however, congress is in the business of making law, which is, if i may remind you, what congress in fact did in this case. they did not make a judicial decision, they made law. i think you have the two confused mike.

 

frivoulous (sp?) cases waste time and money

 

The famous McDonald's coffee incident is always mentioned when there's a discussion about frivolous tort activities; however, the commentators seldom really take the time to acquaint themselves with the case.

This was not a frivolous tort action.

In those days, McDonald's corporate standards called for coffee to be prepared with the water at a temperature that was absolutely dangerously high; however, any coffee drinker will tell you that the water needs to be quite hot to extract the best flavour.

In the McDonald's case, the desperately scalding hot coffee was spilled into the lap of an elderly passenger who could not react quickly enough, and she received second and third degree burns.

We forget that these cases are decided by jurors and judges who are fully empowered to use their common sense in civil tort actions, and in this case their common sense told them that McDonald's really should have known that there is no safe way to handle that kind of drink in an automobile.

Almost all restaurants that allow coffee "to go" will no longer prepare it at the high temperatures that gourmet coffee drinkers demand.

 

With a small measure of irony, I'll point out that it's the courts that will decide whether Congress should have done that.

 

If a judge or jury award in a civil tort action, then it is by definition the law that the case was not spurious.

If a court decides that a case should not have been brought, then the court has the power to react against a plaintiff that brings a spurious declaration or a frivolous tort action.

In order to preserve the liberty of the subject, in order for our free society to exist as it does in the English speaking world, the people must have free access to the courts and in many cases history has proved that it is the courts that are the final bastion of liberty.

The courts, and they alone, must decide what is and is not just and is and is not frivolous.

 

What I'm saying is really quite simple. This bill says that you can't sue a restaurant for making you fat. It controls access to the judicial system.

It is not the job of the legislature to control access to the judicial system. Courts throw cases out all the time--it is both their right and responsibility to decide what is and is not worthy of trial.

In the one case where someone has sued a restaurant for supposedly making them fat, the court decided the case was stupid and refused to hear it. Problem solved. Congress doesn't need to protect restaurants from any more similar cases since there is already precedent that if you say McDonald's made you fat then your case will be thrown out.

The real reason this bill was intruduced is because large restaurant chains face the possibility of higher insurance rates. That should be their problem, not one for congress.
Exactly...more reasons why it's not any sort of evidence that restaurants stand to lose cases in which they are sued for making people fat.

But anyway you're agreeing with me that only the courts should control access to the courts.

 

A minor miracle in and of itself.

:P

 

Hear Hear! Very well said. :thumbup: The judiciary will come to the same conclusion, no doubt.

 

this george dude is pretty damn smart :eek3:

 

Most of the world is like that too. Remeber we are special.