#Personal-Injury-Tort

[lawbyrhys]

The Crazy Shit My Non-Law Friends Say #2

I was speaking with a friend in the medical field about topics we learned during our respective educations and how we don't always utilize all the generalized information to the fullest extent in our specialized work. In an effort to relate to me in conversation while having no substantive understanding of law, he said the following:

"It’s like telling a malpractice lawyer to recite tort law."

Let's take a moment to appreciate the hilarity.

I replied with, "I'd sure hope a malpractice lawyer would be able to recite tort law since malpractice, aka professional negligence, is a tort." Of course, a chuckle was uttered in there, too. Any lawyers who deal with civil casework have to have a thorough understanding of tort law. Our personal injury friends continue to be the butt of the joke; I'll always defend you, though!

To my friends in the medical profession: Please make sure your understanding of the law and your legal duty of care responsibilities are in order. Otherwise, you may face malpractice, or negligence, suits, as well as come into your own harm if you don't know your legal right to refuse unsafe working conditions. Stay smart and safe!

[injuryclaimsca]

Mass Torts and Personal Injury Lawsuits

Looking to join a mass tort or personal injury lawsuit find lawsuits and see if you qualify to speak to a class action lawyer today.

[frannziska]

well i was really hoping to have govt programs pay off lawsch debt but i really think with the ever worsening political climate that these programs will likely get slashed

meaning i will probably have to work at some soul sucking firm for 1-2 years to pay it off before i can even think abt civil rights work 🧎🏽

[wallacemilleril]

Wallace Miller

150 N Upper Wacker Dr # 1100 Chicago IL 60604 United States (312) 261-6193 https://www.wallacemiller.com/ wmadmin@wallacemiller.com

Wallace Miller is a plaintiffs’ complex-litigation law firm focusing on protecting people in virtually all aspects of their lives. Our passionate attorneys have dedicated their careers to pursuing challenging cases and fighting on behalf of consumers, individuals, and small businesses.

[vmures]

There are a lot of takes that will talk about "frivolous" personal injury lawsuits, but one thing I learned while working as an associate at a small firm that did quite a bit of personal injury claims, all on plaintiff's side, is that it is actually very hard to find attorneys who would actually file an actual frivolous claim.

Most personal injury cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, which means that the attorney gets roughly one-third to one-quarter of the settlement amount (it depends on the fee agreement you have with your attorney) plus the expenses of the case (costs that many firms will advance). Lawsuits are not cheap, even if you aren't looking at hourly billing and personal injury cases can take up a lot of time. Time that is not being billed hourly. So attorneys have to make a cost-benefit-risk analysis on every case they handle. They have to consider what the weaknesses of the case are, how likely the case will succeed if it goes to trial, how much work it will entail to get a successful outcome (work that must factor in the entire discovery process which includes preparing and responding to interrogatories, requests for documents, and depositions of key witnesses and experts), whether experts will be required (another very costly thing and one that is usually required).

Now factor in the fact that the client/plaintiff must be willing to follow through on the litigation process--a process that can take years (we had one case that ultimately took nearly a decade because of various appeals). It is also a very invasive process, one that will ask you to relive one of the worst days of your life and its aftermath over and over for years.

Personal injury law is often feast or famine since it's based on contingent fees (meaning you don't get paid until the case settles or is tried and the jury finds in your favor). All of this means that taking a bad case can cost you and your firm a lot if you aren't careful.

In short, my experiences in this field have taught me that television and news media have given us a very skewed view of the litigation system and very few cases are ever truly frivolous and most of the ones cited as being examples of frivolous tort cases (tort being the term used for civil claims of liability rather than criminal claims) have facts that are truly horrific and appalling when you dig into them.

So whenever someone spins a lawsuit as obviously one thing or another, don't take it at face value. Dig into the case. Learn what the actual facts of the matter are. Chances are you will find it isn't as clear cut as you thought from the headline/sound-bite.

