Compensation Claims

[LitNetIsGreat]

OK, so I lost the will to live yet again yesterday (a regular occurrence whenever I come into contact with the outside world – I’m much better not leaving the house) when I heard about another ridiculous ‘compensation’ claim. This one wasn’t fresh from the Daily Mail or The Sun, but from my local supermarket which makes it much worse for some reason – maybe because I can’t pretend it is just exaggerated?

Anyway, here goes: woman goes shopping, trips over a stool and gets a cheque for thirty-four thousand pound - £34,000. That’s 34K, or $54, 536, because she tripped over a stool, in-store. Granted, I don’t know the extent of her injuries, or how much she was traumatised by the experience, but once again I simply despair of civilization.

Common sense approach:

Dosey woman trips over a stool. Give her sound advice to use the eyeballs that are sticking out in front of her face, to look where she is going. As a ‘goodwill’ gesture maybe give her a £5 giftcard and/or a bottle of wine.

‘Reality’:

A cheque for £34, 000.

Bloody crackers.

Most people can’t even smell that sort of money after they have worked most of their lives and this woman gets it for tripping over a stool. Just what is the point of anything after hearing that?

OK. So maybe you can’t really blame the individual when such a screwed up society makes it so easy to do such things. But really what’s going on? Jesus. It’s nearly as bad as the fifth horseman of the modern apocalypse; Health and Safety!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHbNunk0xVY

And all of that nonsense… Of course the lawyers are the real winners in all of this. It’s all a joke.

I must admit that I am just using Litnet as a way to let off a bit of steam here, but, |I suppose I am interested if there is anyone who actually thinks that such ‘compensation’ is genuinely a good thing. Surely not. Or maybe, perhaps more useful, how do you deal with hearing about crap like this without going insane – any practical advice?

What a screwed up society we live in.

[cafolini]

You ought to hear what goes on here in USA. It was discovered that quite a few people who made over U$S 1.000.000 filed for unemployment that same year. And these are the mongers from the GOP who want less taxes for upper income. It's a good thing we didn't let them get away with that and Obama won the election.
Compensations like the one you mention have also happened here. There are many famous ones. Pointless to be specific.

[Emil Miller]

Anyway, here goes: woman goes shopping, trips over a stool and gets a cheque for thirty-four thousand pound - £34,000. That’s 34K, or $54, 536, because she tripped over a stool, in-store. Granted, I don’t know the extent of her injuries, or how much she was traumatised by the experience, but once again I simply despair of civilization.

Common sense approach:

Dosey woman trips over a stool. Give her sound advice to use the eyeballs that are sticking out in front of her face, to look where she is going. As a ‘goodwill’ gesture maybe give her a £5 giftcard and/or a bottle of wine.



Now now Neely, you should know that common sense went out of the window long ago.

'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers': this famous Shakespearean quote gets to the heart of the matter.

As someone who has read Pro Bono Publico, you may recall that the legal profession has a great deal to answer for and this case is just another example of the system we are obliged to live under.
Commercial radio stations often have firms of lawyers advertising that ( for a slice of the takings ) they can get compensation for practically everything from being bitten by a gnat to being struck by a snowball.
In this scenario, lawyers can line their pockets with both private and public money; as indeed they do.
As Pro Bono points out, lawyers both prosecution and defence, have a vested interest in crime and also misdemeanour in which litigation plays no small part.

As an afterthought, the woman concerned in the case you mention, may have been doing the 'idiot walk' i.e. not looking where she was going, with her eyes down while pressing buttons on an Ipad or mobile phone.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yep it is utter madness. And I do remember the points made in your book.

You might as well not bother studying, working hard, seven years spent studying literature, etc, etc. I feel like telling students not to bother with any of that. Instead go and see if you can't chuck yourself off of a ladder. You'd be much better off.

Yes I can also believe it is as mad or worse in the US. I remember someone telling me a story when their son went over on holiday. They came across someone involved in an accident and tried to give them mouth to mouth, only a police officer pulled him away because if something went wrong he could have been sued. I don't know if the person lived or died. It's a ****ed up world either way.

Sorry I am not in a good mood. The infection I've had all year is back worse than ever. Doctor said I am 'just unlucky' gave me my prescription for too few antibiotics and sent me on my way. I think this and the compo story has sent me over the edge!

