Disgustingly modern America.

[Jammrock]

People like this piss me off!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/teen.pilot.lawsuit/index.html

I've heard some crazy ideas before, but this is insane. I think this lady needs to get off the volume, or whatever she's taking.

Jammrock

[Dr Mordrid]

Just leave it to the trial lawyers, and their legilative lackeys (mostly Democrats), to come up with laws and legal theories that allow such stupid s**t.

Dr. Mordrid

[Strahd]

Wait. I see a problem with this.

The prescription can be given only in one-month intervals, and someone under 18 must have a parent or legal guardian sign a consent form after reading lengthy explanations about potential side effects.

The kid was 15.

First, she must have signed this consent form if he was under 15.

Second, both doctor and pharmaceutical company warned them of the side affects.

Third, what the hell is a 15 year old doing flying a plane if he isn't old enough to drive a car.

Fourth, why isn't she suing Ozzy? In my day, everytime a teenager committed suicide, Ozzy's music was to blame.

Fifth why not just sue Osama?

[PAugustin]

This is the worst part of America...
This woman tries to blame a drug company for the death of her crazy son... I think she should be put in an asylum...

[GT98]

I know that Accutane has been under investagation for its effects on people and theres been other lawsuits claming that it screws up people..i.e. causing sucides in teens and what not.

I personally was on Accutane when I was younger and this stuff is pretty powerful. I had to get blood tests done every month to see if it was screwing up my liver or not. If you where female is highly suggested that you take birth Control pills since it causes some horrific birth defects. Its for treating acne, and it really drys the hell out of your skin and you have to be really careful out in the sun. I dont remember ever having any issues with it screwing up my judgement or mental state.

The really sorry thing that I see with this case is that it seems like that this woman is looking for a payoff for what her son did, which is crying shame. Its like oh my son killed himself and now I'm going to look to sue someone to take the blame instead of more closely watching my own son.

I would have to say your Teenage years are the most diffcult time period most people have to face do to peer pressure and the ragging hormons you have going through you at the same time. I know this royally ****s up some people.

well my 2 cents on the issue....

Scott

[Gurm]

The shrinks, I'm sure, have a spiffy term for this... but basically she is suffering from grief-related dementia.

In the course of grieving, she has been convinced - or managed to convince herself - that nothing her SON did was wrong, that nothing SHE did was wrong... and like so many others she refuses to believe that people can just go nuts, or that bad things can happen to good people.

Therefore, she needs SOMEONE to blame. And until she can come to terms with the fact that the person to blame is... well... HER AND HER SON, she will seek out ANYONE else to blame.

The fact that medical tests have conclusively shown that the drug wasn't in his system will not faze her.

Losing the trial won't faze her.

She'll likely start up a grassroots campaign against LaRoche. It's her right, I suppose.

What she REALLY needs is some therapy. (God, did I just say that?)

- Gurm

[Jammrock]

Doesn't the UK have a law or something that gives judges the right to deny people to sue over really stupid stuff. Basically say, "life sucks sometimes, deal with it" and dismiss the trial? I'd say the US should adopt that, but it would probably be found as unconstitutional.

Jammrock

[dancray]

The best and the worst thing about the USA is the freedom it allows; including the right for people to make mistakes.

First off, accutane is a very powerful drug and to condemn the legal action against the drug company (based on a provocative and brief news article) is premature at best. For example from the not so distant past, thalidomide may have been still on the shelf if not for the efforts of the rabid lawyers...the drug company vigourously denied responsibility for the deformaties incurred on children during their mother's pregnancies.

Besides, in the US you have the legal right and freedom to smoke cigarettes. A practice which everyone concedes KILLS you slowly along with the poor girl/gal next to you via 2nd hand smoke. Can you imagine what the Philip Morris's and RJR's would be selling if not for the efforts of legal pitbulls to make them compensate for their cancer sticks? These tobacco drug companies made off like bandits and profiteered for decades knowly selling the public addictive poison.

Suing the accutane drug company for possible dangerous side effects is part of the intricate checks and balances that American freedom embodies. To remove that component would allow for arbritary changes which could end up being manipulated by subjective interest groups rather than an objective set of goals.

It is still one the best systems in the world, and while I believe there is much room for improvement, this example is of the lawyers/accutane suit is definitely not one of them. It is part of the big context that makes US rights so powerful and successful - freedom tends to fail in a vacuum. We're still here, aren't we.

And the air is easier to breath for example, than the smokey bars of France

dc


ps...anyone been to Paris lately, you can hardly step 20 steps without dog poop getting under your feet...definitely not the image you see in brochures...lol

[Strahd]

Freedom is one thing. But to sue over anything is something completely different. Remember that case where the woman sued Mcdonalds for Millions becuase the coffee she spilled on her was hot? How many law suits were plotted against insurance companies, airlines, air craft manufacturers, building engineers, construction workers, Flight Schools etc after September 11th? These acts were nobody's fault. It wasn't the pilot's fault. It wasn't how the building was designed. It wasn't a malfunction of an air craft. It was a handful of nut jobs that wanted destruction.


