Consumers strike back.

[email protected] (Chris=A0Cowles) wrote:
> Most of the weirdo stuff like the example you
> cite below are exaggerated for political
> reasons. In reality, they represent a very
> small portion of liability dollars being paid,
> most of which are reasonable and valid.

I agree, but it is lawsuits like the ones I stated that get a lot of
press, and really bring us down as looking like lawsuit hungry idiots.


Eric

---

› See More: Consumers strike back.

"Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] (Røbert M.)
> Sorry, I disagree 100%. The ones that are
> truly ridiculous get thrown out of court; the
> ones that are played up as ridiculous, often
> are quite good.

<What do you think about the lawsuits where a burgular sues a homeowner
because he was injured on the property of the house he was breaking
into? Or the people who are suing McDonald's and other fast food chains
for making them fat? I know there are several instances where the
burgular won his case, often winning thousands of dollars from the
people he was trying to rob... that is pretty ridiculous, and that
wasn't thrown out of court don't you agree? >


I would agree with you. And it does other things- it clogs up the court
system, costs the taxpayers and delays those cases that truly deserve being
heard.


<But back to the topic at hand... I think that if coverage is promised,
or was once strong, and then drops off... I don't know if that is proper
basis for a lawsuit... it could be. It is certainly proper basis to get
out of your contract without penalty. I just think too many of these
cases will hurt the cellular industry rather than help it.>


I don't think they'll hurt the industry, unless the courts make rulings that
they have no right making. In this case, one of the points is that ATTW
grew too quickly. How can a court determine this?

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Eric) wrote:
>
> > (Røbert M.) wrote:
> > > How about every other burger has no meat in
> > > it, and McDonalds shrugs its shoulders, and
> > > said
> > > "Well you came at a busy time of day, but you
> > > still pay regardless of whether you got meat".
> > > Thats what cellular carriers are doing when
> > > service is oversold.
> >
> > Yeah you're right, but I wasn't using my McDonald's comment as a real
> > analogy. I was just stating that there are so many lawsuits going
> > around... and they are getting more and more ridiculous.
>
> Sorry, I disagree 100%. The ones that are truly ridiculous get thrown
> out of court; the ones that are played up as ridiculous, (i.e. the lady
> that got a big settlement cause she spilled McDonalds' coffee on herself
> omit crucial information - That McDonalds and only that McDonalds
> insisting on selling 190 degree coffee, when EVERY other McDonalds sold
> 170 degree coffee, and then McDonalds refused to even cover her medical
> bills, and their expert witness was awful; and her settlement got
> reduced on appeal) often are quite good.

And I would expect you to have this philosophy, Phil (no slam intended).
You have made it quite clear in many of your posts (both here and
non-cellular groups) that you are quite comfortable living in an entitlement
society, where the government is expected to handle everything painful. The
lawsuit you have brought up was our system gone amok- the settlement had no
direct bearing on the issues at hand. If it had been based in legailty, it
would have been limited to medical costs, legal costs and a small penalty.
And because of this decsion, the courts have been transformed into a
government sponsored version of "Wheel of Fortune".

>
> Our legal system makes businesses keep their promises (real and
> implied), and is part of what makes America GREAT.

No- that is what what makes the European system what it is. What makes
America great is the ability of the common person to affect change, not
through government, but through their own actions. You don't like a
company- don't do business with them.

>
> Those that want to play up rare excess of our legal system should go to:
>
> http://www.overlawyered.com

No need to go there- we have examples the the one in your original post
that make their way to the newspapers every day.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Eric) wrote:

> [email protected] (Røbert*M.)
> > Sorry, I disagree 100%. The ones that are
> > truly ridiculous get thrown out of court; the
> > ones that are played up as ridiculous, often
> > are quite good.
>
> What do you think about the lawsuits where a burgular sues a homeowner
> because he was injured on the property of the house he was breaking
> into? Or the people who are suing McDonald's and other fast food chains
> for making them fat? I know there are several instances where the
> burgular won his case, often winning thousands of dollars from the
> people he was trying to rob... that is pretty ridiculous, and that
> wasn't thrown out of court don't you agree?

I have no opinion because the sensationalist headlines never give one
sufficient information to make a decision.

Its one thing for McDonalds to say its your fault for eating what you
did, its another when they ask you three times: "Would you like to
SuperSize that?" And then the CEO of McDonalds just died of a Heart
Attack.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/ente...uper_size.html


Lawsuits are not determined by what might superficially seem like common
sense, they are decided by the law, both common law, and State and local
law and precedents.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Eric) wrote:

> [email protected] (Chris*Cowles) wrote:
> > Most of the weirdo stuff like the example you
> > cite below are exaggerated for political
> > reasons. In reality, they represent a very
> > small portion of liability dollars being paid,
> > most of which are reasonable and valid.
>
> I agree, but it is lawsuits like the ones I stated that get a lot of
> press, and really bring us down as looking like lawsuit hungry idiots.
>
>
> Eric

Exactly thats why the corporations that want to go their own way without
fear of being sued play them up like that.

