From: Wright, Richard <Rwright@kentlaw.edu>
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 05/11/2009 20:06:44 UTC
Subject: RE: outlandish torts
IMHO, Easterbrook's reasons are bogus.  (In addition, his bringing in all sorts of "facts" not in the record and not subject to consideration or dispute by the parties, IMHO, was improper judicial behavior).  He himself admits that the coffee was much more dangerous than consumers would expect and that a warning thus should have been given if feasible, but he then holds -- as a matter of law -- that it would not be feasible to do so, since supposedly one would have to have a degree in thermodynamics as well as economics to be able to make a proper cost-benefit tradeoff -- which is not the test for required warnings on any product.  I can imagine all sorts of feasible warnings, including a picture of someone's charred nether regions along with a bold statement that this could easily happen to you if you spill this coffee on you and it remains on your skin for only a few seconds.

From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:33 PM
To: 'obligations@uwo.ca'
Subject: RE: outlandish torts

             The result still strikes me as quite wrong, for the reasons that Judge Easterbrook gave in McMahon v. Bunn-o-Matic Corp., http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/974131.html .

 

             Eugene

 

From: Barbara Legate [mailto:blegate@legate.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:28 AM
To: Chaim Saiman; obligations@uwo.ca
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

Villanova Law School

610.519.3296

saiman@law.villanova.edu

http://ssrn.com/author=549545