.... are ruining our country. People like to blame the jurors in liability cases; but, they are chosen, from a pool of prospective jurors, by the lawyers invoved in the cases.

ANNUAL STELLA AWARDS

So many people get out of jury duty these days and the following 'brain
surgeons' become 'a jury of our peers'!!! Please enjoy the absolute
stupidity of the common person sitting on a jury and the judicial system for
letting these cases be tried. Only in America
Subject It's time once again to review the winners of the annual "Stella
Awards" for 2003.

The Stella's are named after 51-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee
on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired the Stella
awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States.
Unfortunately the most recent lawsuit implicating McDonalds, the teens who
allege that eating at McDonalds has made them fat, was filed after the 2002
award voting was closed. This suit will top the 2003 list without question.
Here are this year's winners:



5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000
by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who
was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were
understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little
toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

5th Place (tie): A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord.
Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the
car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place (tie): Terrence ****son of Bristol, Pennsylvania,was leaving a
house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to
get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting
the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
vacation, and Mr.****son fd Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee
on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired the Stella
awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States.
Unfortunately the most recent lawsuit implicating McDonalds, the teens who
allege that eating at McDonalds has made them fat, was filed after the 2002
award voting was closed. This suit will top the 2003 list without question.
Here are this year's winners:



5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000
by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who
was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were
understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little
toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

5th Place (tie): A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord.
Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the
car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place (tie): Terrence ****son of Bristol, Pennsylvania,was leaving a
house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to
get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting
the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
vacation, and Mr.****son found himself locked in the garage for eight days.
He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food.
He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue
mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and
medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The
award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been
just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who had climbed over the
fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson
had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of
a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to
the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.
Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid
paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklaound himself locked in the garage for eight days.
He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food.
He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue
mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and
medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The
award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been
just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who had climbed over the
fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson
had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of
a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to
the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.
Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid
paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor
home. On his first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven
onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the
drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not
surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr.
Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he
couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor
home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit,
just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation
vehicles. God help us...and our legal system!

 

Whoops.:o I meant to put this in GD. Sorry guys (and gals).

 

Keep in mind that the juries that award these seemingly stupid sums have listened to the evidence and heard a much more detailed accounting of the events than can be summarized in one paragraph per incident.

Remember too, that juries are made of your peers. Everyone who votes or has a driver's license (in TX) is eligible for jury duty. If you dont like what's going on in jury boxes around the nation, I suggest the following:

next time you get a summons for jury duty, go make a difference rather than trying to come up with an excuse as to why your time is too valuable to be spent exercising the wheels of justice.

I think the title of your post is horribly misleading. I'm not an attorney, but I have seen a lot of juries in action. While I've seen some verdicts that blew my socks off, 99% of the time the decisions of 12 ordinary citizens comes out 'right'.
It's not the lawyers who make the verdicts, its the regular people that come up with a decision after weighing all of the evidence and HEARING BOTH SIDES of the story.

 

First. I never miss the opportunity for jury duty.

Second. In the four times I've been called, I've been rejected as a juror by the Defense lawyer each time. I've been dressed in a tie and slacks and answered all questions neutrally. The prosecution chose me each time. The defense attorney has the ability to reject anyone that he (or she) feels will hurt their chances of winning the case.

Finally. A jury of your peers is misleading. The people on a jury do not represent a broad cross-section of society at all. As you mentioned, a lot of the people that are given the opportunity to serve the community in this way, do what they can to avoid it. The people that tend to show for jury duty, have nothing else they would rather be doing and do not, in general, represent the type of people I would like to be sitting in the jury box, if I were on trial. That's why I always go when called. I know I would be fair in any decision I made. I would hope to have the same consideration if I were the one on trial. If I were the family member of a victim of a crime, I am also the type of person I would like to see on the jury.

Lawyers can stack a jury in their favor; and, judges can sway the verdict of the jury by what they allow as evidence. There is much more to our judicial system than the jury box. In fact, the jury is an attempt to take some of the power, over those who stand before them, from the judges themselves. It helps; but, it's nowhere near perfect. Just because we have the best legal system in the world, doesn't mean justice is served by it all the time.

 

Three points I'd like to make.

1) Defense attorneys can refuse some potential jurors, but the number is limited, not "anyone" who is presented.

2) Prosecuting attorneys have the same right and use it in the same manner as defense lawyers.

3) None of the cases really happened. Good stories, but in reality a load of crap. Check here: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp.

David

 

Ok these frigging post are really starting to get to me,
what the &*)%#@)&$#%@&*)$ is with the got dam double post
]Again

 

I'm sure there are legal forums on the web somewhere.....????

