Did anyone blame the lawyers?

""What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?""

That is a clear sign of a problem. She used the courts to prove a point, and that's terrible.

She didn't waste time, money, and manpower because her feelings were hurt. The supposed libel directly attacked her ability to do business.

11 million seems extreme yes, but if you sold a product, and I stood with a big sign outside your shop that falsely accused you of selling poision, are you at fault for taking legal action? It's your livelihood on the line, and the opposing party is obviously and egregiously stepping "over the line".



Regardless of what you think, all am I saying is that judging this entire issue 2nd hand without in depth knowledge of all the information is being prejudicial (which isn't in itself offensive, just somewhat naive).

Using that prejudicial opinion TO THEN make a statement on these forums (which have guidelines about hateful, threatening remarks) that wishes someone who made legal action to defend their business to "get shot 10 times and then be eaten by a wolf" is inflamattory and unacceptable, regardless of what you think of the individual.

"By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, offensive, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

I'm not even really interested in defending her actions, but some statements take things way too far. If you want to debate things, do so maturely - that's all I'm saying.

Access, That was sarcasm. I figured that was obvious based on my post.

There's a big difference in the two examples, and it's not even worth detailing. The ruling in this case was outrageous.

I wish Korinthe was still around. He'd be on this in a second, I think.

Was anyone really attacking the lawyer?
Everyone has a mortgage, right?

You seem to have a particular insight here, so I'm curious at so your opinion regarding this situation, and similar cases?

Personally, I rank this suit just below the "I burned myself by putting a hot coffee between my legs while driving" and "It's McDonald's fault that I'm fat!!" ones.

In a dim and slothful majority it's all too common to see individualistic and shortsighted priorities reign supreme. This seems to be another example of just that. Sweeping sentiments aside, I sincerely hope the coverage of cases such as these are received with astoundment and disgust as opposed to the opportunistic and contemptuous greed my pessimism expects.

randomness ftw????

Sorry boys n girls, I'm still gonna try to win the Special Olympics :(

Not really, though I understood "another great reason not to respect the rediculously litigious lawyer- free-for- all gouge-the- poor hate-everyone -else-fest society we live in" to be a lawyer (as well as a societal) comment. That may have just been me though.

What's funny is a lot of people don't realize the "McDonalds made me fat" person didn't actually win. Unfortunately the coffee lady did, but common sense can't win them all, right? As for this case, there are really only two things that bother me. First, (assuming facts not directly in the article) that the woman wouldn't settle outside of litigation, and second that the jury would order such an outrageous award (what could the defendant have possibly said that was worth 11 mill?)

Actually, this is far from the first case where a blogger or forum poster has been sued for libel, it's just the first with such a ridiculous award. People have already begun to discover that they can get monetary awards for false statements made about them on websites, now they just have more reason to go after them. On the bright side, most courts probably wouldn't let such an outstanding award be entered, so hopefully this insanity will stay in Florida.

The McDonalds coffee case has probably won some kind of award for 'most misrepresented court case ever'.

Don't worry, you're winning by a long shot (pun not intended).

Could we do a group claim againts court because we are troubled that these procedures where allowed? That troubled me cause I don't belive in the system anymore.

In which way?

Was it not a case revolving around the use of the word "hot" on the coffee cup? Was the injury not sustained by placing a clearly hot (although not overtly marked) coffee between the her own (the plaintiff's) legs while driving?

Also something regarding the legal temperature of the coffee?

What am I missing?

For a really interesting account of the McDonalds coffee case, check out http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

-Random info Dayspring

The third degree burns, the prior knowledge of the McDonalds that their coffee machine was heating the coffee to much too high a degree, their attempt to stick all the negligence on an old woman...? Either those, or the attempt by large corporations to make tort reform an issue of principle.

--this is more suitable for a blawg than VSRealms. Mea culpa.
carbonbased

That really was an interesting article. Rep.