posted 09-22-2003 10:11 PM ET (US)        

Details at:

http://www.thenewsstar.com/localnews/html/0ADBFD08-F147-41C7-B049-0B1123562DC5.shtml

The payment of over $6-million settles a lawsuit charging defective design and powering of a bass boat produced by Yamaha.

If the above link has expired, then see:

posted 09-23-2003 08:52 AM ET (US)            

The successful attorney in this case, Chris J. Roy, Sr., states:

"A 90-inch-wide Skeeter boat should not have 200 or 225 horsepower Yamaha engines on it, or any motor of that size."

The article also cites him as referring to a hull chine as a "boat's wedge."

posted 09-23-2003 10:54 AM ET (US)         

You've asked the key question. Why should somebody else pay for YOUR stupidity? Unfortunately, too many do. Too many speeders have killed not only themselves but innocent people who happened to be in their way. As far as lawyers are concerned, well, you're being just a tad simplistic aren't you? You'll see how nice they are when you need them--that is, if you can afford one.

Bigshot,

Nobody has the right to drive a motorcycle, car, boat or any vehicle in a way that endangers others, period. Your fast motorcycle may do 3,000 MPH in 3.5 sec., but what the hell for? You can't operate it at those speeds legally, safely or morally--stupidly, yes. Why make a vehicle that can do 150 mph if the maximum legal speed is 70 mph? Does that make any sense?

I hear speed limiters are coming and that's a VERY GOOD thing. And I'm not talking about the ones in car engines right now--I'm talking about transmitters that will actuate a receiver un your car and slow you down to the posted speed limit when you enter a street. That will end speeding and let cops do other more important jobs.

posted 09-23-2003 11:55 AM ET (US)            

Wrong my friend, folks like myself that SERVE our nations MILITARY and the PUBLIC SERVICE Professions like Medical and Fire and Police are the reason I have the RIGHT to say what I please. Those folks who died in Normandy and Anzio and Khe Sahn and Bagdad... No damn LAWYERS defends my rights unless he has a dollar to earn.

You broke your arm patting yourself on the back. My intellect is sound, my passion is great. Trial lawyers are the scourge of our society. Suing McDonalds because they know a settlement is easy pickens, when the facts are eating that crap will make you fat,,, stupidity!

Trial lawyers nice profession. Parastical for sure. Johnny Cochran stand up dude! Model of integrity.

WHEN was the LAST time you took PRO BONO to represent someone on "principal" instead of cash?

I bet you cruise these forums looking case work.

Loser get lost you ambulance chaser.

posted 09-23-2003 12:00 PM ET (US)            

JIMH is right, the litigation leads to design changes.. materially and socially.

posted 09-23-2003 12:09 PM ET (US)         

Yes, I know about contingency fees. I was thinking of lawyers fees in general, and especially if you're an individual needing a defense attorney. Affording one is a big issue then. And that's when I have a problem with lawyers and the justice system in general--when justice is effectively reserved for the rich. Whether you're wrongly accused of a crime you did not commit, or sued by greedy people, the cost of defense will turn you into a pauper in no time, even if you win the case. Corporations can afford to litigate with entire teams of lawyers. I couldn't even afford a decent one.

So in that sense, greedy lawyers and greedy corporations are no different--they deserve each other.

posted 09-23-2003 03:04 PM ET (US)            

Nobody...I mean NOBODY will ever put a governor in cars. Why? because the law enforcement would have nothing to do and make NO money. 90% of all revenue is from speeding fines, hell towns like Waldo, FL make soooo much money on speeding they were on the Discovery channel. If "they" wanted cars to go 70 max they would have done it years ago. Remember the 85mph speedos....GONE. Remember the U-hauls that only did 55mph....not anymore.

I do not say that I drive like an ass or bragging that my bike is fast(it is:), but it is my right to own a "widow-maker" if I want to. Just like it is your right to fly a plane if you want to. When people are suing car companies because they thought cruise control was an autopilot and WIN.....we really need to revaluate our legal system or get some REAL people on the jury.

posted 09-23-2003 03:08 PM ET (US)            

I applaud your serving our nation in whatever capacity you have. I took exception to your statement regarding that it has taken lawyers to defend my rights... I submit simply that lawyers represent their own interests. That true freedoms are bought and paid for by the military, the police and the medical.

