the reputation of Imperial Tabacco (atteinte a la réputation).

I suspect there was more to this. For example, calling the company a mafia style criminal organisation in a submission, or accusing the court of favouring the company. Outrage à la cour is roughly contempt of court, I think...

Well, odd cases... here we had a state liabilty case against a local government. Guy files for a building permit on a hill, gets it, but the hill is unstable and the house gets destroyed in a landslide. The local government's permit was unlawful (that's clear), and the guy got compensation (which is far from clear and caused cries about getting american "Zustände" here...)

[Demerzel]

I agree that people look to suing another as almost a way of life now. The sad thing is until recently we've been free of that kind of thing here in the UK. Now we have adverts by the bucketload on TV with "no win, no costs" crap.

commenting on case-by-case above, how the heck can someone sue a food company for making them fat when the person wasn't tied down and force-fed it?

I can understand to some degree people suing a tobacco company for not declaring that it could cause cancer if they can prove the company knew. But to sue over the fact she couldn't stop? Hmm.. try will power deary.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know if you had such a case on your side of the pond, but a case in France one year ago really hit the fan. A mentally-handicapped boy was born in the early 80's, after the doctor didn't detect any abnormality. In 2002, the mother's problem was the survival of her son once she'll die of old age. Guess what she did to find money for her son ? Did she turn to welfare ? Did she turn to charity ? No, she sued the doctor who made a mistake 20 years ago, and the worst is that she won. Needless to say, as it was a precedent, all doctors were threatened to have such trials for every error with dire consequences they have made. Insurance premiums for doctors skyrocketed. Luckily, the politicians put a stop to this madness.
This woman wanted to milk millions from a doctor because of her child being handicapped. I think it is the worse case of "stupid trials" I've heard of until now.

What is next? The boy sues his parents, for "mixing bad genes" for him?


About the McDonalds sue:

I've heard it, as some lady dropped a * and sued McDonalds because it was too hot, and because of this she couldn't do the household at home for some time... this ended in two sue's:

She sued because of the incident and won. Then her husband sued, because now HE had to do all the household work for her...

As far as I remember, they both won, but I'm not sure...


There were also some other time, where some other fat lady was eating at McDonalds. As she left, she slid (is that the word?) on the floor, and landed on her back... She sued McDonalds because of this... and won
...Exactly the same lady moves short time after to some other State, and within short time, the exact same thing happens, and sued McDonalds again... she would have won, if it wasn't because of a coincident:
One of the important guys, who were present last time she sued McDonalds, was by coincidence present as she filed her sue... Because he knew, that she had done this a few months/years before (and could show documentation, which they couldn't have got otherwise...), she lost... don't know the outcome though

* Don't know the word... that green thing they have in Hamburgers, etc... no, not salad

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I agree that people look to suing another as almost a way of life now. The sad thing is until recently we've been free of that kind of thing here in the UK. Now we have adverts by the bucketload on TV with "no win, no costs" crap.

There seem to be fewer of these ads in recent months. One of the worst offending firms ran into financial difficulties.

What people, in the UK at least, don't realise is that these firms keep most of the money if they win to pay for all the cases they lose.

A lot of it is trying to prey on local authorities who pass the cases to their insurers who just roll over and pay. After heavy losses in local authority insurance the insurance companies have got tougher in the last couple of years and the bubble has largely burst on claims for tripping over a paving slab.

I am expecting a solicitors letter any day now on behalf of someone who tripped and fell in the cemetery I run. She went back to take photographs later. The path is bad in places but not where she fell. She actually admitted in front of two of my staff that she could not remember exactly where she fell but that she would say it was on one of the bad patches. It should be interesting if she can find a solicitor stupid enough to act for her.

[Zkribbler]

One reason the US has more lawsuits than other places is that we have more rights to protect.

For example, a few months ago, I was in Malaysia and saw a job ad in a paper looking for an Islamic married man in his mid-thirties. In the U.S., such an ad would immediately result in at least one discrimination lawsuit.

As Ming said, everyone has a right to file a suit about anything.

If I wanted, I could file a lawsuit against you for being the blue martian whose been eating my yaks. Sure, frivolous suits like that should not be filed, but how can we tell what's friviolous and what's not frivilous until the suit is filed and we can see what it's about. What are you people looking for, a prelawsuit lawsuit where a plaintiff has to petition the court for the right to bring the main lawsuit??

