Question re: tort "reform:" Why is it the same people who think juries are so gullible and stupid

[Empowerer]

that they cannot properly assess the merits of a medical malpractice claim, but are so carried away by emotion that they can't keep themselves from finding liability in "frivolous' cases and imposing "outrageous" damages awards, also believe that juries are perfectly rational, fair,. measured and virtually infallible when it comes sentencing people to death in capital murder cases?

Just wondering . . .

[depakid]

1. Because like around 2/3's of Americans, they lack overriding prinicples

and have lost the ability to reason morally and ethically beyond the conventional level at best.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Because they think that woman got $20m for the hot coffee from McDonald's.

McDonalds had gotten thousands of complaints about the temperature of the coffee and ignored them.

The jury struck down her award to $20K, I think.

[Empowerer]

3. They act like jury's alone in the courtroom with the plaintiff's atty w/no defense atty or judge

What they fail to mention is that a case has to go through many traps long before it gets to a jury. If it has no merit, the judge can throw it out before it ever goes to trial.

And if it makes it to trial, the doctor is fully represented - usually by a higher priced lawyer than the plaintiff - and has every opportunity to counter every claim made by the plaintiff.

And even then, after closing arguments, before deliberations, the judge can toss the case out or direct a verdict

If.a jury finds for the plaintiff, the judge can STILL toss out the case or reduce the damages.

So, by the time a judgment is entered in a malpractice case, the case has been vetted pretty thoroughly - and if, after all that, a jury finds liability and renders a large award, you can bet that it's because it is fully warranted.

Yet, whenever a large award is rendered for a plaintiff, we have to put up with screams of "frivolous lawsuit!!!" When they know good and well that frivolous lawsuits rarely ever make it to trial, much less to verdict.

[tabbycat31]

4. there's a lot more to the McD's case than most think

I studied it in a class, and the reason the coffee was so hot was that McD's was able to serve day-old coffee by serving it hotter so that the customers did not know the difference.

[Empowerer]

5. And, despite being put on notice of the danger many times,

they continued serving their coffee so scalding hot that this poor woman ended up with painful and debilitating 3rd degree burns.

[jberryhill]

6. Also aware of the details....

And that case is a classic example of how PI and malpractice suits are exaggerated or distorted by those with an agenda to exaggerate or distort them.

What happened to that woman was awful, and even after the multiple skin grafts, the only thing she wanted from McDonald's was medical reimbursement.

The temperature was above safe human handling, let alone consumption. Part of the reason was to limit free-refills, since in-store customers had to wait so long for it to cool down to a consumable temperature.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Yes, it was too hot and they'd had a LOT of complaints. And ignored them. nt