Reader CSC responds to Starbucks Sued for "Unreasonably Hot" Hot Tea.
Most people are like Bart, says a reader.
"Frivolous suits make up less than one percent of all lawsuits, and existing civil procedure laws already require lawsuits to be based in law, not frivolous claims. In the McDonalds coffee case, the plaintiff was one of many who reported serious burns from coffee served way too hot. All she initially wanted was for McD to pay her hospital bills, (she recieved 3rd degree burns and required surgery). But McD forced her to have to file suit to recover her damages.""That a jury awarded her 2million or so does not mean she got it. Courts reduce awards many times, and many times parties settle for less to avoid lengthy, costly appeals. Also, the facts of the McD coffee case are online (snopes.com is one I believe) giving the facts of the case; it is unfair to everyone who has, or may ever have, a legitimate reason to sue someone, to keep implying all these cases are 'frivolous.'
"The only one Tort reform benefits are the big businesses who thumb their noses at common sense and safety, then play the victim when they injure someone and get sued. If you think we really need tort reform I urge you to get some legal education, at least enough to read and understand your state and federal civil procedures laws, so you can see for yourself that there is no need to rein in the legal recourse of ordinary people.
"Maybe what we need to rein in, is the abuse of the legal system by large irresponsible corporations who wish to enjoy legal immunity for their harms."