Someone earlier mentioned medical malpractice lawsuits. On average, they probably are the ones with the least merit. However, the reason they are filed, is that a patient knows he's been injured, and a lawyer usually can't tell if the injury is due to malpractice until experts review the medical records. Well, you just can't walk into a doctor's office, say "I'm thinking about suing you, can I see my records please," and expect that to happen. Instead, you file a lawsuit and demand the records in discovery. Once the experts review those records, over 50% of medical malpractice actions are voluntarily dismissed without the payment of one cent.

Once a lawsuit is filed, there's all kinds of hurdles that have to be cleared before a case ever sees a jury.

If the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action (for example, my blue martian/yak lawsuit), the judge can immediately dismiss it.

In cases where offending facts are pled but there's no evidence to support them, the judge can also enter judgment for the defendant without a trial. (For example, in Flowers v. Clinton, where President Clinton proved Jennifer Flowers has suffered no damages.)

Plus, there's all kinds of procedural stumbling blocks than can get a case dismissed: failure to prosecute, failure to provide proper discovery responses, failure to attend certain mandatory hearings.

If the case does go to trial, the jury is not going to be made up of madmen (usually). They're made up of everyday people who almost always do their best to do the right thing.

But because cases are decided by human beings and not computers, sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they're swept away by emotion, and sometimes they apply the law incorrectly. The judge can order a new trial, in such cases, or can reverse it all together in extreme cases (like Imran said).

And if the jury and the judge both get things wrong, there's the right to appeal.

It ain't a perfect system to be sure, but I haven't heard of a better one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know if you had such a case on your side of the pond, but a case in France one year ago really hit the fan. A mentally-handicapped boy was born in the early 80's, after the doctor didn't detect any abnormality. In 2002, the mother's problem was the survival of her son once she'll die of old age. Guess what she did to find money for her son ? Did she turn to welfare ? Did she turn to charity ? No, she sued the doctor who made a mistake 20 years ago, and the worst is that she won. Needless to say, as it was a precedent, all doctors were threatened to have such trials for every error with dire consequences they have made. Insurance premiums for doctors skyrocketed. Luckily, the politicians put a stop to this madness.
This woman wanted to milk millions from a doctor because of her child being handicapped. I think it is the worse case of "stupid trials" I've heard of until now.

What is wrong with that? Because of the doctor's negligence, a mentally handicapped child was born to this woman, and now she must pay more for him. The CHILD cannot win (no wrongful life), but the parents should be able to.

[Spec]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What is wrong with that? Because of the doctor's negligence, a mentally handicapped child was born to this woman, and now she must pay more for him. The CHILD cannot win (no wrongful life), but the parents should be able to.

The child was retarded anyway, the only problem is that the doctor didn't notice at birth...Even if he had known he couldn't have changed the situation, that's why it's stupid. It's not the doctors fault is the boy is retarted.

Spec.

[Flubber]

What is wrong with that? Because of the doctor's negligence, a mentally handicapped child was born to this woman, and now she must pay more for him. The CHILD cannot win (no wrongful life), but the parents should be able to.

I have always had difficulty with this type of case. Essentially a doc supposed to be held liable, not because he caused a handicap, but in circumstances where he failed to discover it in time for the parents to decide to abort?

Tough one.

[DinoDoc]

This is my favorite web site for threads like this.

[Adagio]

The worst part is:

She took 20 YEARS before she chose to sue the doctor... It's not like it comes as a big supprise 20 YEARS later...


EDIT: Crossposting... this one was to Imrans question...

[Zkribbler]

Gad, I'm more conservative than Imran on this one. In California, I've known courts to toss out cases like that because the doctor's negligence did not cause the retardation, and because parents cannot sue for wrongful life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I don't think it fair that the parents should have to pay for the increased cost of a retarded child, if they would have probably aborted a retarded child.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well I don't think it fair that the parents should have to pay for the increased cost of a retarded child, if they would have probably aborted a retarded child.

Where do you draw the line for that? If a doctor predicts a baby will be a boy & it turns out to be a girl & the average girl costs more to raise then the average boy, can they sue the doctor for that too? Furthermore, they could have just gave the baby away via adoption after it was born = a few months of compensation at best, not 18+years.

