Frivolous Law Suits

Posted on June 11, 2009 by Greenberg & Bederman

The odds are that you have never heard of a woman named Janine Sugawara. And the odds are that after a few months, her name will completely slip your mind.

But it is entirely probable that her recent lawsuit will put her in a somewhat notorious pantheon of “frivolous lawsuits,” which means that she will be given a title rather than a name by tort reform organizations. And she can expect this title to be bandied about for the rest of time.

As a bit of background, Ms. Sugawara recently filed a class action lawsuit against the Quaker Oats Company. Her gripe was that after four years of purchasing and eating Crunch Berries brand cereal, she discovered that there was no actual fruit involved.

Through the law firm that took her case, Ms. Sugawara’s intention was to collect damages not just for herself, but for everyone else who was bamboozled at the breakfast table. It should be noted the law firm that she was working with had previously filed an unsuccessful suit against the Kellogg’s corporation over the lack of actual fruit in Fruit Loops.

 

The presiding judge over the case quite rightly threw the case out of court, claiming in his statement:

“In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word "berries" it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term "crunch." This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a "crunchberry." Furthermore, the "Crunchberries" depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains "sweetened corn & oat cereal" and that the cereal is "enlarged to show texture." Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist.”

As we said before, you probably won’t remember her name, but you will certainly remember her lawsuit. Ms. Sugawara will probably be known as “The Crunch Berry Lady,” and she will be lumped in with “The McDonalds Coffee Cup Lady” and the “Million Dollar Pants Guy.” She will be offered up as Exhibit A by tort reform organizations every time they are pushing for restrictions on the rights of regular citizens to go to court. In all probability, this ridiculous case will be offered up as proof that the system is somehow “broken.”

We would argue quite the opposite. We think that had the case been allowed to continue, then maybe the tort reformers would have a point. (In which case, the makers of “grape” and “orange” flavored soda would have had to seriously rethink the titles of their beverages.) But it wasn’t allowed to continue. It was recognized as ridiculous and thrown out.

One aspect of the tort reformers beliefs that we find profoundly troubling is that they seem to believe that you somehow need to QUALIFY in order to have access to the courts. They seem to believe that the only lawsuits that are important are theirs. Lawsuits that involve injuries and illnesses and poorly manufactured and dangerous products are considered bad for business and a waste of time. And we find that very hypocritical, because insurers, HMO’s, pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of all shapes and sizes (in other words, those who fund and vocally support tort reform organizations) spend a great deal of time in court on the plaintiffs side of the judge’s bench.  Yet no one is suggesting that these lawsuits are somehow a waste of time, or “frivolous.”

Our court system is not a country club. It is not available for some and not others. It exists to make sure that ALL of our citizens have a legal venue to settle their grievances, be they rich or poor, black or white, liberal or conservative. And yes, there are lawsuits that are ridiculous, but what do the tort reformers propose? Only allowing lawsuits that involve millions of dollars? Warring CEO’s fighting over billion dollar percentage points in a merger are okay but someone breaking their leg on an unmarked wet floor is not?

Justice is blind, not wearing an Yves St. Lauren pantsuit and checking her stock portfolio. Our laws apply equally to everyone. Try to remember that before you sign a petition or vote for a ballot initiative that keeps you from getting your day in court.

To learn more about personal injury and tort reform issues, please read personal injury.  To learn more about our personal injury lawyers, Andrew Bederman, Roger Greenberg, or Jason Fernandez, please read their bios, or view our personal injury videos at Youtube.

 
Tags: , , , ,

Injury Law - Looking at McDonalds Coffee

Posted on February 3, 2009 by Paula Strand

Everyone knows that coffee’s hot: A second look at the McDonald’s coffee verdict

Common sense tells us that coffee is going to be hot. Therefore it seems hard to believe that the injured woman in the McDonald’s coffee case received an award from the jury in the million dollar range- for spilling hot coffee on herself. What were these jurors thinking? Did the lawyers in the case somehow round up a group of people unfamiliar with coffee, or unfamiliar with everyday thought processing? This seems unlikely. To understand why the lady in the McDonald’s case received such a high award requires an analysis of the case that goes beyond common sense.

Let’s start with an examination of the facts in the case that has become one of the most common examples of how current society is needlessly over-litigious. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, as it is properly known, occurred in 1994 and involved a 79-year old woman as the plaintiff, a grandmother named Stella Liebeck. Ms. Liebeck ordered coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At the time of the incident, Ms. Liebeck was not driving, but was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. While the vehicle was at a complete stop, and the coffee cup held between her legs, Ms. Liebeck attempted to remove the lid of cup. The coffee spilled on her legs causing third degree burns over 6 percent of her body. The treatment of these injuries required an eight day hospital stay, and skin grafting procedures. Ms. Liebeck was required to undergo more treatments for her injuries over the two years that followed.
 

This is a much more severe injury than one might expect from a coffee spill, and rightfully so. The reason that Ms. Liebeck was so badly burned is because McDonald’s had a policy of serving its coffee at temperatures of 180- to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature hot enough to scald human flesh. Normally, coffee is served at approximately 130- 140 degrees. In fact, liquids at temperatures of 140 degrees and above pose a danger of causing burns to the skin if spilled. McDonald’s was also aware that the coffee it was serving was dangerously hot, because they had received over 700 similar complaints in the past due to injuries from the dangerously hot beverage. Many of these claims involved third-degree burn injuries similar to those sustained by Ms. Liebeck.

In spite of her injuries Ms. Liebeck did not even want to bring her case to trial. She wanted to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However McDonald’s offered her only $800 and therefore the case went to trial. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The version of the ‘coffee case’ with which many of us are familiar insinuates that Ms. Liebeck received such a windfall from this case. But Ms. Liebeck did not make off with a fortune in spite of her injuries. The compensatory damages were reduced by 20% because the jury found that although 80% of the fault for the accident could be attributed to McDonald’s, but 20% of the fault could be attributed to Ms. Liebeck. Additionally the trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 or three times the amount of the compensatory damages. Yet, even after the case the parties entered into a secret settlement, so the public is unlikely to ever know exactly how much Ms. Liebeck received.

The actual version of this case stands in stark contrast to the popularly propagated version. Not only did Ms. Liebeck suffer serious injuries, but McDonald’s was fully aware that the temperature at which it served its coffee was scalding hot. In fact, after this case the McDonald’s at which Ms. Liebeck’s injuries occurred stopped serving coffee at such a hot temperature and now serves its coffee at about 150- 160 degrees. This case also serves as a lesson and a reminder about personal injury lawsuits. The trial judge in this case even categorized the actions of McDonald’s as reckless, callous, and willful. Although the initial premise of such a suit may seem to fly in the face of common sense, everyday people are injured under ordinary and seemingly innocent circumstances. In fact these are the circumstances under which great deals of injury cases occur. No one ever expects to be injured, and no one should have to live their life expecting the worst at any moment. If you or a family member believes that you have a personal injury case, please contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free legal consultation.
 

To learn more about our maryland personal injury lawyers, please read about Andrew Bederman, Roger Greenberg, John Sellinger, or Jason Fernandez, or contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free case review..
Tags: , , , , , ,