[carriesthewind]

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit…oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s…that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[ehlihr]

ace attorney lawyer specialties if they werent in criminal law

phoenix - tort personal injury, plaintiff leaning

edgeworth - law of obligations. civil law

mia - also tort personal injury prolly, maybe family law

apollo - boutique family law or labour law

athena - IP since she has the science bg

kristoph - tort negligence / personal injury, large corp defense. mergers and acquisitions. real estate. tax. something lip curling. def an in house for a big corp whatever it is

klavier - international business ? maybe ? or IP? open to suggestions here idk — edit: IP law / entertainment law was such an easy grab idk why i didnt think of it before

Godot - tax law

franziska - definitely interntional business

sebastian - law student. doesnt really know what he wants to do rn

blackquill - tax law

[littlexlioness]

Lucanis’s Head Cannons:

- This man loves the opera ( Not so much musicals, but the proper opera. Will try to take you to a show entirely in Antivan – forgetting you don’t speak a word of in and has to translate the entire thing for you. It ends up being a very cute date, as a whisper tibits bout characters and the plot to you quietly throughout the show)

- This man thinks flavored coffee is the devils work ( don’t look at me, I LOVE my Carmel macchiato flavored coffee as much as the next person – but this man is a purist who would gag at the idea of his lovely beans being covered with a fake ass flavoring to make them palatable)

- Can sew quite well ( you can’t convince me this man hasn’t tended to enough of his own injuries that he’s become very well versed with a needles and thread. Maybe he’ll even make something for Rook. The stitched would be perfectly spaced and stick straight but the fitting of any garment would probably be a mess. He should probably just stick to skin)

- He wears cheaters to read (obviously his far sight has to be 20/20 but there’s something I just love about the idea of him curled up with a cup of coffee, a pair of readers, and trashy romance novel.)

- Boxed wine is an affront to all wine ( I have a feeling if Rook brought this home, mostly to get a rise out of him, he would refuse to try it. Poor little rich boy, only drinking from crystal glasses and premium vintages. While Rook drinks box wine out of a coffee cup and thinks it’s heavenly)

- His love of reading came from not being able to sleep ( He liked to read before the Ossuary, but once Spite came into the picture he started reading more as a means to keep his mind busy, and to have something to focus on late at night when everyone else is already asleep. It definitely does not help with all his pinning after Rook – but he does get a few good ideas.)

- The tort idea absolutely came from one of his romance novels ( He absolutely read about it in a hurt/comfort romance about a jaded baker who doesn’t believe in love and the sunshine regular who adores his cooking)

- Asking Emmerich for the tort recipe was one of his top ten most embarrassing moments, especially when Emmerich mentions just how much Rook loves hazelnut ( right behind crying during his first day of training as a crow, giving that knife to Viago but to be fore scorned and the time the first talon caught him and Illario playing make believe wyverns as children when they were supposed to be studying)

- He taught Spite how to speak Antivan while in the Ossuary ( he had nothing better to do, and it kept his mind busy and present during some of Zara more difficult experiences)

- Lucanis loves and hates Mage!Rook being able to hear Spite. It helps that he’s not the only one who can hear the demon, but it’s awkward when creature forgets about decorum and saying something a little too honest or blunt. Especially if they’re trying to be romantic

- As much as he wants cooking with you to be a romantic experience, he can’t stand having another person in the kitchen when he’s cooking. There’s too many moving parts, and Rook always seems to be right where to he needs to be when a time goes off, or something needs to be done.

- This man has a sweet tooth, he used to sneak into the kitchens to learn how to cook (eat churros) you can’t convince me that he doesn’t have a secret stash of chocolate that he’ll break into for Rook after a hard fight or just a bad day.

- Loves to dance. This is non-negotiable, there is no way this man can’t dance. There’s no way Caterina raises this man and didn’t teach him every appropriate step in both ballroom dancing and modern dancing like salsa and tango. I’d be after coffee, and wine – his favorite date to take you on is dancing. ( brownie points to using Spite’s wings to do an impressively ridiculous lift too)

[attorney-anon]

I twitch every time someone mentions the "hot coffee" lawsuit to me as an example of frivilous lawsuits because Stella Liebeck deserves better. I had this out with an actual PI paintiffs' attorney one time, this suit is one of only a handful from my 1L torts class that genuinely activated my sense of justice.

