Concordia customers suing for all of this money, be happy your alive!!!

[gelo7]

Glad to be alive to sue....

[tracyanns]

Could not disagree more. It was not a huge deal and most of the passneger have been offered more than they are entitled to receive, including replacement of all lost goods, return of fare, return home paid for plus $15,000 on top of that.

 

For anyone to claim that their lives were in gross danger is laughable.

 

The only people who are going to get anything out of this incident are the attorneys, who by the time it is over in about 15 years will take well over half of what is awarded to the passengers.

 

I agree that the attorneys will see more than most of the passengers. And I also agree that not EVERY life was in grave dadnger, there were those that were the first on the life boats and made it safely to shore and were off the boat before it listed as badly as it did.

 

But, the ones that had to jump in or be rescued off of the ship, and obviously the ones that passed away are a different story.

 

As far as everyone being entitled to more than their money back, that has never been the case. Everyone was already offered their money back plus additional monies. Now, obviously anyone injured or whatever circumstance is entitled to more than someone that was able to get to shore with no problems, but I don't believe that this is worth millions to anyone, unless they have financially dependent children and spouses and that is what they will lose in income from this incident.

 

I think the hardest determination is for the deceased. Obviously the families of those that died are devastated, but without being financially dependent, there really is no price you can put on a life. No amount of money will bring that person back or make the loss any easier or change the outcome.

 

It is going to be interesting to see the outcome of the amounts that they decide upon, I just think this is going to take a long time...

[tracyanns]

No, pay as you go reasonable payment plans. Poor people do it all the time for many of their bills. And don't forget about legal aid. In some cases these state funded legal aid programs lend the money and you pay it back via a plan. There would definitely be ways around this. It's just like poor people are getting homes now because of certain aid that they get etc. but bottom line is it would really cut back on frivolous suits. Especially if you had to work hard to get the money (wait in lines, fill out apps, etc)

 

The only problem with that, is not all lawyers will go payment plans, in fact, most of the better ones will not, atleast around here, unless they know you are willing to work with you. And I can't say that I blame them because if they invest $20,000 in this case and you lose, you have nothing to lose by not paying them any more money. Yes, you will get letters and calls and go in to collections, but that is more trouble for them than it is worth.

 

Also, legal aid is another issue. Many middle class people make too much to qualify for it, and that is if they aren't 5 years behind in what they are doing...and while many people think that middle class should be able to afford a lawyer, some people have more bills than others. If you take 2 families that make the same amount of money and one has a $2,000 mortgage and the other has a $4,000 mortgage and their utilies are higher and insurance is higher and property taxes are higher, that first family is going to have a lot more spending money than the other that lives a little more frugally.

 

This is very advantagous to the lawyers that sue for things like this, because they know that most people are not willing to take the risk of paying a lot of money to possibly get either less or none or they don't have the money...so they charge ridiculous %'s that they take in order to make it more convenient for you. I had a friend that was hit by a car. She was messed up pretty badly and she actually had a personal injury lawyer that read about the accident in the paper and came to see her in the hospital. Started telling her everything she was entitled to and such. She took his card. She started working with the insurance companies and they offered her a settlement of $40,000, which I thought was fair, the lawyer told her she could get way more than that if they went to court. So, she turned down their offer and they sued. I don't remember the amount he tried to sue for but it was REALLY high. This went on for months and months and finally, after all was said and done, the most they would give was $50,000. She was fine with that as that was $10,000 more, until the lawyer took $15,000 in legal fees and she got $35,000. He made 30% on her and she would have made more if she had taken the offer from the insurance co...

[Rottweiler Puppy]

Are you kidding me??!! A cruise ship runs aground, gets a 160 ft gash in its hull, loses power, rolls over and sinks, and you're saying their lives weren't in gross danger and it wasn't a huge deal?

 

Wow. :eek:

 

I have discovered a good number of CC posters here are insane and incapable of any empathy at all.

[Room Service!]

tracyanns - Your friend got greedy. That's what the topic of this thread 'started out' being about.

[LittleMiss]

Could not disagree more. It was not a huge deal and most of the passneger have been offered more than they are entitled to receive, including replacement of all lost goods, return of fare, return home paid for plus $15,000 on top of that.

