Friday, November 22, 2002

The McDonald's case Jeff Cooper returns unprompted to the bete noire of those who decry "out of control jury verdicts" -- the verdict for the plaintiff in the case of Liebeck v. McDonald's.   He observes: "There are some examples of outrageous jury decisions out there. This is not one." I agree.  I am, I suppose, one of the few defense attorneys who is willing to defend the jury's decision in that case -- against overwhelming opinion to the contrary, it often seems.  In addition to the several factors that Cooper recounts, we should recall that: There was some suggestion that McDonald's had consciously developed the policy of overheating its coffee as a strategy aimed at making sure that the patrons would have to sip it slowly and therefore would not finish the cup and return to the counter to ask for a refill before finishing their breakfasts.  (This may well have been someone's gloss on the facts, however.) The punitive damages award of $2.7 million (later substantially reduced by the trial judge) was calculated by the jury based on the evidence that disclosed that that figure represented one day's coffee sales.  In other words, there was a rational basis for the calculation, and it was intended to sting but not cripple the defendant.  The jury, in making this calculation, did precisely what we expect it to do in coming to a figure on punitive damages. 11:09:49 PM     Mann v St. Clair County Road Commission This case may represent the most complicated technical analysis of appellate issues seen in a Court of Appeals decision in a long time.  It was issued a week ago, and includes rulings on and discussions of issues relating to the distinction between binding decisions and dicta, the application of Michigan's unique Title-Object Clause governing the validity of statutes, and the interplay between the common law and legislative enactments in applying the seat belt defense and the 5% cap on comparative negligence arising from the seat belt defense.  You'll have to give us some time on this one. 10:59:26 PM     Darwin at work Man, 40, dies of burns from fire at gas pump -- A Humboldt Park man died Thursday of burns suffered when his clothes caught fire while he was pumping gas with a lit cigarette.  (Chicago Tribune) Hidden perils Laptop burns penis - Doctors are warning that laptop computers may inflict a burn even through clothed skin, after the bizarre case of a Swedish scientist who scorched his penis and testicles while writing a report in his armchair.  The unnamed 50-year-old father of two had balanced the computer on his lap while he wrote the report at home, taking about an hour to do it, according to a letter published in the next issue of the British medical weekly The Lancet. (Sydney Morning Herald) 8:21:10 AM     Caps on damages upheld The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of the legislative caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, finding that they abridged neither the right to trial by jury nor the guarantees of equal protection.  The limits were first applied in1986 and then refined in 1993. The Court ruled: The statute at issue here is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The 1993 legislation that created the current finite limitation scheme was prompted by the Legislature’s concern over the affect of medical liability on the availability and affordability of health care in the state. See House Legislative Analysis, SB 270 and HB 4033, 4403, and 4404 (second analysis), April 20, 1993, pp 1-2. The purpose of the damages limitation was to control increases in health care costs by reducing the liability of medical care providers, thereby reducing malpractice insurance premiums, a large component of health care costs. Id. Controlling health care costs is a legitimate governmental purpose. By limiting at least one component of health care costs, the noneconomic damages limitation is rationally related to its intended purpose. Because the noneconomic damages cap of MCL 600.1483 is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, the statute does not violate plaintiff’s right to equal protection. Zdrojewski v. Murphy, M.D. - Judges Bandstra and Gage, Judge Fitzgerald dissenting 7:27:33 AM

© Copyright 2002 Franco Castalone. Last update: 12/2/2002; 7:49:28 AM.