Buckle in, because I need y'all to know Stella's story.

To clear up a common misconception, Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled. She was in the passenger seat of a parked car that lacked cup holders, so she was holding the drink in her lap while she added cream and sugar. The spill (and subsequent burns) came from her attempting to lift the lid of the coffee to do this. The coffee that hit her lap was a minimum of 180 degrees Fahrenheit. For Celsius folks who don't know the conversion, water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Her cotton pants absorbed the hot coffee, leaving it against her skin instead of it running off.

Stella went into shock and suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her skin. She needed skin grafts, and remained partially disabled from her injuries for two years. She incurred $10,500 in medical expenses by the time she began pre-litigation negotiations with McDonald's, and expected to incur $2,500 more. Her daughter, who left her work to care for her for three weeks during her recovery, lost $5,000 in wages. Liebeck asked McDonald's for $20,000 to cover the expenses - McDonald's offered eight hundred dollars and would not budge.

After Liebeck filed suit, McDonald's rejected settlement offers for $90,000; $300,000; and $225,000.

At trial, Liebeck's attorneys raised that most other establishments in that area served coffee nearly 40 degrees Fahrenheit cooler - at just 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Every establishment they had tested had served their coffee at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. They also produced evidence that coffee at 190 degrees Fahrenheit can produce third-degree burns in just three seconds. At 180 degrees Fahrenheit, that time is still only about twelve seconds. But, at the lower temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit, a burn victim has twenty seconds to remove the coffee before suffering third-degree burns.

McDonald's claimed the high temperature was so that commuters could drive to their destination before consuming their (now-cooled) coffee; however, McDonald's own consumer research demonstrated that the majority of customers consumed their coffee in their car, on the way to their destination. Prior to Stella's injuries, McDonald's had received more than 700 burn reports in a ten-year period, of varying severity. McDonald's had also previously settled such claims for more than $500,000, depending on the severity of the burns. Their own quality control manager acknowledged that the coffee could scald a customer's mouth and throat (burns in the mouth and throat have the potential to be extremely severe and potentially fatal emergencies).

Liebeck's jury - consisting of, you know, regular people who were just given the evidence - determined that McDonald's bore 80% of the fault for Liebeck's injuries. Though the coffee cup bore a warning that the contents were hot, the jury decided specifically that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn Liebeck of the potential danger.

The jury found that Liebeck had suffered $200,000 of damages, which was reduced to $160,000 to account for Stella's own negligence (the jury found her 20% responsible for the incident).

The jury also wanted to award punitive damages of 2.7 million US Dollars (the equivalent of two full days of McDonald's coffee sales). The judge reduced the damages to just $480,000, or three times the amount of Stella's damages.

The lawsuit that McDonald's refused to settle for $20,000 ultimately cost the company $640,000, not because Liebeck was being dramatic or greedy, but because McDonald's chose to offer an honestly insulting $800 to a woman who had been permanently disfigured by near-boiling coffee.

McDonald's, since then, has enlarged the warning on its cups and has also upgraded the cups themselves to reduce the risk of spills. Though the lawsuit did not revolve around McDonald's packaging methods, it is now the recommendation of Specialty Coffee Association of America to use improved packaging and more visible warnings to prevent spills and subsequent injury.

McDonald's still doesn't really care about consumer safety, though. In 2019, autistic four-year-old Olivia Caraballo suffered second-degree burns when a Chicken McNugget from her Happy Meal fell on her leg and got caught between her thigh and her seatbelt. In May of 2023, a jury found both the franchise owner (Upchurch Foods) and McDonald's USA itself liable for Olivia's injuries, because the franchise owner failed to warn for hot foods and negligently cooked the food at higher temperatures than necessary, and because McDonald's USA failed to provide proper safe handling instructions for the food. In July, the jury that awarded damages granted Olivia's family $800,000 in damages (McDonald's had claimed her damages were no more than $156,000).