[Willem]

Originally posted by ADG

* Don't know the word... that green thing they have in Hamburgers, etc... no, not salad

Lettuce.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where do you draw the line for that? If a doctor predicts a baby will be a boy & it turns out to be a girl & the average girl costs more to raise then the average boy, can they sue the doctor for that too?

The average girl doesn't not cost significantly more than the average boy (if more at all).

People don't abort children for being the wrong gender. They do when the child is mentally retarded, though. The rule only applies to birth defects.

[DinoDoc]

The last part of Pyrodrew's post seemed to be the most importrant to disposing of the idiotic wrongful life suits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That they could have given the baby away via adoption? That's a decent argument to bad abortion too, you know?

Or do you mean a few months of compensation rather than 18 months? You are really going to put the burden on the person, who would have gotten an abortion if the kid was retarded? Why shouldn't she get the difference between raising an average child and one who is mentally retarded?

Think of it this way: You go to the doctor because you feel pain in your back. The doctor tells you it is nothing, and just put a heating pad on it. A year later it hurts so bad and you go to another doctor, who tells you that you have a tumor, and a year ago they could have removed it easily, but NOW you'll have to go to chemo and pay tons. Wouldn't it be right for you to sue the first doctor for malpractice?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Think of it this way: You go to the doctor because you feel pain in your back. The doctor tells you it is nothing, and just put a heating pad on it. A year later it hurts so bad and you go to another doctor, who tells you that you have a tumor, and a year ago they could have removed it easily, but NOW you'll have to go to chemo and pay tons. Wouldn't it be right for you to sue the first doctor for malpractice?

Interesting that you bring up that example. The exact same thing happened to me 5 years ago(but I didn't need chemo cuz it wasn't malin) and I didn't sue no one, I dont beleive in that. I could have, but I'm sure that if the doc would've saw something in the X-ray, he would've told me. You know it's not always easy to detect something without having an MRI. X rays can OR cannot detect abnormalities when it comes to bones because it's to "fuzzy". And the only reason why they found it a year later is because the tumor got bigger. It was easier to see with an X-ray. I dont consider it to be the doctors fault.
Besides, now I'm in perfect shape, why destroy somebody elses life because I got a tumor. I sure he did what he could.

Spec.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's fine that you didn't sue the other doctor, but I think that option should at least be open. I know I'd sue. The increased cost of chemo is something I simply cannot afford easily.

If a doctor commits negligence and it costs you a good amount of money, why shouldn't the doctor pay that money? What I tend to see in these debates is people sticking up for doctors. What they don't realize is how HORRIBLE plenty of doctors are: from leaving scalpels in people, to taking a tumor and using the cells for research to make a lot of money without telling the person that the tumor came from, to simply misdiagnosing a problem leading to death because the person was given something he should not have been.

Another example if my g/f. Her gyn in Jersey just did normal gyn stuff and said there was nothing wrong with her. In just her FIRST visit to a gyn down here in Georgia, it was found she has PCOS (Polycystian Ovarian Syndrome) and put her on different pills. This should have been detected YEARS ago, and would have substantially reduced the risk of her getting diabetes. It didn't really cause much damage (she doesn't have diabetes or anything), so she didn't sue, but it could have! If it did cause damage, the gyn definetly should have been liable.

[Pyrodrew]

The average girl doesn't not cost significantly more than the average boy (if more at all).

I was proposing a hypothetical question, nevertheless, I'll drop it to move on.

People don't abort children for being the wrong gender.

Right, they only do that in other countries....

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If a doctor commits negligence and it costs you a good amount of money, why shouldn't the doctor pay that money?

Again, that seems like a few months of compensation at best (when the doctor told her to birth), not 18+years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, that seems like a few months of compensation at best (when the doctor told her to birth), not 18+years.

Do you not pay for 18+ years of a child? Why shouldn't the doctor have to pay the difference between the costs of a mentally retarded children subtracting the costs of a normal child? These are costs that were unanticipated because the doctor said the child was going to be alright. If the child was not ok, the child would have been aborted. The parents expected a normal child, based on what the doctor said.

It must be at least 15 years of compensation.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Again, that seems like a few months of compensation at best (when the doctor told her to birth), not 18+years.

