LAW: (Absurd?) Tort Cases

Bob Gaudet takes up particular torts cases: "Cameron says that the electrical company "was forced" to pay millions to settle the case of a man who drunkenly electrocuted himself. I wonder if that case went to trial and, if not, I wonder why Cameron thinks the company "was forced" to pay. I also wonder if he could provide any information on a source for that information so the rest of us can read the facts for ourselves.

In Torts, I was troubled that people thought money would be adequate compensation for life-crippling injuries. It seemed so crude to me. I discussed it with Professor Robert Rabin, who explained to me that it was the only thing that could be offered at that point and, in some ways, people could use the money to buy other luxuries (e.g. a luxury cruise) that might help them forget their pain or that might help enhance the quality of their life. That helped me to understand that tort is not a full solution but it is better than nothing.

The Porsche case which Cameron mentions sounds absurd, as he reports it. I was not aware that Porsche was sued for selling a car without warning the customer that it was faster than other cars. I would like Cameron to provide more information on this case, as well, so that we can look at the facts for ourselves.

My fear in this type of discussion is that people often rely upon off-handed rumors such as the McDonald's coffee spill litigation without knowing the facts. For example, the facts are that McDonald's received over 700 complaints regarding injuries from hot coffee, the female victim suffered 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, she had skin taken off her back and grafted onto her injured areas, and she had to live with scarring on 16 percent of her body. This puts the case in a new light".