So I smoked for over 15 years. If I develop cancer, Can I sue the Tabacco industry? I was warned. I've seen brochures, warnings and pictures on every pack I ever bought. But the day I develop cancer my defence is...

You mean these things will cause cancer? Why was I not informed.


Freedom is not the right to sue.

Freedom is the right for someone to launch a company, and if this company creates a product that will slowly kill the user over a course of a life time, as long as there's someone to buy, they have the FREEDOM to sell. Albeit with a warning, but they have this right. As do the pharmaceutical companies. They make a product that clears Acne, they have the right. As long as they worn the patients. And if this lady signed the consent form, she is entirely liable for what happened to her son.

Maybe the father signed. I see no problem with her sueing him if this was the case. But still not the Pharmaceutical company. Someone gave written consent.

[Wombat]

This is probably the kind of lawsuit that shouldn't go anywhere, but maybe not. I never underestimate pharmacutical (sp?) companies' willingness to hide and contort information. This drug may very well cause mental problems much more severe than they disclose.

The McDonald's coffee case: If you really look into the details of the case, then it's not as ridiculous as it seems when someone tells you about it by the water cooler. McDonald's was consistently selling coffee that was well over the any kind of reasonable temperature, and they kept getting reported and warned over it (over 700 claims). "The coffee was hot" is an understatement. The coffee you make at home is around 130-140F. McDonald's kept its coffee at 185F.

The woman had to have skin grafts. She had 3rd-degree burns on 6% of her body. That's not coffee, that's skin remover.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The sueing of airlines after 9/11...I don't really know where I stand on that. The airlines have consistently (and successfully) fought off legislation that would have required them to improve the safety of their planes. They could easily make the planes safer (bomb-containing/redirecting cargo bays, fuel safety mechanisms), but they have chosen not to cut into their profits. They did a cost-analysis calculation, and decided to risk it. Because of that, the WTC went down when it might not have otherwise.
I don't really know how liable I think they are, but when I ask myself, "How is this different from Ford deciding not to spend $1.50 on the fuel-tank deflector on the Pinto?" I can't come up with any real differences.

[dancray]

"So I smoked for over 15 years. If I develop cancer, Can I sue the Tabacco industry? You mean these things will cause cancer? Why was I not informed. "

Actually the vast majority of tobacco law suits stem from smokers who were NOT warned of the dangers during the 40s 50s and 60s. Many are cases carried on by the children of parents who suffered gruesome and sad cancer related deaths. Plus, there is a difference between a company not knowing about a side effect and deliberately designing a cigarette so you have no choice but to get addicted. It's chemical, you know.


"this lady signed the consent form, she is entirely liable for what happened to her son"

what if the accutane company deliberatly hid information that the product caused longterm psychosis? (hiding dangers is not new - tobacco did it...the Thalidomide firm did it too) Was everything out in the open and fully disclosed?

That is what we are talking about: some Companies do lie to sell products. Sometimes it is criminal, sometimes just civil. How do you know that the company disclosed everything they knew unless you force them by a legal suit? Maybe they did and maybe not; a court will decide.

"Millions becuase the coffee she spilled on her was hot? "

actually that is an often misquoted case; the lady was a senior citizen and received painful 2nd degree burns...the lid was not properly sealed as well. She was also hospitalized. She initially only wanted simple compensation for her hospital stay but McDonalds threatened to counter sue her for basically being a pain in a**. Fortunately she had a her day in court and a jury found her action justified and the case judge publically admonished McDonalds being particularly insensitive and bullying. I believe there may have been some copy cat cases following that one when unscrupulous people wanted to fleece McDonalds, but the original case was surprisingly legitimate. And about the millions of dollars awarded. The logic is simple and fair. If you violate a civil law you often pay a fine. For an average salaried person who makes 35k a year, 10% can be considered a notable punishment. McDonalds made about $16 billion this year; a couple of million $$ in fines is not even ~1% penalty. How else can you get a major corporation to alter its behaviour if the fine does not even measure on their balance sheets?

Like I said before; most things that appear simple on the surface (helped by a willing media to dumb down and simplify 95% of what we read) can be quite complex and have far reaching consequences.


dc

ps...good post wombat

[impact]

Originally posted by Wombat

I don't really know how liable I think they are, but when I ask myself, "How is this different from Ford deciding not to spend $1.50 on the fuel-tank deflector on the Pinto?" I can't come up with any real differences.

Um, so you actually do believe in everything you see on TV? The whole Pinto issue was hype.