 

1) True

2) True

3 Didn't know that. The post was meant to be mostly of entertainment value. The fact that Liberal judges and trial lawyers are a large problem in this country, is unavoidably going to rub some people the wrong way. I really don't care about that. You can't make everybody see things the same way. It would kind of boring if you could. And maybe dangerous, too.

 

Doug will move it shortly to GD, I'm sure. I didn't mean to post it in the Lightning forum anyway.

 

as a LAW STUDENT, I can't give advice. BUT

Stella Liebeck
- sued Mcdonalds because the temperature of the Mcdonald coffee was SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it's competitors and therefore was not in or even near the industry standard.
- Mcdonalds claimed it made their coffee taste better (I guess if you burn your tastebuds off, **** would taste good)
- While the jury awarded her several million dollars, the final amount was only a few hundred thousands.
- this amount is misleading because this wasn't for the damages that she suffered from the burn, or pain and suffering,
***it was punitive damages, (to punish Mcdonalds for exceeding the industry standard so much)

When you hear of a jury awarding millions it is generally to punish the Defendant (here mcdonalds). So that they will think twice about doing it again. Then The shareholders can bring a derivative suit and sue the Board of Director's of Mcdonalds, because the lawsuit lowered the value of the company (stock went down). If the Board was "negligent" (easiest way to say it) the members may have to reimburse Mcdonalds corporation for the amount of and suffering,
***it was punitive damages, (to punish Mcdonalds for exceeding the industry standard so much)

When you hear of a jury awarding millions it is generally to punish the Defendant (here mcdonalds). So that they will think twice about doing it again. Then The shareholders can bring a derivative suit and sue the Board of Director's of Mcdonalds, because the lawsuit lowered the value of the company (stock went down). If the Board was "negligent" (easiest way to say it) the members may have to reimburse Mcdonalds corporation for the amount of the lawsuit. Odds are the next annual stock holder meeting, those Board members aren't going to be re-elected.



OK this is far enough.

 

Not really...
The most appeals come from the jury instructions the judge gives the jury before deliberations.

The judge only decides Legal Issues.
The Jury only decided factual issues.

A smart judge would allow in evidence in and allow the jury to determine whether it is credible or how much weight should be applied to each piece of evidence. Depending on the evidence of course.

Both Pros/Defense and Plaint/Defend. have pre-eptory challenges to dismiss anyone from the jury, but they are limited in numbers and cannot be used maliciously.

 

I guess this needed to be said. I'd be surprised if most people aren't aware of the purpose, and the existance, of punitive damages, even without the benefit of law school. Especially if you read a newspaper or watch the news more than once or twice a year; but, some probably don't.

 

As usual, the media's one-minute sound bites completely distorted the facts of that case. Here is a recounting of the facts from the Texas Bar:

"Her case illustrates many different things for many different people. For me, it illustrates the misunderstanding and the miscommunication about the justice system.
You probably have never heard that after the coffee spill, Mrs. Liebeck spent seven days in an Albuquerque hospital and about three weeks recuperating at home with her daughter. Then she was hospitalized again for skin grafts. She had lost 20 pounds—down to 83 pounds—and was practically immobilized. The grafts were almost as painful as the burn.

Mrs. Liebeck wrote to McDonald’s asking the company to turn down the coffee temperature. She was not planning to sue but she thought she was entitled to her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000, plus lost wages of her daughter who stayed home to care for her McDonald’s offered her $800.00.

She then did what many aggrieved people do. She went hunting for a lawyer. That lawyer took her case to the cornerstone of our justice system: a jury. Initially this was a jury that was annoyed at having to listen to a case about spilled coffee. But they learned that coffee at 170 degrees would cause second-degree burns within 3.5 seconds of hitting the skin and that the company had not lowered the heat under the coffee despite receiving 700 burn complaints over 10 years.

Knowing these facts and others, it may not now surprise you to find that the jury awarded her $160,000 in actual damages and $2.7 in punitive damages. The judge eventually lowered the amount to $640,000."

Are some verdicts insane? Of course. But this one was not.

 

Yes. I agree with the verdict against McDonalds. I think I've supported it in a few threads here over the past couple of years. I was emailed this by a friend who thought it was funny. It is. I wanted to share. The liberal comments were added to get a response of course.

Not that the added comments don't hold some truth. Gay marriage is one example of the liberal agenda being advanced by the judicial system stacked fairly heavily with Liberal appointments. Why do you think the Democrats are playing such hardball with the Presidents judicial appointments? For the past 30 years, every major victory they have achieved against mainstream America has been in the courtroom. The silent majority have no say whatsoever in the high courts of the land.

 

Unless the coffee is boiling in the cup, you would have no idea how hot it is....

Don't spill it in your lap. If you do spill it in your lap, it's YOUR fault, not McD's, regardless of the amount of years and surgeries it takes to restructure your thighs.

But, there is another thread around here where all this ground has been covered, use the search feature to get upset all over again.