 

For anyone to claim that their lives were in gross danger is laughable.

 

The only people who are going to get anything out of this incident are the attorneys, who by the time it is over in about 15 years will take well over half of what is awarded to the passengers.

 

I warn you zqvol.... Making statements like this will cause feather ruffling, then they find out about your personal life and use it against you, all the while they are pulling every strand of your hair out and yelling kill, kill, Die!! Trust me if you think anything other than everyone on the Concordia needs to have millions and that's even including the ones who walked away, you WILL be on the chopping block in here and even told to leave in some cases. So be careful and welcome and thanks for your honest view you courageous soul :D

[LittleMiss]

Glad to be alive to sue....

 

I like that :D

[tracyanns]

tracyanns - Your friend got greedy. That's what the topic of this thread 'started out' being about.

 

I know, but the lawyer talked a good game and told her all these future expenses she may need to cover and just really, to me, conned her into using him. I told her any lawyer that comes to you, is probably one you don't want to use!

[LittleMiss]

The only problem with that, is not all lawyers will go payment plans, in fact, most of the better ones will not, atleast around here, unless they know you are willing to work with you. And I can't say that I blame them because if they invest $20,000 in this case and you lose, you have nothing to lose by not paying them any more money. Yes, you will get letters and calls and go in to collections, but that is more trouble for them than it is worth.

 

Also, legal aid is another issue. Many middle class people make too much to qualify for it, and that is if they aren't 5 years behind in what they are doing...and while many people think that middle class should be able to afford a lawyer, some people have more bills than others. If you take 2 families that make the same amount of money and one has a $2,000 mortgage and the other has a $4,000 mortgage and their utilies are higher and insurance is higher and property taxes are higher, that first family is going to have a lot more spending money than the other that lives a little more frugally.

 

This is very advantagous to the lawyers that sue for things like this, because they know that most people are not willing to take the risk of paying a lot of money to possibly get either less or none or they don't have the money...so they charge ridiculous %'s that they take in order to make it more convenient for you. I had a friend that was hit by a car. She was messed up pretty badly and she actually had a personal injury lawyer that read about the accident in the paper and came to see her in the hospital. Started telling her everything she was entitled to and such. She took his card. She started working with the insurance companies and they offered her a settlement of $40,000, which I thought was fair, the lawyer told her she could get way more than that if they went to court. So, she turned down their offer and they sued. I don't remember the amount he tried to sue for but it was REALLY high. This went on for months and months and finally, after all was said and done, the most they would give was $50,000. She was fine with that as that was $10,000 more, until the lawyer took $15,000 in legal fees and she got $35,000. He made 30% on her and she would have made more if she had taken the offer from the insurance co...

 

Your right about the being able to afford piece and lawyers not wanting payment plans but, if it changed to this, then I would expect the government to change the laws of legal aid to sliding scale, but it would definitely be something to petition for.

[maggie cruises]

I warn you zqvol.... Making statements like this will cause feather ruffling, then they find out about your personal life and use it against you, all the while they are pulling every strand of your hair out and yelling kill, kill, Die!! Trust me if you think anything other than everyone on the Concordia needs to have millions and that's even including the ones who walked away, you WILL be on the chopping block in here and even told to leave in some cases. So be careful and welcome and thanks for your honest view you courageous soul :D

 

they find out about your personal life? how does that happen on an anonymous message board, I wonder? through personal info on a sig maybe? through individual postings from the poster themselves? through posting personal pix? through a cruise countdown clock?

 

I dont know but the only way I know anything about a poster is through their own posted/uploaded info. That is of course if I believe any of that info!LOL

 

 

I myself am a retired army/commercial airline pilot living in Alaska with my family now...and we raise sled dogs...and DH was a petroleum engineer for the pipeline... just sayin'...and happy to share that info btw...no big deal to me.

[Cruiser_SG77]

I have read all the details and I do know all of the facts. I have for a long time. It doesn't change the fact that I would never put hot coffee or tea or chocolate inbetween my legs and open the lid to try and put sugar in. And if I did and burned myself, I would not sue the company that sold it to me.

 

Apparently you don't seem to know all the facts. Here's what you probably didn't know:

 

After the incident the 79 year old lady in question sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her total medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.

