For forty years business leaders counted on the Christian Right to support them just as long as they made sure candidates are opposed to abortion.
In Arkansas those leaders are pissed because a major evangelical group and Arkansas Right to Life are fighting a bill the big business interests want
https://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article...um=twitter



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

Its definitely conservative to put limits on the power of institutions to take your assets. This bill limits "pain and suffering" and other intangible losses.

(08-22-2018 09:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

Its definitely conservative to put limits on the power of institutions to take your assets. This bill limits "pain and suffering" and other intangible losses.

It is not "conservative" in any sense of the word to limit a civic institution that acts arbiter of disputes and a limit on the government. Doing something pro-business does not make it "conservative". Overturning centuries of tradition is by very definition not conservative.

The limit on punitive damages takes away discretion.

It is also designed to shift private liability to the government. If a child is injured (ie. unemployed) and expected to live 50 years but require skilled nursing care, the law would only permit recovering enough to pay for 7 years of care, the family would then be on the hook unless the child reaches age 18 at which time they can shift the child to Medicaid.

It's universal healthcare! Everyone gets to pay for it.

If Wal-Mart engages in egregious behavior that results in a death and the evidence reflects that Wal-Mart officials knew of the danger and concluded that it would be cheaper to just pay off the families of people killed (ie. Ford's Pinto strategy) the jury's ability to punish would be the equivalent of taking less than two minutes of profit away from Wal-Mart. The financial equivalent of fining someone making $10 an hour 34 cents with the expectation that such punitive measure would prevent them from ever doing it again.

(08-22-2018 11:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 09:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

Its definitely conservative to put limits on the power of institutions to take your assets. This bill limits "pain and suffering" and other intangible losses.

It is not "conservative" in any sense of the word to limit a civic institution that acts arbiter of disputes and a limit on the government. Doing something pro-business does not make it "conservative". Overturning centuries of tradition is by very definition not conservative.

The limit on punitive damages takes away discretion.

It is also designed to shift private liability to the government. If a child is injured (ie. unemployed) and expected to live 50 years but require skilled nursing care, the law would only permit recovering enough to pay for 7 years of care, the family would then be on the hook unless the child reaches age 18 at which time they can shift the child to Medicaid.

It's universal healthcare! Everyone gets to pay for it.

If Wal-Mart engages in egregious behavior that results in a death and the evidence reflects that Wal-Mart officials knew of the danger and concluded that it would be cheaper to just pay off the families of people killed (ie. Ford's Pinto strategy) the jury's ability to punish would be the equivalent of taking less than two minutes of profit away from Wal-Mart. The financial equivalent of fining someone making $10 an hour 34 cents with the expectation that such punitive measure would prevent them from ever doing it again.

The article linked says there is no limit on economic damages. So what you are claiming about cost shifting contradicts that.

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

When the day came that juries started awarding "damages" in the millions because some old bag spilled coffee in her lap, THAT was when juries needed to be limited.

When society crossed the line and decided to "stick it" to corporations and business because "they can afford it" is when juries needed to be limited.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-mo...ttlements/

Maybe if people wouldn't file (and win) frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn't need tort reform.

(08-23-2018 01:39 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

When the day came that juries started awarding "damages" in the millions because some old bag spilled coffee in her lap, THAT was when juries needed to be limited.

When society crossed the line and decided to "stick it" to corporations and business because "they can afford it" is when juries needed to be limited.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-mo...ttlements/

Maybe if people wouldn't file (and win) frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn't need tort reform.

Amazes me people still buy into the coffee bull****.

Facts of the case were simple.
1. McDonalds set the temperature of the coffee higher than the manufacturer's recommendation because the McDonald's position was people want to buy crazy hot coffee and not drink it UNTIL they get to work or home.
2. Despite their assertion nobody wanted to drink McDonald's coffee while driving, their own market research revealed virtually all coffee customers did in fact drink it while driving.
3. McDonalds had numerous employees injured including some needing skin grafts from the ridiculously hot coffee and didn't give a ****.
4. Despite knowing and not caring that many people had been previously SERIOUSLY injured they rejected the plaintiff's request to pay her medical bills which had included skin grafts.
5. After the jury got the full range of evidence they logically concluded that McDonalds was well aware that they had injured numerous people and said eff em.

(08-23-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:39 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

When the day came that juries started awarding "damages" in the millions because some old bag spilled coffee in her lap, THAT was when juries needed to be limited.

When society crossed the line and decided to "stick it" to corporations and business because "they can afford it" is when juries needed to be limited.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-mo...ttlements/

Maybe if people wouldn't file (and win) frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn't need tort reform.

Amazes me people still buy into the coffee bull****.

