An urban legend

TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, January 7, 2004 | Walter E. Williams

[JohnHuang2]

Literally hundreds of readers informed me that in last week's column, "Some Things I Wonder About," my reference to a Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City -- who set his 32-foot Winnebago on cruise control, left the driver's seat to brew a cup of coffee, crashed, then sued Winnebago for not having a warning against the dangers of doing so and received a jury award of $1,750,000 plus a new motor home -- was an urban legend and as such totally false.

My having fallen for this "urban legend" points to more due diligence to fact-checking. Without making any excuses whatsoever for my lapse in due diligence, let's look at it.

Thirty, 40 or 50 years ago, no one in their right mind would have believed the Merv Grazinski urban legend possible, but not so today. Personal responsibility has taken a back seat in our increasingly immoral and litigious society. Consider some actual lawsuits researched at www.overlawyered.com.

The wife of a hockey fan who crashed his car after drinking too much at a Minnesota Wild game has sued the team, saying her husband who was paralyzed in the Feb. 8, 2002, auto crash shouldn't have been served so much alcohol.

According to the July 10, 2002, Akron Beacon Journal, "Two carpet installers who admit they read the label of an adhesive they used, admit they understood the adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued and won $8 million dollars."

According to the April 18, 2003, Indianapolis Star: "A convicted robber is suing the convenience store clerk who shot him as he fled after a holdup. Willie Brown, 44, claimed the clerk acted 'maliciously and sadistically' in firing five shots as Brown ran out of Zipps Deli with money from the store's cash register." Brown, who has earlier convictions for robbery and burglary, pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to four years in prison.

In Galveston, Texas, a jury awarded $65 million to the parents and estate of a woman who drowned after her car rolled off a boat ramp. She couldn't disengage her seat belt. The jury found Honda of America Manufacturing Co. Inc. and Honda R & D Co. Ltd. 75 percent responsible for the death of Karen Norman, even though her blood-alcohol level measured at nearly twice the Texas legal limit (.17). Fortunately, an appeals court threw out the award, which a trial judge had previously reduced to $43 million.

Then there's the infamous McDonald's case, where Stella Liebeck purchased hot coffee, placed it between her legs, spilling it and scalding herself, and was awarded $2.9 million for her troubles. Clearly, she was at fault, but George Mason University Law Professor Richard Bernstein points out that a proximate cause for her injury was the fact she was wearing a cotton sweat suit that absorbed the coffee and held it close to her body. However, if she were wearing a Gore-Tex suit, or some other liquid resistant material, she would have suffered no injuries. Bernstein asks what's the tort principle that holds McDonald's responsible but not the sweat suit manufacturer?

None of these cases, and many others, differs in principle from the Merv Grazinski urban legend. What's common to all of them is the absolution or the attempt at absolution from personal responsibility. Are people to be held responsible for their actions? In the case of tobacco use, it's not the smoker who's responsible for his illness, it's tobacco companies. In the case of obesity, it's not the individual, but fast food companies and food manufacturers who are responsible. It's the same with criminal violence -- the gun manufacturer is partly to blame.

What does all this say for the future of our nation?

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, January 7, 2004

Quote of the Day by Kevin Curry

[Support Free Republic]

Be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Make a donation!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

A version of this joke made the rounds before the
INTERNET was started.

[GeronL]

"Two carpet installers who admit they read the label of an adhesive they used, admit they understood the adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued and won $8 million dollars."

This should surprise me

[neverdem]

"What does all this say for the future of our nation?"

Unfortunately, more trouble until you have tort reform in the fifty states. I'm afraid only US posessions and territories will be covered by any SCOTUS decision on tort reform, if it's done in observance of the Constitution.

[Skibane]

In its unanimous decision Friday, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals likened the city suit against gun makers to the absurdity of suing the makers of matches because of losses from arson. — From a newspaper account about a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer.

[highlander_UW]

And here I thought the urban legend was going to be an intelligent, morally grounded leftist...of course one is more likely to find Bigfoot riding on the back of Nessie first.

