Mesothelioma
The more I think about this whole mesothelioma legal situation the more it irritates me because really it's more general than that. I don't know the merits of the mesothelioma situation. It seems to me that if corporations employing people to work with asbestos were aware of the hazards and took no action to safeguard people from exposure or they were unaware of the hazards but it was reasonable to expect they should have been, then there should be liability. On the other hand, if they were unaware of the hazards and there was no reasonable expectation that they should have been, that's a different situation. I don't know the merits of this particular situation, I am just bothered by what I see as heavy advertising for victims when there might be around 300 victims in the country during their lifetime if the statistics I've read are correct. It just seems to me they are acting like a pack of wolfs fighting over a dead animal carcass.
It's the more general situation were people sue a third party for not preventing them from doing something stupid that troubles me. I really wish I could get a million bucks every time I did something stupid. I bet the lawyers do too. I'd be financially secure for life and so would be attorneys.
The woman who dropped hot coffee in her lap and then subsequently sued McDonalds for millions of dollars, is a case in point.
One of my customers discussed this particular case with me and for a while I almost believed the lady had a legitimate position but after more thought I've changed my mind back to believing it was basically absurd.
My take, coffee is supposed to be and is expected to be hot. If someone is fumbling with hot and liquid while driving and they manage to spill it in their lap, I don't see that as a third parties fault.
Their take was that McDonalds used a process in which water heated above the boiling point under pressure, was forced through the coffee grounds in order to extract a small percentage more coffee from the grounds. Thus the water was hotter than it normally would have been.
The water may have been heated beyond boiling point while it was being forced through the grounds under pressure, but once in the pot at atmospheric pressure it could not have remained that way.
You can superheat water without any impurities and it will remain above boiling point, but as soon as any impurities are added it will boil and rapidly reduce itself to a temperature below boiling.
I've gone back to thinking that case and the award were absurd. Whether or not McDonalds saved a few cents in the making of the coffee is not relevant. I don't believe that all attorneys are evil, I believe most are genuinely good people out there trying to help people understand the complexities of the law. Like any profession there is a small percentage who are not, and their knowledge of the law allows them to manipulate the legal system far more effectively than the average person could.
Another case that irritates me involved an individual who sued a toothbrush company because of enamel abrasion claiming the firm brush they used was too stiff and abraded the enamel off their teeth.
I've used a firm toothbrush all my life. For several years after this suit they were almost impossible to find. At 48 I don't have a problem with my teeth enamel. Quite the opposite, and I use a toothpaste the is actually more abrasive than most in addition to a firm toothbrush and still I don't have a problem with my tooth enamel. Further my gums not only have not receded abnormally, but they have receded less than is normal for my age.
I'm convinced that the claim that a firm toothbrush was the cause of damaged tooth enamel was bunk. They probably sucked on candy all day and the acid had weakened their tooth enamel to the point where a cotton swab would have abraded it.
I like to go to fairs, and when I go to fairs in the United States, Puyallup or Monroe for example, the animals all have signs by them, stay back a gazillion feet, don't touch the animals.
When I go up to the Pacific Northwest Exhibition in Canada, it's very different. There the occasional animal that has a bad disposition will have a warning sign, "Warning: This horse bites", but you don't see the kind of generic liability warning signs you see everywhere here. The general attitude seems to be more along the lines of, "If you're stupid enough to feed this horse your fingers thank you for saving me some hay."
I don't know if this law is still on the books in Canada because it's been a decade or more since I was told about this, but in Canada there used to be a $1500 fine if you filed a suit and it was found to be frivolous. Here in the US you risk your $40 filing fee. The Canadian frivolous law suit fine provided some disincentive to people suing because they had a remote chance of screwing someone with deep pockets out of some money. I really think that is a good idea although I think the fine should be a bit stiffer.
Given that the majority of our lawmakers were attorneys before they went into public office, it seems that the odds of a law getting passed that might reduce the demand for their services are slim to none no matter how much it might be in the nations best interest.
It's the more general situation were people sue a third party for not preventing them from doing something stupid that troubles me. I really wish I could get a million bucks every time I did something stupid. I bet the lawyers do too. I'd be financially secure for life and so would be attorneys.
The woman who dropped hot coffee in her lap and then subsequently sued McDonalds for millions of dollars, is a case in point.
One of my customers discussed this particular case with me and for a while I almost believed the lady had a legitimate position but after more thought I've changed my mind back to believing it was basically absurd.
My take, coffee is supposed to be and is expected to be hot. If someone is fumbling with hot and liquid while driving and they manage to spill it in their lap, I don't see that as a third parties fault.
Their take was that McDonalds used a process in which water heated above the boiling point under pressure, was forced through the coffee grounds in order to extract a small percentage more coffee from the grounds. Thus the water was hotter than it normally would have been.
The water may have been heated beyond boiling point while it was being forced through the grounds under pressure, but once in the pot at atmospheric pressure it could not have remained that way.
You can superheat water without any impurities and it will remain above boiling point, but as soon as any impurities are added it will boil and rapidly reduce itself to a temperature below boiling.
I've gone back to thinking that case and the award were absurd. Whether or not McDonalds saved a few cents in the making of the coffee is not relevant. I don't believe that all attorneys are evil, I believe most are genuinely good people out there trying to help people understand the complexities of the law. Like any profession there is a small percentage who are not, and their knowledge of the law allows them to manipulate the legal system far more effectively than the average person could.
Another case that irritates me involved an individual who sued a toothbrush company because of enamel abrasion claiming the firm brush they used was too stiff and abraded the enamel off their teeth.
I've used a firm toothbrush all my life. For several years after this suit they were almost impossible to find. At 48 I don't have a problem with my teeth enamel. Quite the opposite, and I use a toothpaste the is actually more abrasive than most in addition to a firm toothbrush and still I don't have a problem with my tooth enamel. Further my gums not only have not receded abnormally, but they have receded less than is normal for my age.
I'm convinced that the claim that a firm toothbrush was the cause of damaged tooth enamel was bunk. They probably sucked on candy all day and the acid had weakened their tooth enamel to the point where a cotton swab would have abraded it.
I like to go to fairs, and when I go to fairs in the United States, Puyallup or Monroe for example, the animals all have signs by them, stay back a gazillion feet, don't touch the animals.
When I go up to the Pacific Northwest Exhibition in Canada, it's very different. There the occasional animal that has a bad disposition will have a warning sign, "Warning: This horse bites", but you don't see the kind of generic liability warning signs you see everywhere here. The general attitude seems to be more along the lines of, "If you're stupid enough to feed this horse your fingers thank you for saving me some hay."
I don't know if this law is still on the books in Canada because it's been a decade or more since I was told about this, but in Canada there used to be a $1500 fine if you filed a suit and it was found to be frivolous. Here in the US you risk your $40 filing fee. The Canadian frivolous law suit fine provided some disincentive to people suing because they had a remote chance of screwing someone with deep pockets out of some money. I really think that is a good idea although I think the fine should be a bit stiffer.
Given that the majority of our lawmakers were attorneys before they went into public office, it seems that the odds of a law getting passed that might reduce the demand for their services are slim to none no matter how much it might be in the nations best interest.
posted by Nanook at 11:39 AM
2 Comments:
Great Article! Mesothelioma is the rare form of cancer that primarily caused by exposure to asbestos. I found a website having some more detailed information about mesothelioma cancer, its symptoms and treatment options.
mesothelioma cancer
I don't doubt that it's a real problem and devastating to those affected.
What bothers me is the legal leaches looking for ways to make money off of it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home