Facts of the case were simple.
1. McDonalds set the temperature of the coffee higher than the manufacturer's recommendation because the McDonald's position was people want to buy crazy hot coffee and not drink it UNTIL they get to work or home.
2. Despite their assertion nobody wanted to drink McDonald's coffee while driving, their own market research revealed virtually all coffee customers did in fact drink it while driving.
3. McDonalds had numerous employees injured including some needing skin grafts from the ridiculously hot coffee and didn't give a ****.
4. Despite knowing and not caring that many people had been previously SERIOUSLY injured they rejected the plaintiff's request to pay her medical bills which had included skin grafts.
5. After the jury got the full range of evidence they logically concluded that McDonalds was well aware that they had injured numerous people and said eff em.

Facts or an opinion of what a "fact" really is?

The ideal temperature to brew coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees, just below boiling, so YES, coffee is HOT. If the manufacturer's recommendation was in that range, even if McDonalds brewed slightly above that, it would only be a few degrees. Since the coffee wasn't boiling, that would leave 6 degrees on the high end. HARDLY negligent.

The idea that people can be reckless and irresponsible then turn around and "sue" is ridiculous. If that lady couldn't figure out that coffee is hot, how is that McDonald's fault?

But that's just ONE example, idiotic juries award outrageous awards ever year. Juries have the duty to assign financial awards for pain & suffering, perhaps some punitive damages as well, it is NOT their place to "show em".

I've thought about it and have two ideas:

1) Loser pays, the way it is in the rest of the world. You file a frivolous lawsuit, you pay the defendant's legal charges and other costs, like time lost from work. You ave an opportunity to settle and you pass, then if you get less at trial you pay the defendant's costs. And make the loser's law firm liable. That way, lawyers would self-police a lot of frivolous lawsuits out of existence.

2) Punitive damages are necessary to punish wrongdoers and deter wrongdoing. Pain and suffering are actual damages, but punitives are where the huge money lies. And the plaintiff has done noting to deserve that windfall. As one of the most famous plaintiffs' lawyers once said to me, "No, [my client] did noting to deserve those punitives, but that company deserved to have to pay them." So let punitive damages go into a fund to provide relief to crime victims and to tort victims rose tortfeasors go bankrupt or can't or don't pay damages. And the ambulance chasers don't get a cut of punitive damages. I see several knock-on impacts. One, more cases would settle, because neither side benefits from big punitive damages, and in a settlement they can classify all as actual damages, which unclogs the legal system. Two, to the extent that cases do go to trial and do generate punitive damages, victims will have an additional source of compensation. There would have to be some sort of pecking order for the proceeds.

(08-23-2018 11:33 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:39 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

When the day came that juries started awarding "damages" in the millions because some old bag spilled coffee in her lap, THAT was when juries needed to be limited.

When society crossed the line and decided to "stick it" to corporations and business because "they can afford it" is when juries needed to be limited.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-mo...ttlements/

Maybe if people wouldn't file (and win) frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn't need tort reform.

Amazes me people still buy into the coffee bull****.

Facts of the case were simple.
1. McDonalds set the temperature of the coffee higher than the manufacturer's recommendation because the McDonald's position was people want to buy crazy hot coffee and not drink it UNTIL they get to work or home.
2. Despite their assertion nobody wanted to drink McDonald's coffee while driving, their own market research revealed virtually all coffee customers did in fact drink it while driving.
3. McDonalds had numerous employees injured including some needing skin grafts from the ridiculously hot coffee and didn't give a ****.
4. Despite knowing and not caring that many people had been previously SERIOUSLY injured they rejected the plaintiff's request to pay her medical bills which had included skin grafts.
5. After the jury got the full range of evidence they logically concluded that McDonalds was well aware that they had injured numerous people and said eff em.

Facts or an opinion of what a "fact" really is?

The ideal temperature to brew coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees, just below boiling, so YES, coffee is HOT. If the manufacturer's recommendation was in that range, even if McDonalds brewed slightly above that, it would only be a few degrees. Since the coffee wasn't boiling, that would leave 6 degrees on the high end. HARDLY negligent.

The idea that people can be reckless and irresponsible then turn around and "sue" is ridiculous. If that lady couldn't figure out that coffee is hot, how is that McDonald's fault?

But that's just ONE example, idiotic juries award outrageous awards ever year. Juries have the duty to assign financial awards for pain & suffering, perhaps some punitive damages as well, it is NOT their place to "show em".

So you are an eastern logic post-modernist that thinks facts vary by person and place rather than a western logic adherent believing facts are fixed and knowable?

