Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake

The McDonalds coffee example is frequently used...and also a classic example of why tort reform is ridiculous. The woman who sued had second degree burns as I recall and required extensive medical attention. If memory serves, she might have even needed a skin graft. It wasn't a frivolous suit and that McDonalds had received a warning to fix the coffee maker twice before by a Government agency. It was substantially hotter than normal coffee and was deemed unsafe prior to the accident. This case has become this legendary myth and few of the peiople who quote it seem to actually know anything about it.

You can sue anybody for anything...and yes...there is a chance there could be a suit here...I wouldn't give it much chance of going anywhere. There are built in protections against frivolous suits...lawyers want to get paid, so they aren;t going to take a case they can't win without a large chunk up front. Most people aren;t going to waste that money on something unwinnable up front. As a practical matter, it's extremely difficult to sue most Government agencies in most states...most attorneys won't touch it unless it's truly gross conduct.

It's easy to say a case is frivolous when you aren't the one burned. Most of the tort reform arguers would be first in line sueing if they were injured. Having the right to a trial and having access to a legal system is part of what makes our country what it is. I'd much rather have some frivlous suits than lose my right to unfettered court access. I want a judge and/or jury deciding what's frivolous...not public opinion or politicians.