Talk:Frivolous litigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Very American.
Am I right in thinking that this article focusses (almost?) entierly on US law, without explicitly stating that it is doing so? Certainly the last section, on tort law, seems to be so.
TRiG 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No header. Please insert a suitable header.
I edited out the McDonalds coffee spill case, as it was not a true example of a frivolous lawsuit. The coffee was much hotter than it should have been, as testified to by people working in McDonalds. Thus, the corporation was neglegent for brewing it at that temperature.
- (responding to above by IP 192.34.64.2) Agreed that the case is not frivolous in the technical sense, there are still many people who disagree with the finding of negligence. Some common arguments:
- Coffee that is too hot is an expected hazard, like finding an unpitted cherry in a pie.
- Mr. Liebeck's own negligence materially contributed to her injuries.
- On the one hand, one or more concrete examples, properly analyzed to reflect all POV's might be useful. On the other, it might start another damned list. Any thoughts? Robert A West 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Liebeck's negligence would reduce the award, not deny recoverery. Comparative negligence is a well established doctrine in tort law. If coffee being too hot is to be expected then the injuries were forseeable by (and thus avoidable by) the defendant. I don't think I would make that argument. But to address the question presented, leave it alone, it would "start another damn list" as a frivolous lawsuit in most cases turns on whose ox is getting gored and how good a spin the owner of the gored ox puts on his/her loss when they got their day in court. Gfwesq 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Causation
I removed this line: where there is no link between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. There is no theory of recovery in tort law that supports this statement. It is factually incorrect. All theories of tort law require a a link between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained. Its called causation. See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. which deals with causation and negligence, which is the most common tort theory. However, it is equally true in strict liability theories. Strict liability includes the subset known as products liability. This theory of recovery still requires that the defendant "do something" to set the events leading to the cause of action in motion. For example blasting dynamite is a strict liabiltiy situation. To be held liable in a theory of strict liability in a case involvoing dynamite requires the defendant to do something- blast dynamite. Causation is most obvious in intentional tort cases. The link may be less obvious in cases involving respondeat superior or agent- principal. But there is a logical link nevertheless.
Bottom line: There is always a link beteen the between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Gfwesq 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