The internal document which supposedly demonstrated Pinto's vulnerability was about ROLLOVERS in ALL cars, not rear end accidents, and it pertained to questions the Government asked using GOVERNMENT standards. The film footage it was based on was of a study done to determine what happens in rear end fires. SInce rear end fires are hard to duplicate, an incendiary device was used to set it off. That fact was casually left out of the prosecution's case, just like it was left out of the Dateline episode (strangely enough, both issues were brought to the public's eye by the same guy... Byron Bloch).

You are laboring under a persistent myth.

"In a summer 1991 Rutgers Law Review article Gary Schwartz demolishes "the myth of the Pinto case." Actual deaths in Pinto fires have come in at a known 27, not the expected thousand or more. More startling, Schwartz shows that everyone's received ideas about the fabled "smoking gun" memo are false. The actual memo did not pertain to Pintos, or even Ford products, but to American cars in general; it dealt with rollovers, not rear-end collisions; it did not contemplate the matter of tort liability at all, let alone accept it as cheaper than a design change; it assigned a value to human life because federal regulators, for whose eyes it was meant, themselves employed that concept in their deliberations; and the value it used was one that they, the regulators, had set forth in documents.

In retrospect, Schwartz writes, the Pinto's safety record appears to have been very typical of its time and class. "

From "The Most Dangerous Vehicle On the Road"
By Walter Olson
Wall Street Journal, February 9, 1993

http://www.walterolson.com/articles/crashtests.html

[Wombat]

No actually, I don't watch TV. What I <B>did</B> do was a case study on the Pinto in my Engineering Ethics class back in college. The Pinto issue is not just hype.

Fact: Ford was targetting the Pinto to cost less than $2,000. This put them under serious expense restraints.

Fact: In Ford's own testing, the Pinto had a serious problem with ruptured fuel tanks during rear-end collision. When hit from the rear, the fuel tank is pushed up against the rear axle, and some rather large bolts. The bolts puncture and rip the gas tank open. All it took was a spark to have a nice inferno.

Fact: Ford's own safety engineers recommended that a deflector plate be put in place. This ~$1.50 piece of metal directed the fuel tank away from the lethal bolts.

Fact: Ford did a cost-risk analysis, and decided that the deflector wasn't worth the loss of profit. The Pinto was sold in the US without the deflector. However, in other countries (I believe Mexico is an example) the Pinto was sold <I>with</I> the deflector installed.

Fact (from you even): 27 people died as a result.


Impact, you have a long history of being combatant while being constantly uninformed, underinformed, or misinformed. Despite your opinions, Americans are not all drooling morons that are mesmerized by the television.

I'm not going for a "Pinto scandal." But Ford did decide to trade up to 27 lives for an extra $1.50/car profit. Yes, I think they are liable for that, and so did the courts. The question is: Are the actions of the airlines any different?

[Strahd]

Originally posted by dancray
what if the accutane company deliberatly hid information that the product caused longterm psychosis? (hiding dangers is not new - tobacco did it...the Thalidomide firm did it too) Was everything out in the open and fully disclosed?

That is what we are talking about: some Companies do lie to sell products. Sometimes it is criminal, sometimes just civil. How do you know that the company disclosed everything they knew unless you force them by a legal suit? Maybe they did and maybe not; a court will decide.

Then do you not think that perhaps if a consent form needs to be signed, maybe a little more research should be done before signing?

GT98 mentioned ...

I had to get blood tests done every month to see if it was screwing up my liver or not. If you where female is highly suggested that you take birth Control pills since it causes some horrific birth defects. Its for treating acne, and it really drys the hell out of your skin and you have to be really careful out in the sun.

If a blood test is required monthly and they advise woman to start birth control pills, maybe users have been warned. Just that would be enough for me to say wait a miniute, there may something that is better for my child.


I get what you're saying Dancray, and I agree with part of it. But the numbers I don't agree with.

If something like that happened to my child or wife, or anybody I hold dear, the amount I sued for would not be reflective on their annual profits.

I would agree that if this lady from McDonalds should have them pay for hospital bills. If she missed time at work, this should be reimbursed by Mcdonalds.


But is 70 million dollars going to change anything in the life of the woman who lost her son? Other than the fact she and her entire family will be financially sound for a hell of a long time? Will it help her get over the grieving of her lost son?

[The PIT]

It's seems the trend nowadays to sue to get a lot of money.
Unfortunatley there seems to be a trend devoloping for sueing for silly things like falling over your own kid or sueing the police because the dog got scared and won't go out. The last two are true.
My mother thinks you shouldn't sue for anything which I disagree with. If a Company constantly neglects safety the only thing they understand is a dint in there profits i.e a huge compensation bill. If it saves lifes in future I'm all for it.
Now things like the Hillsborough disaster where the police sued for compension was wrong, they messed up and they've got to live with it.
Theres also people who tried to sue over seeing horrific advents on TV well I've seen both Hillsborough live and Bradford fire live and yep I had dreams about the man running while being burned alive and theres no way I'd even think about sueing over that.