In the case of Common Good, the agenda being pursued can be loosely grouped under tort reform, which isn't a reform movement at all. It's a massive lobbying and PR campaign surreptitiously financed by business interests. It works to:
(1.) bring the law into disrepute;
(2.) turn public opinion against small plaintiffs by portraying them as greedheads who file groundless or frivolous lawsuits;
(3.) spread the idea that American firms are being driven out of business by runaway jury verdicts (which they aren't)(and by the way, juries tend to make smaller awards than judges do);
(4.) likewise spread the idea that American doctors are being ruined by skyrocketing malpractice premiums caused by an epidemic of outlandish malpractice awards (premiums are up, but malpractice awards aren't, and the greedheads in this instance are actually the insurance companies); and
(5.) create a climate of public opinion that will enable them to get laws and regulations permanently changed in their favor.

well. considering the blunt hostility against injured plaintiffs people generally demonstrate in various forum threads, i'd say it's working!

http://www.corpreform.com/
vs.
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stopabuse.htm

let's examine the infamous case where that stupid lady spilled hot coffee on herself and won an award of millions of dollars.

most people think the facts of the case are as follows. she bought coffee from mcdonalds. she went driving and spilled the coffee in her lap. she sued mcdonalds and won millions of dollars. what the FUCK?

here are the ACTUAL facts, that the sensationalist media never reports. stella liebeck is a 79 year old grandmother. she bought coffee from mcdonalds. she went driving with her son and the coffee spilled on her lap, causing third degree burns. she won millions of dollars. what the fuck?

but wait, it doesn't end there. mcdonalds serves its coffee at 190 degrees F. mcdonalds admitted during trial that coffee at 190 degrees is "unfit for human consumption." and it causes third degree burns within 2-7 seconds of contact with skin. well jesus christ, it's a miracle nobody else was burned by this shit! well actually, after discovery, it was revealed that about 700 people had previously been burned by the coffee, in addition to the plaintiff. not only that, but mcdonalds was making $1.3 million dollars in profits PER DAY, selling coffee that they admitted was "unfit for human consumption."

what was needed to make the coffee safe for consumption? to lower the temperature 158 degrees, instead of heating it to 190 degrees. this is a very simple step that costs mcdonalds nothing. mcdonalds simply never bothered to take that step, even though it knew the sale of its coffee could easily (and indeed, had) cause third degree burns in the present and in the past. at 158 degrees, it would take close to 60 seconds of exposure to cause the same amount of burn damage.

finally, the jury awarded the plaintiff 2.6 million dollars in damages. the news stories usually end with that note. they fail to mention that the judge lowered the amount to $500,000. stella, being gracious in victory, actually settled with mcdonalds for less money. her only goal was making their coffee safe.

and for that, the plaintiff was demonized as a crazy negligent lady who happened to win a frivolous lawsuit. so there you have it. it took a multmillion dollar jury verdict to get mcdonalds to change the temperature of their coffee to make it fit for human consumption. and the lady who did it all didn't even bank on it. the end.

I have to agree with your opinion but McDonalds researched the consumption of their coffee and found that most people don't immediately consume it so they overheat it to adjust for the ride to work.

i didn't think anyone was going to reply! haha.

it does make their behavior a little less irresponsible. but not excusable.

i just wanted to get this idea out there, because it's really a victory for the legal system when there is a influx of litigation. it shows us people do have access to the system, and they are using it actively to solve disputes.

COsborne, the defense lawyers got people from McDonalds to admit that they knew their coffee was being served 20 degrees hotter than anyone else's coffee, and that they knew it was dangerous, and they weren't going to do anyone about it.

I've seen this set of facts before. Her burns were to her inner thighs, groin, and buttocks. They were so bad she had to have skin grafts, and she spent a week in the ICU. Interesting portrayal by the media.

This just proves you shouldnt drink and drive with anything unless you want skin graphs

so she gets her medical bills paid, plus a bit for her pain and suffering.

In Canada, she'd have got $50,000 P&S, plus legal fees. She may also qualify for disability benefits from the Provincial Government to compensate her for lost earnings. Her medical bills would already be covered under the National Health Care Act, and McDonalds would have paid punitive damages to the government as punishment and disincentive to repeat the offence.

So lawyers would have been paid appropriate fees not based on the size of the final 'award', but by billable hours; she'd have been 'made whole' as per medical treatment and some 'too bad life sucks' money, and McDonalds would shell out a couple of million bucks as penalty.

And odds are it wouldn't be trial by jury, but lawyers arguing before an appointed judge (Judges aren't elected north of the border; they're promoted based on knowledge of the law)

Because there isn't the same win-the-lottery incentive under this system for ambulence chasers, nor the dog-and-pony show to bamboozle a jury who may misunderstand who is culpable, and how so, under the law, insurance premiums are far lower in several industries