 

Instead, McDonald's offered her only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, she retained an attorney who filed suit and asked for $90,000. McDonald's also refused that offer to settle. At this point the attorney decided it was time to punish McDonald's and took them to court.

 

After trial, the jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors arrived at this figure from her attorney's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000 for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both the lady and McDonald's in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

 

Sorry to hijack this thread but I just wanted to point out all the facts regarding this case.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

[maggie cruises]

Apparently you don't seem to know all the facts. Here's what you probably didn't know:

 

After the incident the 79 year old lady in question sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her total medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.

 

Instead, McDonald's offered her only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, she retained an attorney who filed suit and asked for $90,000. McDonald's also refused that offer to settle. At this point the attorney decided it was time to punish McDonald's and took them to court.

 

After trial, the jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors arrived at this figure from her attorney's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000 for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both the lady and McDonald's in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

 

Sorry to hijack this thread but I just wanted to point out all the facts regarding this case.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 

thank you for this info. I have been lurking on this thread for a few days..and only just posted today...but it amazes me how the many posters here just don't understand that whole issue with McDonalds and the coffee...and just believed all of the media hype about it. Media hype is there primarily to get you to buy their papers and watch their news reports...IMHO..it is only on rare occasions that they actually report meaningful info....and then it depends on which station you are watching...unfortunately so few understand the media slant on stories. Sad.

[tkportersat]

I am thinking because of this lawsuit I can no longer get a hot cup of coffee....I always have to reheat it and I only work maybe 5 minutes down the road from Starbucks, Mcdonald's, etc. And now we don't have to worry about it because said places will now put whatever you want in it before handing it to you.

 

Honestly I am quite sure the lovely woman felt by holding the cup that it was too hot to be handling at that moment, as that was back in the day before those handy little cup sleeves were around and obviously before cupholders as who puts the coffee between their legs to put the cream and sugar in? I digress :( No matter how many times it is told to me, I still think it is frivolous. I already have my 22 month old trained on the difference between hot and cold.

 

Not comparing coffee to Concordia....possibly they deserve more than $14,000 but definitely shouldn't get into the milions. Obviously it is case by case based on death, injury, etc. If someone is fine than the $14,000 seems fair.

 

Absolutely, it was wrong. But at the same time, they made it so hot because people that added a lot of cream it would become cold, or people that had a commute into work, by the time they got there it would be hot. They make it too hot and someone gets burnt and sues, yet if you spilled boiling water on yourself at home it would be your fault...

 

Someone is going to complain about coffee being too hot and they get burned or someone is going to complain about it being too cold and they couldn't drink it. This is just society and there is NOTHING that we can do to make something right for everyone. And yes, I have spilled hot tea on myself from DD(which almost still has bubbles in it from being boiled) and burned myself and still have a scar, but I didn't sue, I spilled it, not them.

[Room Service!]

I do not agree that what happened to to the Concordia "was not a big deal".

[Zoedokey]

Which is very smart. See here in the US they are so quick to sue sometimes that they say sue now pay later. It's ran by greedy lawyers of course. But I wonder how many lawsuits are happening in the UK?

 

So I guess only people who have extra money in the bank can take advantage of the legal system? I would never want this kind of system in the US.

[tkportersat]

Since I have quite a drive to and from work every day I am going to start recording license plates of people that almost kill me every day and sue them for negligence :mad:.....I only put that because how many of us have had our lives pass before our eyes or had a life or death experience? I know I have had a couple close calls in my 40 years. The most recent is my husband and I were leaving a poker game and our light turned green. Out of the corner of my eye I see something and just yell to my husband "don't move" and thank god he didn't as a car came through the intersection at about 50-60 miles an hour. My husband didn't see it coming. We would have surely been killed or severely injured. We were glad to be alive. The only thing my husband mentioned is had I not been in the car he would have followed the guy and beat his a$$. Negligence is ALL around us.

 

Could not disagree more. It was not a huge deal and most of the passneger have been offered more than they are entitled to receive, including replacement of all lost goods, return of fare, return home paid for plus $15,000 on top of that.

 

For anyone to claim that their lives were in gross danger is laughable.

 

The only people who are going to get anything out of this incident are the attorneys, who by the time it is over in about 15 years will take well over half of what is awarded to the passengers.