[DonQ]

I have seen, over the last few years, an essay that purports to describe about six outrageous lawsuits - including a woman who sued a store because she slipped in a soda puddle of her own making - listed in aid of promoting laws restricting tort suits. It turns out that NONE of the cases listed actually existed, every one on that list was purely imaginary, but the same list (with even the same names of the pretended plaintiffs) keeps getting reprinted (sometimes in daily newspapers).

Although the list might have gotten its start as a humorous fiction, and morphed into urban myth, some of its recirculation as though fact is the work of the lobbyists for big corporations who are trying to get "tort reform" legislation that would disable many possible lawsuits against big corporations.

[DonQ]

I have seen, over the last few years, an essay that purports to describe about six outrageous lawsuits - including a woman who sued a store because she slipped in a soda puddle of her own making - listed in aid of promoting laws restricting tort suits. It turns out that NONE of the cases listed actually existed, every one on that list was purely imaginary, but the same list (with even the same names of the pretended plaintiffs) keeps getting reprinted (sometimes in daily newspapers).

Although the list might have gotten its start as a humorous fiction, and morphed into urban myth, some of its recirculation as though fact is the work of the lobbyists for big corporations who are trying to get "tort reform" legislation that would disable many possible lawsuit against big corporations.

[americafirst]

"Then there's the infamous McDonald's case"

There's more to this story too. McD's was repeatedly warned about serving coffee that was unreasonably hot and failed to act. There had been dozens of scalding incidents prior to this one and the jury wanted to send McD's a message to, once and for all, decrease the temp of their served coffee. So maybe it was a poor case to serve as a warning, but it worked.

[hellinahandcart]

A version of this joke made the rounds before the INTERNET was started.

I remember hearing it back in the late seventies in college, only the driver was a rich student from Saudi Arabia.

He apparently went to EveryCollege U, because that story was all over the country...

[ContemptofCourt]

There's more to this story too. McD's was repeatedly warned about serving coffee that was unreasonably hot and failed to act. There had been dozens of scalding incidents prior to this one and the jury wanted to send McD's a message to, once and for all, decrease the temp of their served coffee. So maybe it was a poor case to serve as a warning, but it worked.Actually, there had been hundreds of prior cases. And McD's own expert, on the stand, testified that the coffee they were serving was too hot for human consumption.

Of course, the stories also leave out the fact that the woman asked McD's merely to pay her medical bills prior to the suit, and that the woman was stopped, in the parking lot of McD's when she was trying to open the coffee. And the fact that the judge reduced the award.....

[johnny7]

Merv Grazinski

Hmmm... Polish maybe? Years ago, a legal friend told me about the 'reason' why lawnmowers had that stupid 'shut-off' bar on the handle. He refered to a court case where 2 Polish brothers were using a lawnmower to trim their hedges. He went into the details of their injuries... lost fingers and hacked up legs. After a large settlement, the 'shut-off' bar became standard equipment.

Being half Polish, I took it on face value. But looking back, I realized that they couldn't have been Polish dudes. They would have never had the cunning wisdom to turn stupidity into a windfall.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Here in Texas Polish jokes are Aggie jokes.

[50sDad]

In Back to the Future II, Doc Brown says: "Things run really smooth in the future, now that we killed all the lawyers". Hummmm....

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I wish I could find a listing for Paul Harvey's
"Rest of The Story"
He was talking about a place that did not allow
vermin or troublemakers to settle in this land.
They said these people only brought strife and misery. The rest of the story was the place was
Massachusetts and the people were lawyers.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

"Then there's the infamous McDonald's case"

There's more to this story too. McD's was repeatedly warned about serving coffee that was unreasonably hot and failed to act. There had been dozens of scalding incidents prior to this one and the jury wanted to send McD's a message to, once and for all, decrease the temp of their served coffee. So maybe it was a poor case to serve as a warning, but it worked.>>

To which add: her award was reduced to $425,000 on appeal. COnsidering she received third degree burns on her private parts which were subsequently removed, the award is wholly just, IMHO.