McDonald's is not, has never been, and will never be the victim in these lawsuits. Their deliberate strategy is to discourage these lawsuits by painting them as frivolous, and when you take the company's side, you are helping them escape liability for injuries that they caused, and continue to cause, all because it's cheaper to handle a potential lawsuit than it is to fix the problem

See also: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., a 1981 lawsuit where Ford Motor Co. determined it wasn't worth remedying design defects in the Ford Pinto despite the Pinto's tendency to explode during certain types of crashes.

The thing I wish I knew when I was younger

If you ever see a court case that sounds bonkers, look past the headlines. If a company is sued by someone they might be trying to make the person (rightfully) suing them look crazy or frivolous.

Look past the headline and you might not be thinking "well coffee is usually hot" you instead think "oh my god I can't believe a company served their coffee so hot that it mutilated someone and burned their legs, melting them together a bit, that's crazy"

You might see someone suing a theme park over a water slide, think that's real weird, until you look past the headline and see the person suing lost some intestine on the ride.

Look PAST THE HEADLINE. Companies will purposefully make the person suing look crazy, frivolous, or like a Karen. Companies DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. The second you speak up, you WILL be made a laughingstock.

[zot3-flopped]

Why do people like that Annie freak think Maya's father works for the drug cartels?

Because Annie is deeply stupid and knows nothing about the legal profession.

Maya's father is a personal injury lawyer. A personal injury lawyer is a lawyer who provides legal services to those who claim to have been injured, physically or psychologically, as a result of the negligence of another person, company, government agency or any entity. Personal injury lawyers primarily practice in the area of law known as tort law.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › P...

The drug cartels hire lawyers who specialise in criminal defence not personal injury. Why would a dealer or drugs boss need to claim for personal injury? They need a lawyer who can negotiate a reduced prison sentence or similar.

[thenhlteaissuperhot]

Different anon would also like to point out re: the Cauthier-Drysdale trade that Philly has a really, really poor reputation with regards to coaching, management, and medical care - deservedly so (their coach is Torts and this is the cancer zamboni team, and there have been some unacceptable/suspicious player health outcomes as well), which was likely the primary reason why Gauthier decided not to sign and which is particularly concerning given Drysdale's injury history. The real loser of this whole thing seems to be Drysdale (and Zegras as I do believe that their friendship means a lot to him), which is a shame.

Has Gauthier really said the exact reason why he refused to sign with them? So far I have only seen speculations from fans and journalists - that he allegedly doesn't want to play for Torts, that he doesn't want to play in the AHL, and a ton of other stuff - not any definite reasoning coming from his mouth.

Personally, I wouldn't have viewed this trade as controversial if it wasn't for the poor way Gauthier handled the communication with the Flyers,

Yes, he is still a kid, we shouldn't be expecting overly mature decisions from him, but you are nineteen, not fourteen, you can't be childishly avoiding responsibilities like this. If you are too scared to go tell your team that you don't want to sign with them, then send your agent or your parents, or send a bloody text. This is not a DM on social media where you can ghost people and get out of things, you don't feel like sorting out, through simply ignoring them.

I am all in for the young guys refusing to sign with the teams that have drafted them if they have serious reasons for doing so (if I were Bedard, I would have never signed my life away in Chicago, for example). I have actually been wondering why it isn't happening more often because, at the end of the day, both teams can end up benefiting from it if a solid trade happens as it did in this case.

Overall, as I have already said, I feel bad for both of them, though at the moment, probably more for Gauthier because he is a dead man in Philadelphia (going to get dragged as soon as he steps into that arena) and bashed by a ton of other hockey fans for his attitude. Drysdale, from what I have seen, has received a warm welcome in Philly from his new teammates, management, and even the fans.

[fishklok]

Happy Friday.

I needed to study for my torts class, and what better motivation is there than spite? Unfortunately, I did block this anon so they will be spared from my lecture lol. This is for me now.

Let's get some disclaimers out of the way.

The point of my post was not "Magnus would be found innocent because Nathan hurt his lil face :(". For one, I am talking about civil law, and innocent/guilty is criminal law terminology (a lot of self defense law is carried over from criminal law, but that's a different matter). The point of my post was whether, Magnus could use his own injuries to argue against Nathan's self defense claims. Magnus would still be liable for battery, but there is a chance he could have Nathan hit for a similar (perhaps lesser) claim. I thought I was clear in my original post, but there's a chance I wasn't and I'm sorry.

