| From: | Barbara Legate <blegate@legate.ca> |
| To: | Chaim Saiman <Saiman@law.villanova.edu> |
| obligations@uwo.ca | |
| Date: | 05/11/2009 18:28:10 UTC |
| Subject: | RE: outlandish torts |
Chaim, I believe your suspicion about
Stella and other such stories is correct. Stella was burned alright, but the
evidence at trial was this:
Cheap coffee tastes better hot
Market research showed dirve through
customers drank same about 18 min after purchase
The coffee had to be heated to a
temperature that was capable of severe burns to be hot after 18 min. The company’s
own engineers warned of same. A memo was produced at trial.
In that context, the result is not
difficult to accept.
I once attempted to learn the source of
the Stellas, who evaluated the cases, who funded the evaluation, and who was
behind the organization. My pointed enquiries were ignored. I concluded it is
indeed a tort reform group funded by insurers. I didn’t keep my research
since it was just for my own benefit.
Barb Legate (from Canada)
From: Chaim Saiman
[mailto:Saiman@law.villanova.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009
3:43 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: outlandish torts
I have been following
the emails of the past few days with some interest, and note that most of the
examples (real and otherwise) are taken from the American context. Moreover, as
one poster suggested, some of these hoaxes may be part of a concerted effort by
activists on the American scene to paint a cartoonish picture of the American
tort system in order to spur on political efforts at tort reform (limitation)
My question to this
largely non-American audience is whether, from an international perspective,
these sort s of suits are seen as uniquely (or typically) American, and if so,
is it only on account of the jury, or are there other factors at work.
Would be interested
in your thoughts.
--cs
Chaim Saiman
Associate Professor
610.519.3296
saiman@law.villanova.edu