Do you not pay for 18+ years of a child? Why shouldn't the doctor have to pay the difference between the costs of a mentally retarded children subtracting the costs of a normal child? These are costs that were unanticipated because the doctor said the child was going to be alright. If the child was not ok, the child would have been aborted. The parents expected a normal child, based on what the doctor said.

Because she was NOT required to raise/keep that child after birth. She could have given it away upon birth via adoption.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because she was NOT required to raise/keep that child after birth. She could have given it away upon birth via adoption.

Do you realize how difficult it is for a mentally retarded child to be adopted? I'm not sure many would take such a child. They take constant supervision, and adoption clinics don't have the time to devote to that.

Furthermore, what if the child shows the signs of retardation at one year old? AFAIK, you can't give up a child for adoption when they are a certain age.

The question comes down to who will forced to pay for an error. The person MAKING the error, or the victim of the error. You are articulating the position that victim of the error should have to pay for it, even if she had nothing to do with that error.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[
Furthermore, what if the child shows the signs of retardation at one year old? AFAIK, you can't give up a child for adoption when they are a certain age.

Ok then, how should the doctor have known in that case?

[Pyrodrew]

Do you realize how difficult it is for a mentally retarded child to be adopted? I'm not sure many would take such a child.

Few (if any) adoption organizations reject children because they are deformed/retarded. After she accepts the responsibility to raise the child (be they perfect, 6toes, blind, or whatever) she has accepted the future costs as well. As for if that would make the adoption organization the victim, some of those adoption organizations would claim the baby is a "gift from God" & would be "thanking God" the baby was not aborted... hardly calling themselves victims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok then, how should the doctor have known in that case?

Um... genetic information doesn't depend on the age of child. What, did you think the doctor tells the parents if the kids are mentally retarded by looking at the ultrasound?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Ok then, how should the doctor have known in that case?

Um... genetic information doesn't depend on the age of child. What, did you think the doctor tells the parents if the kids are mentally retarded by looking at the ultrasound?

Thay was 20 years ago, you sure it was as easy as it is today? And anyway, they dont make that test if the mother is less than 40 years old and if everything seems normal, weight, size, etc....I know, I have a kid and they never made that test.


Spec.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's fine that you didn't sue the other doctor, but I think that option should at least be open. I know I'd sue. The increased cost of chemo is something I simply cannot afford easily.

If a doctor commits negligence and it costs you a good amount of money, why shouldn't the doctor pay that money?

If you had a public health care system, that wouldn't be an issue. And no I'm not making a judgemant call, just stating a fact.

Another example if my g/f. Her gyn in Jersey just did normal gyn stuff and said there was nothing wrong with her. In just her FIRST visit to a gyn down here in Georgia, it was found she has PCOS (Polycystian Ovarian Syndrome) and put her on different pills. This should have been detected YEARS ago, and would have substantially reduced the risk of her getting diabetes.

I don't know anything about the condition, but a few things to consider:

- How rare is it? There's a lot of diseases out there, and all doctors can't be expected to be up on every single one of them. That's why we have specialists.
- How difficult is it to detect or be confused with another condition? Or overlooked altogether because the diagnostic tools available aren't completely reliable?
- Have there been fairly recent developments in the ability to detect it that may not yet be common knowledge within the medical profession?

Certainly there are incompetent doctors, but they are still working within certain limitations, both human and technological. You can't just automatically expect them to be infallible.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do you realize how difficult it is for a mentally retarded child to be adopted? I'm not sure many would take such a child. They take constant supervision, and adoption clinics don't have the time to devote to that.

The thing is, she accepted the responsibilty of raising the child right from the beginning, and that includes ensuring that it was going to be provided for when she passed away. Or do you think that she suddenly woke up one morning twenty years later and thought, "Well I better start doing something about it." Why should the doctor suddenly, after all those years, be held responsible? She knew what she was getting into from early on.

Furthermore, what if the child shows the signs of retardation at one year old? AFAIK, you can't give up a child for adoption when they are a certain age.

There will always be some agency somewhere that will accept a child, normal or otherwise. Age is irrelevant.

[Spiffor]

Imran :
If I understand correctly what you say, a doctor should be sued for having made a mistake. Is every medical mistake equivalent to a negligence in your understanding ?