I'm just using scenes from the show to exercise my law student brain. It's really just a fun exercise trying to work through events and ask "well, how could this point be argued?" or "what if x happened instead?" I'm not a lawyer and I'm definitely not giving legal advice. There is a chance that I'll learn something next week that will tear apart everything I'm about to write in this post. That's fine - I'm still learning.

You might be thinking that I'm wasting my time dwelling on this. To that I'd say, yeah. I know anon and I have nothing going on this Friday night, so I might as well spend it doing some fun legal research.

Anyway, let's get to these points.

"Nathan would be completely in his right to fill magnus with lead, let alone punch him for magnus' ATTEMPTED MURDER."

Anon is actually right here. Let's assume that when Magnus went to stab Nathan, and Nathan responded by pulling out a gun and shot him, many courts would find this is sufficient to count as self defense. For Nathan to be justified in using deadly force against Magnus, he would have to prove that he had "reasonable apprehension of loss of life or great bodily harm." Scales v. State (1961). Then the court would have to argue over what constitutes as "reasonable apprehension", but it's likely that most courts would find Magnus literally attacking him with a knife to be more than enough.

"At what point does assault with a deadly weapon not justify a person's right to respond in equal if not excessive force to protect their own life?"

This is actually a very interesting question that's at the root of a lot of cases. Here's an example of a disagreement that comes up frequently within the law: what if someone is able to retreat? If someone could have fled the scene, but instead chose to defend themselves with deadly force, can they still claim self defense? The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 65 (1965) says that a victim may use deadly force, only if there's reasonable doubt they could escape safely. However, most courts hold that someone can use deadly force to defend themselves, even if that force results in the death of their attacker. But this is a very complicated issue that you see pop up everywhere from courtrooms to high school debate club topics. But relevant for this spiral of a post, if Nathan killed Magnus to defend himself from being stabbed, it would be sufficient to count as self defense. Also Magnus would have a harder time arguing otherwise.

(Also, just to be even more of an asshole, for the sake of this hypothetical I'm considering Magnus' crime battery, not assault with a deadly weapon. It's still a serious tort, but I don't want to get too mixed up with criminal terms in this civil law example. Also I'm being pedantic.)

"There have been cases of people winning self defense when the attacker died using a less deadly weapon."

I don't doubt that; I've even read some of those cases. However, this is not the issue at hand.

My point was that, if Magnus was brought to court, he could make the argument that Nathan used excessive force against him. Not by punching him after the initial attack, but by repeatedly punching him when he no longer had the means to fight back. If the initial attack is no longer a threat, the privilege of self-defense is terminated. The cases my text book cites to illustrate this point are Germolous v. Sausser (1901), Drabek v. Sabley (1966), Edgar v. Emily (1982). There is a point in the series of events where the self-defense distinction becomes murkier, and Magnus could use that murkiness to his advantage. It could be argued that Magnus stopped committing the battery the moment he no longer had access to his weapon and he was prone on the ground. When it comes to proportionality of force used in self defense, courts often consider the differences in strength and age between the parties. So if Magnus wants to present himself in court as a weak old man getting punched in the face by this beefcake metal vocalist, it might be able to help his case.

So what does this mean for Magnus? Does this mean the court would find him innocent? No, because "innocent" is a criminal law term, and I just spent an eternity talking about torts. But in a civil case, Magnus would have grounds to argue against Nathan's self defense claims. Does this mean he would win? Unlikely. At most, I can see Nathan being considered liable for battery as well, not definitely not as severe as Magnus' claim. Nathan might have to pay him some damages, but it probably wouldn't even be enough to make up for the money Magnus would owe him. And at worst, the court would look at Magnus' argument and say, "yeah....but you did stab the guy, so no." It really depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the arguments. But it is an argument that Magnus, this fictional cartoon man, could make. There is no guarantee he would win.

"You're going to make a horrible lawyer."

