Stop Bad Lawsuits
 

http://www.stopbadlawsuits.com/index...ageousLawsuits

A sample:

A Long Island widow claimed that her husband’s death resulted from an injury sustained while dodging a piece of flying shrimp at the Japanese steakhouse Benihana. Both AP and the New York Times covered the trial.

The Times reported that the plaintiff’s lawyer told the jury on summation that “a flying piece of hot grilled shrimp” thrown by an irresponsible chef “set into motion an unbroken chain of interrelated events” that led to the plaintiff’s death 10 months later. Benihana’s lawyer reportedly said there was no proof that the neck injury caused plaintiff’s death, and asked the jury, “How in God’s name can this be related to Benihana?”

The man’s widow alleged he injured his neck while trying to avoid a hot shrimp playfully tossed at him by a table-side hibachi chef at Benihana, the Japanese steakhouse chain, that Colaitis’s neck injury required an operation, that an apparent infection necessitated another procedure and ten months after dodging the shrimp, he was dead of a blood-borne infection.

It took the jury just two hours to reject the claims. Some opponents of liability reform might use this as evidence that the system works, but Benihana had to pay the cost of the attorney time required to prepare for and defend a four-week trial, which was certainly in the six digits, and perhaps the seven digits, effectively punishing them for not paying protection money.

I hope this isn't going to affect my likelihood of having fun next time I go to tepinyaki.

Yes, but at the opposite end of this are corporations who measure behavior against ridiculously low fines and lapse enforcement and who are held in check only by the possibility of lawsuits.

The famous Ford Pinto example.

Now the customer was never given the choice whether to buy the modification or not. I would certainly have paid the $11. Ford had all of the information and the opportunity to correct an issue. They had already assigned a value to each human life (this is not necessarily an 'evil act'. Actuaries regularly do the same thing).

Still, decisions like this demonstrate the need for the tort system. Bad corporate behavior is constrained by the threat of bad publicity, government oversight, and threat of legal action. Not every incident will end up as a national story. Government oversight depends on the mood of the administration and the diligence and competence of government employees, who are paid the same whether they actively pursue and win cases or not. Trial lawyers are paid to represent their clients and win. They fulfill the same function for their clients as the private contractors do in Iraq do who substitute for government agents who it seems have been deemed understaffed and/or under equipped to fulfill the role.

This has been effective to the point that the business community has been arguing for tort reform, attempting to cap (and therefore weaken) this system of private remediation. If this were to occur, companies (like Ford in this example) could safely set a per-victim cap, no matter how egregious the violation. For examples we only need to look at the adulterated products coming from China. If a child had died because of poisoned toothpaste, would anyone have been happy if the award were limited by law to $200,000?