Now the point I was making about "my stupidity" I am only stating that INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILTY should not be regulated by law, or precedent or whatever. IF I cause and action to injure myself based on my own actions or accident or act of war or god than that is my responsibility to deal with. IF I CHOOSE to eat 10 Big Macs a day, smoke 2 packs of Marlboro's or eat 20 bags of Oreo cookies,, so what! and who is the lawyer/judge to decide my actions were the responsibilty of another person? The judicial activism either by Lawyers or what they will grow up to become, judges... is a worse precedent than any product liability.

My dad always said.. "if you run with scissors, you can put an eye out" since when did that give me the right to sue anyone for that stupidity if that action led to an eye injury? What cost does that lawsuit lead to? How about a lost job, a lost product, and a poor precedent.. now that will also find it's way to the taxpayer, to pay for, by increased legislation, enforcement etc... so you see, it might seem innocuos it is actually insidious...

Bench legislation activism is ruining our nation. Judges should enforce the literal interpretation of the Constitution,,, not try to rewrite it.

THAT is WHY I DO NOT LIKE LAWYERS.

Citizen Kane....

Whalers sorry for tying up your bandwith with my manifesto.. I am gonna follow pokers lead and bow out and talk about whalers....

posted 09-23-2003 03:25 PM ET (US)            

Something in our system has gone seriously arwy. It's a shame that lawyers are not effective at self-policing.

We're all paying the price for this unpleasant evolution. Products and services are more expensive because the cost of liability is inevitably passed on to the consumer.

Lawyers protect some of us, but they also guarantee that ALL of us will pay more for less with each passing year.

posted 09-23-2003 04:16 PM ET (US)            

If our juries were not so stupid, and culturally accumstomed to the notion that we have no personal responsibility for the courses our lives take, the lawyers who sponsor such frivolous suits would be discouraged from doing so.

posted 09-23-2003 04:33 PM ET (US)            

Regadrs, Jay

posted 09-23-2003 04:34 PM ET (US)         

Guess Brunswick and Yamaha are both operating under the "packaged boat/engine" concept.

posted 09-23-2003 07:22 PM ET (US)            

Having said that, idiotic jury verdicts have EVERYTHING to do with how larger cases are resolved. If juries could be relied upon to make rational decisions, the maximum exposure for brewing hot coffee, for example, would be substantially less that we have observed it to be ($3 Million, wasn't it?).

Unfortunately, in our legal system, we can't count on a jury to recognize the lunacy of holding McDonalds liable for brewing hot cofee, or the obesity-related problems of the people who eat too much fast food.

Forcing McDonalds to pay that poor woman a gazillion dollars hasn't done anything other than reduce the temperature of their coffee and increase the cost of their food. I don't think that litigation did much to advance humanity, but I'm sure it lined the pockets of a bunch of lawyers.

posted 09-23-2003 08:07 PM ET (US)            

One thing that has not been touched on in this thread (at least that I could make out) is how difficult it really is to get a personal injury case (or malpractice) to trial. The TV lawyers (Perry Mason got me 10 million dollars)very seldom go to trial. The frivolous cases presented in this thread are attention grabbers but most of them were thrown out.

My son (9) is bipolar and has had to spend time in psychiatric care hospitals so we could get the right mix of medication. His last visit he was in for 14 days and was taking 2 medications. When he was released (because we ran out of insurance) he was on 7 meds, was suffering from severe paranoia, and has been diagnosed with moderate brain damage from the mixture of meds. My wife and I have had a very difficult time getting a lawyer to take the case. Even though we have a prepoderence of evidence against the doctor and hospital, it is not tight enough to warrant the expense of a trial (and it would have to go to trial). My wife cannot pursue the case because she does not specialize in this type of law (she protects home builders from frivoulous lawsuits). We cannot afford to fund all of the discovery expenses, etc. that will be needed to present our case. In other words, even solid cases do not get to trial.

The good news is, even though my son has suffered a setback, he is slowly recovering. One thing that never changed was his love for our Whaler.

posted 09-24-2003 06:00 PM ET (US)            

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

posted 09-24-2003 06:23 PM ET (US)            

I'll bet most, if not all, of the bad feelings toward lawyers AND judges is from first hand experience.

I don't want lawyers or judges deciding how much power to put on my Whaler or truck or tractor or chain saw or.

Now for, "the greatest legal system on earth, ever"......
that may have been at one time in our short history.

I wonder how the Founding Fathers that were running the legal system would feel if they sat and watched many of the proceedings in our court rooms today.

Sorry guys and gals of our fine legal system, I think you brought it on yourselves.

posted 09-24-2003 08:08 PM ET (US)            

It is regrettable and unintentional that comments from other participants in this thread have contained such venomous attacks on lawyers.