I don't know what kind of lawyer I'm going to be.

Anyway, lol. Lmao, even.

(I was able to seriously bulk up my tort law notes for today because of this, so I don't consider this a waste of time at all. It's a waste of everyone else's time lol).

[secretceremonials]

i analysed the cassandra myth from a modern english and welsh legal perspective because i’m drunk, bored, and procrastinating (maybe this will be a good revision exercise? 

Apollo v Cassandra: Breach of contract

i want to preface this by saying that i don’t fully study contract until next year, so i’m not going into detail here. apollo and cassandra do enter a verbal contract to provide the gift of prophecy for the service of sex (if we go with that version, which is my go to), so cassandra may well be liable for her breach. i would argue that this contract had unfair terms however, making it void to the extent of those terms. again, i don’t know enough about this to say for sure. 

Cassandra v Apollo: maliciously administering poison 

i don’t see any reason why apollo’s saliva that causes casssandra not to be believed can’t be interpreted as poison (we have case law of HIV infected semen being treated in this way). following this logic, his spitting can be viewed as maliciously administering poison, contrary to either section 23 or 24 of the offences against the person act 1861. for a section 23 offence, the defendant must intend to cause grievous bodily harm or endanger life. i’m not really sure that applies here, although cassandra’s mental state is possibly bad enough to constitute grievous bodily harm, it may be difficult to prove that apollo intended to cause this. section 24 would therefore be easier. this section simply requires intention to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. intention to punish would absolutely fall under here, i think. 

failing that, spitting on people without consent is a battery, so we definitely have a civil route if not a criminal one. it is worth noting that it absolutely is possible to pursue an action on the basis of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. injury does not have to be physical.

Cassandra v Ajax: rape or battery, depending on your favoured myth

In some versions of the myth, Ajax rapes Cassandra in the temple of athena as the city falls. in others, he drags her away in a massive breach of sanctuary laws. which version you prefer will alter what wrong has been committed.

If she is raped, it is... rape. crazy, i know. the statutory definition of rape is the penile penetration of another without consent or without a reasonable belief in their consent (sexual offences act 2003, section 1), which is what occurs here. they have sex, cassandra absolutely does not consent. easy.

if she isn’t raped, there is still a wrong, albeit probably a tort rather than a crime. the tort of battery is committed when an individual intentionally (or recklessly) touches another without consent. obviously this happens here. assault is likely as well. this occurs when the defendant does something to make the victim think they are about to directly and involuntary apply force on their body. this probably happens, but we don’t have enough detail to know for sure. we can maybe convict him of a crime instead, but this depends on what injuries cassandra acquires. i think it is likely enough that she would suffer actual bodily harm (a bruise or worse- we know the attack was violent), but grievous bodily harm is unlikely. If she suffers actual bodily harm, this is common assault, contrary to s47 of the offences against the person act 1861. 

Cassandra v Agamemnon: unlawful imprisonment

because slavery is illegal and i am completely ignoring historical context here, agamemnon most likely unlawfully imprisons cassandra. false imprisonment is confining an individual to a restricted area without their consent and without lawful justification. the only issue with proving this would be that i’m not sure if cassandra is really confined to a limited space? but presumably she has to stay around agamemnon? i think it counts.

Cassandra v Agamemnon: rape

it goes without saying that, in modern law, slavery is illegal. so, for the sake of simplicity, i’m going to continue arguing that cassandra’s enslavement is akin to unlawful imprisonment. obviously, keeping someone as a concubine without consent is very illegal, but we’ll ignore that for now. 

bearing that in mind, it is probable (but not certain) that Agamemnon rapes cassandra. As we have already seen, the definition of rape in the sexual offences act 2003 is the penile penetration of another without their consent, or without a reasonable belief in consent. as cassandra does, in some versions, have children, I am going to assume that her and agamemnon have sex. so now the question is consent. 

