Knifemaking and idiot-lawsuits.

[jeegeet]

Originally posted by Kkimo:
A little common sense. For those out there who bemoan the McDonald's case as the prime example of frivelous lawsuits, a little background.

1. McDonalds had been told, repeatedly that their coffee was being served too hot, and to reduce the temperature.
   [/list=a]
   Dave

1. 
   Well, right, how about some common sense Dave
   
   McDonalds had been told by WHO? And what's the damn definition of TOO HOT? I am sure McDonald's people would be more than happy to hand a cube of ice to somebody complaining their coffee was TOO HOT? And I guess they didn't force anyone to buy hot coffee neither lied it was cold.
   
   
   
   And when I buy coffee to go I want it to be HOT like hell such that it is good to drink when I get where I'm going. If my coffee gets too cold, I might go back and demand my money back saying "it was supposed to be hot".
   
   Back to knives
   
   
   Was MT, BM, Spyderco, REKAT, CRKT, CR, ..., etc. warned that their knives are DANGEROUSLY too sharp. If not, I am doing so. After that I am going to drive holding my knives open and slash myself (accidentally of course) with each piece, then seek a lawyer. Imagine how many more knives could I buy (If anyone sold them to me
   
   ) for the settlement.
   
   
   
   Everybody gotta make the living somehow.
   
   
   
   Kris

 

[Bill McWilliams]

The tort system is the basis of my income as I provide protection for persons and manufacturers.
I don't like it either. It has gotten way out of hand. The trial lawyer's lobby is among the most powerful in the nation. Accordingly, reform successes are small.
The most recent success is "contributory negligence". It works like this:
Let's assume somebody slices off their thumb and gets a $100,000 award.
Now apply the determined percentage of contributory negligence to each party. The amputee was drunk and was working in limited light. The manufacturer added a warning with the knife's paperwork.
A 60-40% contributory negligence is assigned to the plaintiff/amputee. That means he gets only 60% or $60,000 of the award.
He likely then will be responsible for his own legal fees, which could easily amount to 50% of the settlement costs as the plaintiff attorney has been really busy countering the defendant manufacturer's points on their portion of the negligence.
The bittersweet part of the contributory negligence scenario is that the plaintiff gets less money and the trial lawyers get more. The legal system is further tied up in the numerous motions necessary in these actions.The cost of product liability insurance benefitting manufacturers increases, and is appropiately passed on to the consumer.
The trial lawyers indirectly win again.
Let's assume the knife manufacturer also had a warning etched into the blade. That could reduce their portion of negligence a few percentage points, but remember the accident occured in limited light.
This whole precident began when two morons lifted their running Lawn Boy mower and attempted to trim a hedge. They both lost their hands and sued Lawn Boy. The courts determined a 90% contributory negligence award against Lawn Boy because it had no warning on their product.
The first thing we consumers saw as a result was a price increase in lawn equipment and the application or repeated warning lables all over mowers and such.
The second development was the auto kill device in the handle of mowers and edgers.
That prevents morons from picking up the running mower unless they have disabled the kill device. If they have, there's more of an argument for their part in the negligence.
The most effective means to attack the current tort system is to lobby for the ability to counter sue to recover defense costs. The award might just be eliminated and the plaintiff could incur out of pocket expenses-so could the attorney.
It wouldn't suprise me a bit to find that a knife manufacturer's product liability insurance runs 20% of their cost to produce a knife. If the manufacturer could reduce it to 10% by etching the blade and remaining competitive, they likely will.


[This message has been edited by Bill McWilliams (edited 02-09-2000).]

 

[Happy Camper]

It looks like we're all in agreement here that there is a problem. Even outside this forum, most people I talk to seem to complain about the same things.

The only room for debate seems to be where to point the finger of blame. I think it's fair to say that all who participate in initiating these lawsuits along with all who are responsible for rewarding them share in the blame. That's an awful lot of blame to go around!

While most any person in the street may think the latest junk lawsuit is an outrage, it's most probable that if next year that same person suffers some kind of injury and is entitled to a large sum of money, the tune will change as dollar signs come up where the eyeballs were.

So how DO we stop this momentum? A system is only as good as the people running it. In the end, it is the population as a whole who elects judges, who constitutes the juries, and (re)elects public officials.

It's a clear sign of the times that is reflected in our legal systems today. Personal accountability is right out the window. Starting since the 90's, individuals are no longer accountable for their own actions. It shows everywhere around you if you look at it.

Gloom and doom. We're all gonna die!

------------------
-Gregory Zolas
tinsta@hotmail.com

 

[pyrguy]

Guys
This showed up on the community forum the other day. The place is a park where you go to rock climb.

http://www.nelsonrocks.org/warning.htm
http://www.nelsonrocks.org/


Looks like a nice place to go. It's a shame they had to write such a "warning".

A few years ago if you did something stupid you hoped no one saw it. Now you hope for witnesses so you can take "them", whoever they are, to court and make them pay for your mistake because it’s "not your fault". At least that is what is being taught to the kids now adays.

I really feel sorry for the world. The tenth generation from the founding of this country was called the Gen Xers. X for the Roman Numeral 10. The eleventh generation is calling themselves GenY. Because y comes after x in the alphabet, I guess.

This is no reflection on anyone here. I have a wife and son that are both GenXers and another son who is a Y. It just goes to show how little is taught in the school system and home today especially about personal responsibility.




------------------
Dwight

It's a fine line between "a hobby" and "mental illness".

 

[mjjbecker]

Think of it as the lottery. Only the odds of winning are much better.
Opportunity is a dangerous thing, and the opportunity to get a bundle of cash can lead to violence or murder, so why not litigation. Many people have no moral restraint when it comes to serving their own interests.
We have the same situation developing in Blighty now.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Some additional thoughts;

I agree with SD Matteson in the penalty for loss concept. I believe this should include attorneys (perhaps even doubling the cost for contingency lawyers).

Yes, it would cause people to "think seriously" before suing, which they should be doing anyway. Or even try negotiationg a solution with the company in question before sueing. (Don't need a lawyer for that).

Perhaps the problem is in the attitude of "getting as much $ as I can", kinda like winning the lottery.

Perhaps the insurance companies could lower the rates everytime one of these suits are diverted (because the responsibility for the "accident" actually did fall with the claimant or a negotiation worked).

A small automobile factory in England (high performance sports cars) was not interesting in exporting cars to the USA because, "Americans are sue crazy and It's not worth the gamble".

Many of these "suits" are paid off simply because the attorney has selected a "damages amount" that they know is less than the very high cost of fighting the suit. The Insurance companies will naturally opt for the lower loss. Seems somehow corrupt.

Most of these problems are beyond our ability to change because it is in many industries. Just voicing our opinions does release steam.

However, the ability to influence this type of a problem within the knife industry may be possible with AKTI. Someone heading up a "legal committee" to research the "facts" and possible directions for solutions.

Organized "voicing of our opinions" is what AKTI is all about. And is currently the only method of organizing that "voicing of our opinions".

We can't save McDonald's, but we can make our own industry stronger.

sorry for the plug, but AKTI seems like a real direction for solution.

sal