It certainly was not my intention to provoke such venomous attacks. Indeed, my intention, as I clearly stated in my preface, was to inform our gentle readers of the legal difficulties that had befallen Yamaha, a firm generally held in the highest regard by practically all mariners as a manufacturer of flawless and defect free products. That Yamaha voluntarily paid $6,000,000 to a mariner who had purchased their product and sued for damages due to defect is news I am sure comes as a surprise to everyone, from the most urbane Boston Whalers owners of Rockland, Massachusetts, all the way to Greek fishermen.

At no point did I attribute the fundamental problem to lawyers. I merely asked rhetorically if we could assume now that design of recreational boats and motors was to be performed by courts and lawsuits instead of naval architects?

I do have to protest that the fact that the general population finds some problems with lawyers is not a new phenomenon, nor is it one that occurs only as the direct result of provocation by me. Against these charges I offer the following remarks, published by Alexander Pope, in his masterpiece Gulliver's Travels, where in he attempts to explain to his hosts, a race of horses what use man as a beast of burden, the nature of law and lawyers as practiced in England, the country upon whose laws our own are based:

"I said there was a Society of Men among us, bred up from their Youth in the Art of proving by Words multiplied for the Pleasure, that White is Black, and Black is White, according as they are paid. To this Society all the rest of the People are Slaves.

"For Example, if my Neighbour hath a Mind to my Cow, he hires a Lawyer to prove that he ought to have my Cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my Right, it being against all Rules of Law that any Man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this Case, I who am the right Owner lie under two great Disadvantages. First, my Lawyer being practiced almost from his Cradle in defending Falshood; is quite out of his Element when he would be an Advocate for Justice, which as an Office unnatural, he always attempts with great Awkwardness if not with Ill-will. The second Disadvantage is, that my Lawyer must proceed with great Caution: Or else he will be reprimanded by the Judges, and abhorred by his Brethren, as one that would lessen the Practice of the Law. And therefore I have but two Methods to preserve my Cow. The first is, to gain over my Adversary's Lawyer with a double Fee; who will then betray his Client by insinuating that he hath Justice on his Side. The second way is for my Lawyer to make my Cause appear as unjust as he can; by the Cow to belong to my Adversary; and this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the Favour of the Bench.

"Now, your Honour is to know that these Judges are Persons appointed to decide all Controversies of Property, as well as for the Tryal of Criminals; and picked out from the most dextrous Lawyers who are grown old or lazy: And having been byassed all their Lives against Truth and Equity, are under such a fatal Necessity of favouring Fraud, Perjury, and Oppression; that I have known some of them refuse a large Bribe from the Side where Justice lay, rather than injure the Faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their Nature or their Office.

"It is a Maxim among these Lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again: And therefore they take special Care to record all the Decisions formerly made against common Justice and the general Reason of Mankind. These, under the Name of Precedents, they produce as Authorities to justify the most iniquitous Opinions; and the Judges never fail of decreeing accordingly. "

(See http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/contents.html for full text.)

Incidentally Pope published this in 1726. This was four centuries ago, before the invention of the internet, the world wide web, the Boston Whaler, and online discussion forums like this one. What I infer from this is that dissatisfaction with the legal system and its participants, lawyers and judges, is not a particularly new phenomenon, nor one which flares up only when encouraged by "windbags" like me.

I have brought our readers attention to topics like this because I do not think that in these cases the manufacturer has produced a defective product. It appears, with what I admit is rather casual investigation on my part, that the plaintiffs (mariners) in these cases have operated their vessels in such a manner that they caused themselves to be run over by their own vessel, unfortunately with terrible consequences to themselves.

I don't think that owners of Boston Whaler boats, particularly classic models made prior to 1990, are, as a general group, particularly interested in articles about the details of the McDonald's coffee case, and, as we have been informed, the ultimate outcome is a secret. I am sure there are many cases that have been litigated where justice has not been served, but to recount them all is not our purpose.

By the way, I think the Corvair was quite a nice little car in the 1960's and Ralph Nader used it to make a name for himself. But that is another topic...

posted 09-24-2003 09:18 PM ET (US)            

As recently as the late 1800's, Mark Twain lamented the short 14-years he was entitled to protect his work against re-use by others, and planned his own autobiography in installments to be released after his death so that it might provide an income for his many children.

My apologies for confusion between Pope and Swift, an egregious error on my part for which I ask your pardon.

