1: Pain and suffering? He is paralized, how can he feel the pain now, but not when he was on the seat?
2: The reason for the high dollar amounts, is to cover the outrages attorney fees.

OK, I try to ****** a broke down ford powerstroke, using a Honda Accord, 50' of 1/2 rope from Home Depot, with a cup of coffee in my lap. I can sue Honda, home depot, ford, and mcdonalds when the rope breaks and I spill the coffee. It is suits like this, stupid things by stupid people, that I have a problem with.


My mom got injured at a Days Inn ( fell in a sitting position due to 'loose on the bottom sticky on top' tile in the bathroom) about 11 years ago. She 'hobbled away' with $150k, 3 fractured vert. in her lower back, morphine shots and pills for the rest of her life, and her medical insurance is paying it.

That is just it, some of these people shouldn't be allowed to drive if they have the mentality of a 5 year old.
or ones own stupidity Ok, then why are they on Medicare, if they have this savings account?

I am sorry, but just like dealers, there are those that should be shut down for good, and they give a bad taste for the rest. To the HONEST attorney (non-criminal) good job.

 

What you're saying is the makings of a stupid suit. Not at all what is happening in the seat case.Your mom is a very lucky woman if her medial insurance is paying for her after care. MANY insurance companies will not do that. In this case, I don't think we're talking about someone with the mentality of a 5 year old, either. The seat may have been defective & you don't have to be stupid to get hurt by something that is defective. As for the Medicare thing - what a plaintiff does with their winnings is up to them, but the idea is that they will use it responsibly. If they don't,that is their tough luck. As for the pain & suffering - the law says it can be mental, emotion, or physical pain and suffering. Just because he was paralyzed, does not mean that the burns did not hurt him emotionally. Most attorney fees are not excessive when you take into account the fact that their fees pay for obtaining their client's medical records which are needed for the case, obtaining expert witnesses, and paying for the time and expertise of someone who can help you and the time & expertise of their staff, along with the supplies it takes to do the job. I do have to say that it is unfortunate for everyone - especially the general public, that there are attorneys and plaintiffs who take advantage of the system. It makes it very difficult for anyone with ligitimate claims to get what they are due. It's also unfortunate that the general public is not privy to the way these types of suits work, because if they were, fewer lawyers would take advantage, and there would be fewer "frivolous" suits. Oh, and if you're making reference to the McDonald's coffee cup suit - read the facts there, too. You would find that McDonald's was negligent because they were told to replace or fix a coffee maker w/ a defective thermostat & they did not. The woman who got hurt did so because she was handed the cup of coffee at the drive thru window (that came from that coffee maker), the coffee was ungodly hot, melted the cup in the customer's hand and spilled down the front of her body, melting her clothes to her skin, and disfiguring her breast, belly, and with burns clear down into her crotch. Personally, I can say that I'm not sue happy. I had the perfect opportunity to sue McDonald's myself for tripping in their parking lot, resulting in a medial meniscal tear. My health insurance co. incouraged me to sue (only so that they could get paid back for my medical expenses) but I refused because the fact was that I simply was not watching where I was going when I tripped over a curb in the parking lot. My own dumb fault! There again, there are many folks out there who would take advantage and try to sue for millions.

 

That's the point; if it caught fire it was defective. It is also possible that the seat under his butt was the entire problem and not the back portion of the seat, which meant that that portion was defective. Also, it is possible that he had inadvertently turned on the seat heat and did not know it until it was too late. Either way, the fact remains that the seat caught on fire and that means it was in fact defective. That is unless it can be found that he did something that caused the seat to catch fire like doused it in gasoline first. Or perhaps he had firey screamin' deamons! In which case we could be looking at comparitive negligence or a settlement in DC's favor.

 

I commend you for that, but as you said, there are those that would sue to own, because it happened on their property.