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Eric) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Røbert M.)
> > > Sorry, I disagree 100%. The ones that are
> > > truly ridiculous get thrown out of court; the
> > > ones that are played up as ridiculous, often
> > > are quite good.
> >
> > What do you think about the lawsuits where a burgular sues a homeowner
> > because he was injured on the property of the house he was breaking
> > into? Or the people who are suing McDonald's and other fast food chains
> > for making them fat? I know there are several instances where the
> > burgular won his case, often winning thousands of dollars from the
> > people he was trying to rob... that is pretty ridiculous, and that
> > wasn't thrown out of court don't you agree?
>
> I have no opinion because the sensationalist headlines never give one
> sufficient information to make a decision.
>
> Its one thing for McDonalds to say its your fault for eating what you
> did, its another when they ask you three times: "Would you like to
> SuperSize that?" And then the CEO of McDonalds just died of a Heart
> Attack.

So, you are saying that in the above case, the courts are in place for those
who or too weak or too stupid to turn down the Super Size? How does their
asking if you want a larger portion relinquish you r responsibility in
eating healthy?

>
> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/ente...uper_size.html
>
>
> Lawsuits are not determined by what might superficially seem like common
> sense, they are decided by the law, both common law, and State and local
> law and precedents.

Not any more- lawsuits are now being used to give the Judicial branch the
ability to circumvent the legislative branch and set public policy through
their rulings.

"R?bert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have no opinion because the sensationalist headlines never give one
> sufficient information to make a decision.
>
> Its one thing for McDonalds to say its your fault for eating what you
> did, its another when they ask you three times: "Would you like to
> SuperSize that?"

Only if you're extremely weak-willed. After the first two times I was
asked, if I was asked again, I'd be saying "no" and getting rather irritated,
to the point that I'd probably just tell them to cancel the order. Then I'd
just walk out the door.

Come on. How hard is it to say "no" three times?

Again, why am I not surprised that your philosophy is "it's someone else's
fault"?

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Our legal system makes businesses keep their promises (real and
> > implied), and is part of what makes America GREAT.
>
> No- that is what what makes the European system what it is. What makes
> America great is the ability of the common person to affect change, not
> through government, but through their own actions. You don't like a
> company- don't do business with them.
>
> >
> > Those that want to play up rare excess of our legal system should go to:
> >
> > http://www.overlawyered.com
>
> No need to go there- we have examples the the one in your original post
> that make their way to the newspapers every day.


Indeed. One prime example is the vicarious liability laws in New York that
hold car owners responsible for what their drivers do. Specifically, they
hold auto makers liable for injury and damages caused by by someone who
leases a vehicle from them and gets into an accident. These laws were
intended, back in the early days of automobiles, to hold livery owners
responsbile for damages caused by usually pauper drivers. The end result is
that now most auto makers refuse to offer leasing in New York. Those that
still do usually charge additional fees to offset some of their liablility.
The auto makers obviously want these laws changed, but the trial lawyers
just scream and whale that they are trying to avoid their responsibilities.
Excuse me? What responsibility does an auto manufacturer have for the bad
driving of a lessee. The lawyers just want deeper pockets to pick. They
act like it's all free money for the taking from the big, evil corporations.
But, in the end, it's just the consumer that pays the price. So it goes for
this lawsuit as well. Where does the money come from in the end? From the
people paying the subscription fees, that's where. No one benefits from
this kind of crap except the lawyers. What we need is a loser-pays rule.
This era of suing anyone and everyone with the hopes of extorting money and
with nothing to lose, is ruining our society, raising the cost of doing
business, just because some greedy slime balls are looking for a jackpot at
everyone else's expense. Yes, there are legitimate lawsuits, and people
should have the right to bring them. But, there should also be a risk
involved to the plaintiff to deter them from bringing forward junk like
this. This is how other civilized nations handle it...it should be the same
here. I'm sick of this free-for-all.

"D Duddles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
>
> Indeed. One prime example is the vicarious liability laws in New York
that
> hold car owners responsible for what their drivers do. Specifically, they
> hold auto makers liable for injury and damages caused by by someone who
> leases a vehicle from them and gets into an accident. These laws were
> intended, back in the early days of automobiles, to hold livery owners
> responsbile for damages caused by usually pauper drivers. The end result
is
> that now most auto makers refuse to offer leasing in New York. Those that
> still do usually charge additional fees to offset some of their
liablility.
> The auto makers obviously want these laws changed, but the trial lawyers
> just scream and whale that they are trying to avoid their
responsibilities.
> Excuse me? What responsibility does an auto manufacturer have for the bad
> driving of a lessee. The lawyers just want deeper pockets to pick. They
> act like it's all free money for the taking from the big, evil
corporations.
> But, in the end, it's just the consumer that pays the price. So it goes
for
> this lawsuit as well. Where does the money come from in the end? From
the
> people paying the subscription fees, that's where. No one benefits from
> this kind of crap except the lawyers. What we need is a loser-pays rule.
> This era of suing anyone and everyone with the hopes of extorting money
and
> with nothing to lose, is ruining our society, raising the cost of doing
> business, just because some greedy slime balls are looking for a jackpot
at
> everyone else's expense. Yes, there are legitimate lawsuits, and people
> should have the right to bring them. But, there should also be a risk
> involved to the plaintiff to deter them from bringing forward junk like
> this. This is how other civilized nations handle it...it should be the
same
> here. I'm sick of this free-for-all.
>
>

Amen- great post.