I must point out, again, for clearly I did not make myself understood, that I do not blame Yamaha's woes on the lawyers, nor have, if I recall, made any venomous attacks on lawyers, so to go to great lengths to defend lawyers and justify them to me is unnecessary. It might persuade some of our other participants, but for me, I have formed my own opinion of lawyers and the law, and it is one that I don't push upon others but hold to myself.

If you have read closely my articles in the past, I am certain you have found my praise for the clear thinking and lucid writing contained in many Court of Appeals decisions which I have made reference to. Also, you certainly must have read my lengthy account of the legal problems of Brunswick, which, I think you will find was told without a single remark about the lawyers or lawyering involved.

No, I cannot accept your attempts to smear me as a windbag who seeks to stir up contempt for lawyers. As Swift demonstrated that is a characteristic of human nature for the last four centuries.

Again, I only report news of interest to owners of classic Boston Whaler boats. I think my many postings, my numerous research articles, my many long cruising narratives, all show my general interest to be in boating.

Were I conducting a crusade against the professions of the law, I assure you that the content of this website would be much different.

So again, I must lay aside your charges. I am not a wind bag who seeks to encourage venomous remarks against lawyers.

posted 09-25-2003 09:54 AM ET (US)            

Poker13- I agree with Bigshot on the speed point. The 55 saves lives BS was implemented in the 70's during the gas shortage. They figured out that this was the most fuel efficient speed. Pretty soon, they figured out how to make money from it, now that will never change.
I have friends that race the same bikes they use on the street- no problem driving a bike 130 on a course is there?
You will never see governors attached to cars and trucks- Look at how they market vehicles. They always give top 0-60 speed, torque, and hp. Why would they do that? You are dreaming if you think we will all be driving governed cars soon.

To all the Lawyer bashers- I have the answer.

posted 09-25-2003 10:13 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

We have met the enemy and he is us

---

posted 09-25-2003 11:22 AM ET (US)            

Now as to my McDonald "product liability" comment I was referring to the "Big-Mac Fat-ass gonna-sue-the state of New York because I ate fast food and am a moron case"

The coffee case was an aside.

I love how you presume we the commoner's are idiots simply because we believe that TRIAL LAWYERS are a scourge. Actually scourge was too kind. Trial Lawyers are parasite's masking their greed behind the "common good"

You can look yourself in the mirror all day because your training has built a belief in your "profession" that you are the modern protectors of democracy... (I am sure glad this coffee is now legally required to be luke warm so I don't burn myself as I drop it in my lap laughing)

I find it poignant that you are quick to refer to the "copy right" laws of a quote of a classic by Jimh.

Here is a FACT: Lawyers grow up to be Judges. Some Judges legislate from the bench instead of enforcing the existing laws and adhering to strict letter of the law.

Lets look at some recent headlines:

Clarrett sues NFL - Trial Lawyer suing the NFL for entry against the NFL's own rules. Did we mention that Clarrett was in LEGAL violation of the NCAA rules and is KICKED off the Buckeyes?

Kraft Mac-n-Cheeze - Trial Lawyer sues for product making kids obese

OREO Cookies - Some Trial Lawyer contends he knows more about what I should feed my kids than I.

Smith and Wesson - sued for product liabality in that the guns KILL people... Luckily the City of Atlanta said B.S. and didnt settle. How the hell is a gun defective, if it can actually fire for it's purpose?

Sure there are bigger issues with each but now we are so desensitized to each civil case we just shake our heads while the TRIAL LAWYERS get richer from our misery.

One commercial in Virginia Beach shows trial lawyers pondering the good work they do... I laugh because that is good comedy...

Remember if someone breaks into your house and your in the defense of your life you may face LEGAL Civil actions as a result of your injury to the trespasser, regardless of the sign in your window, regardless of your 2nd Amendement rights.

I accept accountablity for my actions and do not require a lawyer to sue on my behalf for injuries I cause to myself due to my actions I expect no less from society.

As for Juries... Lawyers cruise through the pool until they find the jurors they desire. I have found it difficult to serve on a jury even though I belive we all should do this critical and important duty as citizen's. The reason: White Male, conservative, gun owning, property owning, married long term with child. In fact my only jurist flaw is I am Oakland Raider fan!

Rubudub- remember it best to remain suspected of being an imbecile instead of opening ones mouth and removing all doubt.

posted 09-25-2003 12:09 PM ET (US)         

The trial lawyer that brings frivolous lawsuits for the sole purpose of personal financial gain - bad person.