[OrphanPip]

I'd caution against too much criticism against the litigiousness of our society. Major industry lobbies in the US have successful limited the ability of people to sue pass certain points, thus giving themselves impunity to abuse people because the cost to them is negligible in terms of the benefits they get out of it. They actually actively promote the dissemination of "frivalous" lawsuit stories, while the vast number of legitimate ones are muzzled by plea deals. All with the purpose of making it more difficult for the average person to get justice against major conglomerates.

Often the outrageous claims we hear about in the media are more reasonable than they at first appear. For example, the famous spilled McDonald's coffee case where the woman received over a million dollars in compensation. Sounds ridiculous initially, but then if you look into the story you'd discover the woman nearly died from the severe burns, and it actually probably did contribute to her death 3 years after the fact. Moreover, the reason the damages were so high were in part because the woman had required hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care, but also because McDonalds had received over 100 complaints that their coffee was too hot and they had not done anything about it. How else do you make a multi-billion dollar company correct its ways?

[LitNetIsGreat]

But at the end of the day, there has to be some level of common (uncommon) sense that comes into play. Coffee is generally hot and it shouldn't take anything other than common sense to let it cool a little before you drink it. Nature has given us five senses that we can use to protect ourselves from harm. People simply have to use them.

The where the woman tripped over a stool is particularly annoying because it is a local case that is NOT in the papers. It came from a member of staff. This is why I can't pretend that has been exaggerated by Daily Mail or some other paper. This somehow makes it worse for me but it all crazy regardless.

[OrphanPip]

But at the end of the day, there has to be some level of common (uncommon) sense that comes into play. Coffee is generally hot and it shouldn't take anything other than common sense to let it cool a little before you drink it. Nature has given us five senses that we can use to protect ourselves from harm. People simply have to use them.

The where the woman tripped over a stool is particularly annoying because it is a local case that is NOT in the papers. It came from a member of staff. This is why I can't pretend that has been exaggerated by Daily Mail or some other paper. This somehow makes it worse for me but it all crazy regardless.

Will common sense really prevent you from never spilling coffee on yourself? Cups spill occasionally, and the result probably shouldn't be a need for a skin graft if it is possible to serve the coffee in either a better sealed container, or at a less dangerous temperature.

[Emil Miller]

I'd caution against too much criticism against the litigiousness of our society. Major industry lobbies in the US have successful limited the ability of people to sue pass certain points, thus giving themselves impunity to abuse people because the cost to them is negligible in terms of the benefits they get out of it. They actually actively promote the dissemination of "frivalous" lawsuit stories, while the vast number of legitimate ones are muzzled by plea deals. All with the purpose of making it more difficult for the average person to get justice against major conglomerates.

Often the outrageous claims we hear about in the media are more reasonable than they at first appear. For example, the famous spilled McDonald's coffee case where the woman received over a million dollars in compensation. Sounds ridiculous initially, but then if you look into the story you'd discover the woman nearly died from the severe burns, and it actually probably did contribute to her death 3 years after the fact. Moreover, the reason the damages were so high were in part because the woman had required hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care, but also because McDonalds had received over 100 complaints that their coffee was too hot and they had not done anything about it. How else do you make a multi-billion dollar company correct its ways?

Well I don't know about the US but in the UK lawyers have been cleaning up as this item from a BBC report dated 14 January 2010 shows. Reform in the area of litigation has been on the cards for some time but, as one might expect, not just yet:

Lawyers in "no win, no fee" civil cases should no longer have a "success fee" paid by the defendants, but should get a share of damages, a review has said.

Lord Justice Jackson found huge rises in civil litigation costs in England and Wales in recent years and said reforms could save people millions.

The system was not benefiting the public, with fees to lawyers sometimes more than 1,000% of damages, he said.

[Hawg Horse]

Most cases are adjudicated fairly, at least in the United States. Usually only the outlying egregious cases are reported. The outcomes of these sensational cases are almost always determined by lay juries. No doubt, there will always be unethical litigants driven by greed and similar members of the public media looking to promote themselves through sensationalism of judicial outcomes. But, if seriously injured due solely to another's gross negligence, or intentional wrong, it seems to me, most people want to retain an attorney for assistance in fairly recovering reasonable losses. Conversely, if another retained an attorney, and sued, with untrue serious accusations that, if proven, would be ruinous, most would prefer the assistance of an attorney in mounting a defense against the false charges. Perhaps lawyer fees should be more regulated, or perhaps greater penalties assessed for asserting frivolous claims. The system for most injury cases in the US would be most improved, in my opinion, if insurance adjusters would more fairly negotiate settlement of claims.