In article <[email protected]>,
"D Duddles" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Indeed. One prime example is the vicarious liability laws in New York that
> hold car owners responsible for what their drivers do. Specifically, they
> hold auto makers liable for injury and damages caused by by someone who
> leases a vehicle from them and gets into an accident. These laws were
> intended, back in the early days of automobiles, to hold livery owners
> responsbile for damages caused by usually pauper drivers. The end result is
> that now most auto makers refuse to offer leasing in New York. Those that
> still do usually charge additional fees to offset some of their liablility.
> The auto makers obviously want these laws changed, but the trial lawyers
> just scream and whale that they are trying to avoid their responsibilities.
> Excuse me? What responsibility does an auto manufacturer have for the bad
> driving of a lessee. The lawyers just want deeper pockets to pick. They
> act like it's all free money for the taking from the big, evil corporations.
> But, in the end, it's just the consumer that pays the price. So it goes for
> this lawsuit as well. Where does the money come from in the end? From the
> people paying the subscription fees, that's where. No one benefits from
> this kind of crap except the lawyers. What we need is a loser-pays rule.
> This era of suing anyone and everyone with the hopes of extorting money and
> with nothing to lose, is ruining our society, raising the cost of doing
> business, just because some greedy slime balls are looking for a jackpot at
> everyone else's expense. Yes, there are legitimate lawsuits, and people
> should have the right to bring them. But, there should also be a risk
> involved to the plaintiff to deter them from bringing forward junk like
> this. This is how other civilized nations handle it...it should be the same
> here. I'm sick of this free-for-all.

Many states have adopted "No-Fault" laws.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insu.../fs000160.php3

At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas
tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to
change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective
vehicles.

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Many states have adopted "No-Fault" laws.
>
> http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insu.../fs000160.php3
>
> At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas
> tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to
> change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective
> vehicles.

Oh yes, that's it! They live to kill people. That's just the kind of
rubbish that I would expect from you, based on your earlier posts, I guess.
The infamous 'exploding gas tanks' argument. Puh-lease! I do remember
Dateline NBC having to grovel on the air about how they purposely
mis-installed the wrong gas cap on their "test" vehicle, repeatedly rammed
it with another vehicle, and (just for good measure) installed a burning
model rocket engine under the gas tank to make sure that things would light
up. You're one of those people that expects everything to be infinitely
safe, yet naively expect it not to cost you anything. It only follows that
you think that all these lawsuits don't cost anyone anything either. After
all, it's "just the insurance company" that ends up paying? So, who cares
if we screw those evil bastards, right? Oh wait, I forgot....we all pay
insurance premiums, don't we? Oh, oh, I know....companies should do
business not to make money, but out of a sense of charity. Is that it? By
the way, do you have a "Nader for President" bumper sticker on the back of
your "rolling deathtrap" .... er...I mean....car?

"D Duddles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What we need is a loser-pays rule.... Yes, there are legitimate lawsuits,
and people
> should have the right to bring them. But, there should also be a risk
> involved to the plaintiff to deter them from bringing forward junk like
> this. This is how other civilized nations handle it...it should be the
same
> here.

The effect of that would be that the risk of loss to poorly funded
individuals would dramatically outweigh the potential benefits of winning
against a well-funded corporation. That would be true even if their claim
was valid. Corporations could simply flex their legal muscle and scare off
any potential lawsuit except the most flagrantly egregious ones. For
unethical companies, the decision to comply or not to comply with civil law
then becomes a simple finance decision weighted toward non-compliance.

I do not personally support the type of lawsuits you complain about, but do
believe they are a very small minority of cases in a system that otherwise
works well. Revising the system in a manner aimed to squelch those few
exceptions would result in the system providing dramatic unfair advantages
to well-funded corporations.

In article <[email protected]>,
"D Duddles" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Many states have adopted "No-Fault" laws.
> >
> > http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insu.../fs000160.php3
> >
> > At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas
> > tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to
> > change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective
> > vehicles.
>
> Oh yes, that's it! They live to kill people. That's just the kind of
> rubbish that I would expect from you, based on your earlier posts, I guess.
> The infamous 'exploding gas tanks' argument. Puh-lease!

Ford continuing to use Firestone tires after knowing about its problems
is hardly rubbish, as the families of those killed in accidents caused
by those tires can attest.

In article <rmarkoff-8C7B02.05254801062004
@news03.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
> At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas=
=20
> tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to=20
> change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective=20
> vehicles.
>=20

You just wound up proving the opposite of your intended point, I=20
think.

Exploding gas tanks? That hysteria was launched by falsified tests=20
that cost ABC News several million dollars.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Many states have adopted "No-Fault" laws.
>

And some states have repealed them, as it dramatically inflated insurance
premiums. Once repealed, premiums dropped by as much as 30%.