The mechanic that cheats his customers - bad person.

The accountant that sells drugs to kids - bad person.

The salesman that is cheating on his wife - bad person.

The soldier that spys for the enemy - bad person.

posted 09-25-2003 01:40 PM ET (US)            

I take issues with the responding lawyers professing their motivation for practicing law as some virtuous mission from God.

In most law firms (like accounting firms) there is tremendous pressure on partners and associates for billable hours. (or revenue generation for contingency cases).

I would submit that this pressure drives the frivalous suites, double billing, billing partner rates for paralegal work etc

posted 09-25-2003 01:55 PM ET (US)            

Make this 3.

Mea Culpa.

Defending my position after piled onto by the trial lawyers.

I will follow your example and bow out after bowing out.

posted 09-25-2003 05:56 PM ET (US)            

I do see both sides and agree that you cannot comment or bash trial lawyers because someday you, or your family, might need one to settle a wrong. The best ones are "persistant" and direct. And make the most money.

The only one who makes sense on this thread is the judge. We do not know all the facts, and unless you sat there in the trial as the jury did you cannot pass judgement on any litigation, especially what is reported in the newsmedia.

Like anything the pedulum swings both ways and maybe it is swinging too much in favor of trial lawyers, but I am not even sure of that. Jurys make the awards.

The malpractice problems in Florida will be an interesting case study, because they just capped settlements so the insurance companies should be happy, I'll bet a Big Mac that the insurance rates to doctors DO NOT go down.

Another idea I never see discussed regarding litigation is "loser pays". What would that do? Would that bring some sanity back to the system or is it (trial lawyers) already too big. Interesting twist on this subject: http://my.voyager.net/~jayjo/loserpay.htm

posted 09-25-2003 08:44 PM ET (US)            

Some people turned it into a referendum on lawyers.

Some lawyers turned it into a referendum on how I run the forum.

Some lawyers with potty mouths, who were harboring old wounds, took advantage to toss some more vulgar language around and then blame me for not moderating properly.

Fellas, I just point out the news. Don't blame me for the settlements, the decisions, the lawyering.

I don't smear people with broad brushes and insults. I leave that for the ... (oops, almost misspoke there!)

And as for the vulgar language, I learned about that when I was a young boy. If I learned a new word or two down at the playground and brought it home to my house, well, my mother used to tell me that she'd wash my mouth out with soap if I used language like that again.

As I recall, it only took one trip to the bathroom to get my mouth washed with soap to teach me not to use vulgar language.

To all the folks who append "Esquire" after their names, and to all the folks who don't, let's leave the lawyers and the lawyering out of this.

To all the folks that think they know better how to run a forum and a website, please have at it. I'd love to drop in on your site, maybe toss some insults your way, use some vulgar language, and see how you handle it. Maybe I'd learn something from seeing how it ought to be done.

posted 09-25-2003 11:00 PM ET (US)            

Rubadub, thanks for the detail on the McDonalds hot coffee case. The information you provided was new to me, and it made the enormous verdict much more understandable. I should know better than to rely on the incomplete picture provided by the media. They've let me down more times than I can count, so I shouldn't be willing to base an opinion on the information they provide. My bad.

Trafficlawyer, thanks for the comic relief. I actually nodded and giggled my way through your list of frustrating professionals. I'm sure everybody here has experienced many of the frustrations you listed.

I work with criminal defense lawyers all the time. I think most of them - almost all - are very fine people trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the unscrupulous minority often seem to have a disproportionately large adverse impact, and the sting from their bad deeds seems to last much longer than the favorable effects from the good deeds of others. I don't know why that is.

posted 09-26-2003 12:58 AM ET (US)         

The basic problem is that there are too many lawyers chasing the same banana. It is easy to become a lawyer. Law school at all levels is not brain surgery.Look at some of the monkeys that are on TV as judges. My tie in to this explains the lack of quality health care in the US.

Quality doctors are retiring instead of paying huge insurance premiums to insure themseves from law suits.

Now we have a situation where the most productive members of society and most intelligent are being driven out by bullies.

It would be easy for me to say that there are too many lawyers...I just believe that there are too few situations for them hence they CREATE their own opportunities.

"Have your suffered an injury lately? call 800..."

Let's face it. Our society is too focused on "Loop Holes" rather than scientific break throughs.

Have you seen any prime time shows about tracking germ strains competing with a bunch of urban folks taking there case to TV court because Tyrone is really the father of baby Shanika?