Facts are things that can be established and verified and the fact is McDonalds knew that they had injured several customers and quite a few employees serving coffee at a temperature that would cause third degree burns. You almost certainly could go dump the coffee from your home maker on you and not require skin grafts.

Maybe you'd rather the government just step in regulate this.

(08-24-2018 04:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've thought about it and have two ideas:

1) Loser pays, the way it is in the rest of the world. You file a frivolous lawsuit, you pay the defendant's legal charges and other costs, like time lost from work. You ave an opportunity to settle and you pass, then if you get less at trial you pay the defendant's costs. And make the loser's law firm liable. That way, lawyers would self-police a lot of frivolous lawsuits out of existence.

2) Punitive damages are necessary to punish wrongdoers and deter wrongdoing. Pain and suffering are actual damages, but punitives are where the huge money lies. And the plaintiff has done noting to deserve that windfall. As one of the most famous plaintiffs' lawyers once said to me, "No, [my client] did noting to deserve those punitives, but that company deserved to have to pay them." So let punitive damages go into a fund to provide relief to crime victims and to tort victims rose tortfeasors go bankrupt or can't or don't pay damages. And the ambulance chasers don't get a cut of punitive damages. I see several knock-on impacts. One, more cases would settle, because neither side benefits from big punitive damages, and in a settlement they can classify all as actual damages, which unclogs the legal system. Two, to the extent that cases do go to trial and do generate punitive damages, victims will have an additional source of compensation. There would have to be some sort of pecking order for the proceeds.

I favor loser pays up to a point.
It should be tied to ability to pay. If you sue Wal-Mart and you have a legitimate claim but just fall short of convincing the jury you could easily be hit with a legal bill that exceeds your lifetime earnings. Loser pay also encourages inflation of legal fees.

Punitive have to exist. Most loser pay nations are nations that regulate far more extensively than the US. Many of the biggest lawsuits that have happened in the US would never have happened in those countries because the government would have stepped in. The McDonalds case the worker protection system would have already fined McDonalds and forced them to lower the temperature. The Apple price fixing of books would have been done by their equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission, The asbestos cases would have been handled by government and so on. The Pinto cases would have been the government. Age discrimination cases also.

We take a more libertarian approach by deferring to the citizen to enforce the issues, if punitive is removed there is little incentive to end harmful actions.

(08-24-2018 08:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I favor loser pays up to a point.
It should be tied to ability to pay. If you sue Wal-Mart and you have a legitimate claim but just fall short of convincing the jury you could easily be hit with a legal bill that exceeds your lifetime earnings. Loser pay also encourages inflation of legal fees.

That's why I say put the law firm on the hook. If part of your case evaluation has to consider the adverse costs of pursuing a frivolous suit, then the legal profession will self-police a lot of this.

Quote:Punitive have to exist. Most loser pay nations are nations that regulate far more extensively than the US. Many of the biggest lawsuits that have happened in the US would never have happened in those countries because the government would have stepped in. The McDonalds case the worker protection system would have already fined McDonalds and forced them to lower the temperature. The Apple price fixing of books would have been done by their equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission, The asbestos cases would have been handled by government and so on. The Pinto cases would have been the government. Age discrimination cases also.
We take a more libertarian approach by deferring to the citizen to enforce the issues, if punitive is removed there is little incentive to end harmful actions.

I'm not removing punitives. I'm just saying that the money should go to people who deserve it. You win a lawsuit and get stiffed on collecting the judgement, you would have a place to go. One other thing that I think would happen is that lawsuits will be filed more against truly culpable parties and less against somebody with deep pockets.

I'm fine with the libertarian approach of civil remedies instead of excessive regulation. But one thing about those other countries. Their regulatory processes are in many cases more streamlined, so there are many businesses who make the perfectly rational decision to live with more stringent regulation in order to avail themselves of a more reasonable and certain dispute resolution process.

$0.02: Both coalitions that make up both parties are being scrambled and at conflict with each other.

(08-24-2018 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 08:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I favor loser pays up to a point.
It should be tied to ability to pay. If you sue Wal-Mart and you have a legitimate claim but just fall short of convincing the jury you could easily be hit with a legal bill that exceeds your lifetime earnings. Loser pay also encourages inflation of legal fees.

That's why I say put the law firm on the hook. If part of your case evaluation has to consider the adverse costs of pursuing a frivolous suit, then the legal profession will self-police a lot of this.

Quote:Punitive have to exist. Most loser pay nations are nations that regulate far more extensively than the US. Many of the biggest lawsuits that have happened in the US would never have happened in those countries because the government would have stepped in. The McDonalds case the worker protection system would have already fined McDonalds and forced them to lower the temperature. The Apple price fixing of books would have been done by their equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission, The asbestos cases would have been handled by government and so on. The Pinto cases would have been the government. Age discrimination cases also.
We take a more libertarian approach by deferring to the citizen to enforce the issues, if punitive is removed there is little incentive to end harmful actions.