In section 75 of the sexual offences act, evidential presumptions about non-consent pop up in some cases. the effect of these presumptions is that non-consent is assumed, unless the defendant can provide some evidence that is “More than merely fanciful and speculative” that the alleged victim did in fact consent. one case where this occurs is when the alleged victim was wrongfully imprisoned by the defendant at the time of the incident. this means that agamemnon would have to provide some evidence of cassandra’s consent before a full trial would occur. this isn’t a particularly high bar, but it is something. 

we don’t know enough about cassandra’s state of mind to know whether she consented (she did consent to the marriage in Euripides’ trojan women, and until 1992, marriage was taken as an express form of consent- not super relevant, but interesting anyway), and honestly, given the context, agamemnon may have had a reasonable (in his culture) belief in her consent. obviously now we would not assume that a woman would consent to a man who took her from her home and family, but bear in mind that this is the bronze age. i’m also not sure if we should apply the reasonableness standard of a reasonable man today or a reasonable one then? recklessness is also subjectively measured now anyway, so he may not even have been reckless as to her non-consent.

Cassandra v Clytemnestra: murder

okay, this one is probably the easiest. In (basically) every version of the myth, Clytemnestra kills Cassandra. murder is the killing of another with the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Clytemnestra intends to kill Cassandra. She does so. It’s murder, she will really struggle to access a defence here. There is no self-defence or necessity present. There may be some grounds for a partial defence of provocation as she is faced with her sexual rival, but I honestly doubt there is enough of this to warrant a manslaughter verdict. 

Conclusion

Cassandra deserves a break. i hope you enjoyed my silly little law exercise :)

[alphaman99]

National Liberty Alliance

Common Law is above the foreign, bankrupt, private de facto’s STATUTORY COMMERCIAL CODE, written by those who are not lawfully allowed to hold offices of trust. The Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners are purveyors of fraud and piracy, and whatever they do is null and void on it’s face.

“US Supreme Court held that state officials acting by ”color of law” may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign immunity may not be asserted.”; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974), “When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”; Warnock v Pecos County, Texas, 116 F. 3d 776 – No.96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997.

[worldwatcher3072]

Amendment VII:

The Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law."

Explanation:

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. It ensures that in certain legal disputes, where the value in question exceeds twenty dollars, the parties involved have the right to have their case decided by a jury of their peers.

The amendment emphasizes the importance of preserving this right, which dates back to English common law traditions. It seeks to protect individuals from having their property or financial interests decided solely by judges without the input of a jury.

Application to Daily Life:

Amendment VII plays a significant role in protecting the rights of individuals and corporations in civil disputes in modern-day America. Here's how it applies to our daily lives:

Legal Disputes: The Seventh Amendment becomes particularly relevant in civil cases, such as personal injury claims, contract disputes, property disputes, and tort cases. If the amount of money or value involved exceeds the threshold set by the amendment, both parties have the right to request a trial by jury.

Jury Selection: In cases where a jury trial is requested, a jury of ordinary citizens is selected to hear the evidence, review the facts, and reach a verdict. This ensures that decisions are not made solely by legal professionals but by a group of impartial peers.

Balancing Power: The Seventh Amendment helps maintain a balance of power in the legal system. It prevents potential bias or unfair decisions by giving individuals the opportunity to present their case to a jury, making the process more democratic.

Civil Justice System: This amendment plays a crucial role in the civil justice system, as it empowers citizens to participate actively in the legal process. It helps ensure that verdicts are not solely based on the interpretation of laws by judges but also consider the collective wisdom of a jury.

Settlements: In many cases, the right to a trial by jury can influence parties to settle out of court to avoid the uncertainty of a jury's decision. This, in turn, can lead to more efficient resolution of disputes in the legal system.

The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution preserves the right to trial by jury in civil cases, providing individuals and corporations with an essential safeguard against potential unfair rulings. By empowering ordinary citizens to participate in the legal process, the amendment contributes to a more just and democratic civil justice system that protects the rights and interests of all citizens in their daily lives.

[benzedrine-calmstheitch]

just saw some troubling posts in a discord server I’m in but I don’t have the brain power left to engage in direct conversation re: interpreting another person’s text and responding so I’m just gonna throw my thoughts here :

you cannot, CANNOT, let your anger and fury at Greg Abbott’s heinous policies and positions transmutate into any position that blames him for being paralyzed, argues he should not receive financial compensation for getting paralyzed, or any other form of ableism against him. I mean, I guess you can, arguably, but I find it an inherently unethical stance, and it also undermines any sort of argument one could make to be in favor of universal healthcare and UBI (which I also find to be baseline ethical things to be for, more or less).

