The Colonel got sued.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2072074
Printable View
The Colonel got sued.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2072074
Lawyers. The lowest scum on Earth. Yes, even lower than politicians. Always looking for the big paycheck.
New label to be affixed on each chicken order from KFC:
Warning, Chicken may be cooked with high-fat partially hydrogenated oil.
WTF do people think the chicken is fried in? Healthy hydrogenated oil!!
I say we start putting some lawyers and judges in the fvcking cooking grease :mrgreen:
I'm not sure why you are blaming the lawyer. Per the article:
"A doctor and a consumer group have sued KFC in an effort to stop the chicken chain from cooking with high-fat partially hydrogenated oil."
In all likelihood it was schemed up by the doctor and the consumer group. They then found an attorney to represent them. I doubt the lawyer went looking for them. Lawyers have difficulties turning down cases, as they can't interject their own feelings into it. If the party has a reasonable claim they deserve representation, just like the criminal deserves a defense. Then, a jury of their peers, you and I, will decide if their claim is valid.
If juries would quit finding in favor of some of these claims, they would soon stop.
Warning label now on Coffee served by McDonalds:
Caution, contents may be hot..
WTF, of course coffee will be hot! If I got served cold coffee I'd be pissed and take it back... but some dumb SOB gets HOT coffee from a drive through and spills it in her lap and sues McD's and wins! How the heck does that happen?
Lawyer to blame?? yes..
Judge to balme?? Yes, a frivolous lawsuit that belongs in the Darwin thread and never should've made it to court..
Chicken fried in "high-fat partially hydrogenated oil."
Does this even deserve to make it to a court?
No... and if not for the $$hungry lawyers getting court time from stupid judges (what shall we have in our court today? Well your honor, we have 30 alledged gang shootings, 20 alledged drug deals, 10 alledged bribes of elected officials, or one lawsuit of chicken frying with high-fat oil?)
Oh I'll take the chicken frying thing... :?:
Well the lawyers are the ones blocking the revamping of product liability laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockfan
As they should in the best interests of their clients. Juries give plaintiffs huge awards. Why shouldn't plaintiff's lawyers fight to keep that? It helps the people they represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
There is one group who could put an end to lots of this...the juries. It's not a frivolous suit if the jury finds in the plaintiff's favor. The jury determines the damages. If the juries would quite finding in favor of plaintiffs and awarding huge sums, the lawyers wouldn't take the cases and the judges would dismiss them.
The primary responsibility is with the finder of fact, the jury. You, me and our neighbors. You can't overlook the juries responsibilities in wherre things are at today.
I'm guessing shamrock is a lawyer or he's married to one.
Does that say our society as a whole is becoming less ethical? Very well could be. But then again it's always been thought that the Defendants best chances are in taking it to a jury trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockfan
I don't know if its society becoming less ethical so much as it is everyone looking for a quick, easy windfall, and juries are willing to give it to them."The company won't miss a few million dollars, and after all the poor guy will have a scar on his leg the rest of his life."Quote:
Originally Posted by GrnBay007
Everyone wants to blame the lawyers, the judges, the lack of restrictive laws on recoveries, etc., etc.. If juries would use the god-given common sense they are supposed to, much of this would end.
Find against the plaintiff with stupid claims.
Award REASONABLE sums for injuries Life has dangers. Just because a bad thing happens, it doesn't mean someone should pay.
I'm just tired of the general population blaming politicians, lawyers and judges when change is within their own power. Elect different people. Participate yourself. Be reasonable as a jurror. Be reasonable as a victim.
Its real easy to sit back and blame someone else. We each need to accept responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockfan
I don't see it that way. Juries have a tendancy to feel sorry for the little guy (plaintiff) even if he screwed up and is primarily to blame. Afterall, what's a couple million bucks to a big bad bohemoth like GE (or insert any company viewed as having deep pockets)? The constant abuse of the system needs to be addressed with legislation. The legal fees and judgements earned in liability suits are both unfair and an incredible drag on our economy. I belive we should cap awards, and make the business of getting hurt less profitable.
Unfortunately, many legislators have a pedigree that includes a law degree somewhere in their past. They seem loyal to their old cronies, and unwilling to put an end to their buddies gravy train.
But that kind of thinking by juries is wrong. I worked many years for a company that was faced with that kind of thinking by juries and the results of it. Not every company is GE, and not every company can tolerate excessive awards against them. Some of the stories our product liability attornies would tell about the things juries did just made you wonder what they were thinking about and discussing during their deliberations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
It is the jury awards that have made the business of getting injured a profitable one. However, if you cap recoveries by legislation, then you really hurt those individuals that are truly deserving of a huge award.
So how do you go about changing that kind of thinking by juries? In an ideal world, that would be the utopian solution. In this world, that kind of approach just allows these practices to continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockfan
By education, public awareness so the jury pool is more knowledgeable before they are even selected. And....with better defense lawyers who inform and educate the jury hearing the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
I think these things tend to swing out of control and then drift back to a more sensible spot over time. The AMA is working hard on that right now for medical malpractice. All you hear about is how much doctors pay for malpractice insurance. They are attempting to make sure people know that excessive jury awards impact malpractice insurance fees, which are passed on directly to the patients by higher medical charges. It is really the same for other things too. In the long run, liabilty awards are just another piece of overhead passed on to consumers.
More public education for more knowledgable juries is certainly a great start, but I don't think we'll get a handle on this until there are caps.
In the meantime, just remember when you are on a jury ... the money the plaintiff is requesting does not just fall out of the sky; it goes on the company's expense sheet, either as a direct expense or in the form of higher insurance premiums. The company will make adjustments so as to still make a profit, and you and I---the consumers---will end up paying the cost.