I'm not removing punitives. I'm just saying that the money should go to people who deserve it. You win a lawsuit and get stiffed on collecting the judgement, you would have a place to go. One other thing that I think would happen is that lawsuits will be filed more against truly culpable parties and less against somebody with deep pockets.

I'm fine with the libertarian approach of civil remedies instead of excessive regulation. But one thing about those other countries. Their regulatory processes are in many cases more streamlined, so there are many businesses who make the perfectly rational decision to live with more stringent regulation in order to avail themselves of a more reasonable and certain dispute resolution process.

HELLACIOUSLY ACCURATE POINT

Most EU nations "have more regulations" but they generally regulate in a way that is easier to comply with.

When I worked in environmental law had an engineer for a multi-national say that Europe had tighter discharge standards but had little concern over how you got there which often made it easier to comply.

They have two big advantages in tort cases.

In general you don't collect medical damages because you have little if any out-of-pocket for medical costs.

Because they regulate more aspects less is open to interpretation as to whether you were careless or negligent. We complied with this regulation.

(08-24-2018 08:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 11:33 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:39 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

When the day came that juries started awarding "damages" in the millions because some old bag spilled coffee in her lap, THAT was when juries needed to be limited.

When society crossed the line and decided to "stick it" to corporations and business because "they can afford it" is when juries needed to be limited.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-mo...ttlements/

Maybe if people wouldn't file (and win) frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn't need tort reform.

Amazes me people still buy into the coffee bull****.

Facts of the case were simple.
1. McDonalds set the temperature of the coffee higher than the manufacturer's recommendation because the McDonald's position was people want to buy crazy hot coffee and not drink it UNTIL they get to work or home.
2. Despite their assertion nobody wanted to drink McDonald's coffee while driving, their own market research revealed virtually all coffee customers did in fact drink it while driving.
3. McDonalds had numerous employees injured including some needing skin grafts from the ridiculously hot coffee and didn't give a ****.
4. Despite knowing and not caring that many people had been previously SERIOUSLY injured they rejected the plaintiff's request to pay her medical bills which had included skin grafts.
5. After the jury got the full range of evidence they logically concluded that McDonalds was well aware that they had injured numerous people and said eff em.

Facts or an opinion of what a "fact" really is?

The ideal temperature to brew coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees, just below boiling, so YES, coffee is HOT. If the manufacturer's recommendation was in that range, even if McDonalds brewed slightly above that, it would only be a few degrees. Since the coffee wasn't boiling, that would leave 6 degrees on the high end. HARDLY negligent.

The idea that people can be reckless and irresponsible then turn around and "sue" is ridiculous. If that lady couldn't figure out that coffee is hot, how is that McDonald's fault?

But that's just ONE example, idiotic juries award outrageous awards ever year. Juries have the duty to assign financial awards for pain & suffering, perhaps some punitive damages as well, it is NOT their place to "show em".

So you are an eastern logic post-modernist that thinks facts vary by person and place rather than a western logic adherent believing facts are fixed and knowable?

Facts are things that can be established and verified and the fact is McDonalds knew that they had injured several customers and quite a few employees serving coffee at a temperature that would cause third degree burns. You almost certainly could go dump the coffee from your home maker on you and not require skin grafts.

Maybe you'd rather the government just step in regulate this.

Logic, no matter which camp you belong to, would dictate that before one accepts facts as truth, those facts need to be examined. As we've seen in today's society, "facts" are often determined by a person's predetermined beliefs and prejudice. Facts are also prone to manipulation and misinterpretation. Numbers can be made to say what you want them to say. So yes, facts are a matter of opinion.

They say there were "several customers injured". I ask, HOW that happened, WHY that happened, and was that person "injured" because of something THEY did. The lady in question, was it McDonalds fault the coffee was hot or was it her fault for putting a beverage known to be hot in between her legs? Were the employees handling the hot coffee with the necessary attention needed for that product? Were the employees following protocols for handling that product?

That's my problem. It's difficult to ask those questions and have the answer point to the "injured" person, especially when you can "get" the rich corporation. It's the low hanging fruit theory.

Government isn't the answer, personal responsibility is.

Remember that the jury award was reduced substantially by the judge, McDonald's appealed, and during the appellate process the parties settled for a further reduced amount. And some subsequent cases on similar facts have been tried and dismissed, both here and in other countries--see McMahon v BunnMatic Corporation and Bogle v McDonalds Restaurants, Ltd.

Trial by combat.