Yes, he supported the tort reforms in Texas that put limits on damages plaintiffs can receive, which makes it very unlikely a future Texan unfortunate enough to be in a similar situation that he was in will be able to have the same level of financial security via a settlement (although I do think it’s worth noting that he had no direct involvement in the passing of these reforms - both of these were done by Legislature). And it is fucking garbage that he doesn’t think other Texans deserve financial security in the face of injury and loss! And yes, there are nine million other awful awful stances he has, and having him in a position of leadership is not just abhorrent on principle but incredibly dangerous. These things ARE infuriating and terrible! He sucks really!

But the thing about universal healthcare is that it is universal. The principle behind it is that no one should have to worry about healthcare costs for any reason. To be in favor of healthcare for all, you must, must recognize that, short of unconditional access to healthcare (as well as related accessibility needs, such as equipment, renovated housing, in-home health care, mobility aids, etc etc), anyone suffering such a devastating and life-altering injury at least getting a settlement that takes care of these ongoing costs, is a good thing. and to be in favor of, again, universal, health care, is to sincerely want that for anyone. no conditions!

Being furious at him is, frankly, how we should feel right now. But that fury simply cannot mean deciding he is to blame in any way for his paralysis. First of all and most importantly, because conceptualizing disability in terms of “blame” just feels like a really, really dangerous thought. This tie back in to the fundamental idea that universal healthcare means exactly that, universal, but is a bit deeper also. Even if the actions Abbott took that led to his injury were ill-advised (and I’m not saying they were, more on that in a moment), he still should have full access to care, because the idea that someone can become unworthy of access to care through their actions is troubling! When we draw lines, someone always has to decide where it is, and if we can draw it once, someone else can redraw it later, and this time you might find yourself on the wrong side of it. We must, must, refuse to allow “fault” to determine access.

Also, and this is just me being pedantic, but I have seen some variance in the recounts of what exactly happened, and I have also seen folks taking those summations and shifting them, just a bit, to make it easier to find him at fault and thus deserving of his disability (this also touches on the whole other concept of disability itself being considered Less Than, which is ofc gross, but I’m not going to dive into that aspect). This is something we all need to be so, so careful about these days. Yes, it does fit your emotional response better if he was out jogging under a big tree while it was actually storming, which I think we can all agree is a Silly Idea. But the little bit I have read says he was jogging after it had stormed; ok, maybe a small difference, but are you telling me you don’t know a single person who would take a run the morning after it had stormed because it was still too dangerous? Suddenly his actions seems less silly and more everyday. Also I read that the homeowner (who himself was a wealthy attorney, which also complicates things!) had been made aware the tree was rotting a year and a half beforehand, and the inspector who told him this recommended the wrong treatment for it. So we have gone from “god this dodo went jogging during a storm under big trees well yeah of course one fell on him” to “oh actually he was just out for a run the day after a storm and a rotten tree that had been improperly treated happened to fall on him in a very bizarre coincidence.” and for the record, I have almost been taken tf out by a tree randomly splitting in two and falling while I was on my daily walk on a sunny day. no idea why and it scared the bejesus out of me, but like. it weirdly happens!

but my point in being pedantic is this : facts fucking matter! changing them, no matter how slightly, to fit the narrative that matches your emotions, is not the route to take, because you end up taking a kind of fucked up stance in the process. this is what we as a culture are fighting so, so much right now. it’s so hard to hold on to nuance, to contextualize and allow for complexity, when we have all been trained by twitter and tiktok and fucking clickbait to be sensational and brief. but my friends, we have to retrain ourselves. we have to do better. We cannot paint in broad strokes, because we will lose the ability to focus on any one thing we can push back on and fight for.

So yes, be angry at Greg Abbott. Be fucking FURIOUS, really. But please, please, know why, and stay focused on that.