[tracyanns]

Apparently you don't seem to know all the facts. Here's what you probably didn't know:

 

After the incident the 79 year old lady in question sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her total medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.

 

Instead, McDonald's offered her only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, she retained an attorney who filed suit and asked for $90,000. McDonald's also refused that offer to settle. At this point the attorney decided it was time to punish McDonald's and took them to court.

 

After trial, the jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors arrived at this figure from her attorney's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000 for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both the lady and McDonald's in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

 

Sorry to hijack this thread but I just wanted to point out all the facts regarding this case.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 

Actually, someone posted a snopes article on the case and it contained all of these facts that you just stated, as do a million other articles.

 

I do not see how you stating this changes the fact that some would sue for this and some wouldn't. Just because the courts found McDonalds liable doesn't mean that every individual feels they would hold them liable. Some people take responsibility for ALL of their actions and some only take responsibility when it is in their favor. In this mindset, I am sure not EVERY person that was on the Concordia will sue, some will take the settlement and be happy, but others will sue and wants it all...it depends on the person. You don't need to know the FACTS to know what one person would do, you just need to know the facts to know what YOU would do. Just because we don't agree with it doesn't make it right or wrong, that is the wonderful things about opinions...we all have one and no one can take it away from us...

[tracyanns]

I am thinking because of this lawsuit I can no longer get a hot cup of coffee....I always have to reheat it and I only work maybe 5 minutes down the road from Starbucks, Mcdonald's, etc. And now we don't have to worry about it because said places will now put whatever you want in it before handing it to you.

 

Honestly I am quite sure the lovely woman felt by holding the cup that it was too hot to be handling at that moment, as that was back in the day before those handy little cup sleeves were around and obviously before cupholders as who puts the coffee between their legs to put the cream and sugar in? I digress :( No matter how many times it is told to me, I still think it is frivolous. I already have my 22 month old trained on the difference between hot and cold.

 

Not comparing coffee to Concordia....possibly they deserve more than $14,000 but definitely shouldn't get into the milions. Obviously it is case by case based on death, injury, etc. If someone is fine than the $14,000 seems fair.

 

I do not drink coffee but my husband always has that problem. By the time he puts his cream and sugar in it and stirs it, he usually has to reheat it. The ONLY place that he has to put extra cream to cool it down is Dunkin Donuts...you can't drink their tea or coffee or hot chocolate for an hour!

[tracyanns]

I do not agree that what happened to to the Concordia "was not a big deal".

 

That would be the understatement of the year!

[Cruiser_SG77]

Honestly I am quite sure the lovely woman felt by holding the cup that it was too hot to be handling at that moment, as that was back in the day before those handy little cup sleeves were around and obviously before cupholders as who puts the coffee between their legs to put the cream and sugar in? I digress :( No matter how many times it is told to me, I still think it is frivolous. I already have my 22 month old trained on the difference between hot and cold.

 

I understand, however the lady was trying to be reasonable with McDonald's and only asked for $20,000 to cover her medical bills and lost income from spending 6 weeks at the hospital. Only after McDonald's refused to pay more than $800 did she decided to punish them by hiring a lawyer and taking them to court. I say good for her! :D

 

I personally think Costa will be facing a similar situation...

[Cruiser_SG77]

Actually, someone posted a snopes article on the case and it contained all of these facts that you just stated, as do a million other articles.

 

I do not see how you stating this changes the fact that some would sue for this and some wouldn't. Just because the courts found McDonalds liable doesn't mean that every individual feels they would hold them liable. Some people take responsibility for ALL of their actions and some only take responsibility when it is in their favor. In this mindset, I am sure not EVERY person that was on the Concordia will sue, some will take the settlement and be happy, but others will sue and wants it all...it depends on the person. You don't need to know the FACTS to know what one person would do, you just need to know the facts to know what YOU would do. Just because we don't agree with it doesn't make it right or wrong, that is the wonderful things about opinions...we all have one and no one can take it away from us...

 

I'm not trying to take anyone's opinion away from them, I'm just trying to help educate some people regarding this specific case. I must have missed the earlier posting that contained these facts. My bad.

 

If I had been on the Concordia during the tragedy and felt that my life (or my wife's) was in danger at any point, I would be asking for a lot more than $14,000.

[kayhold]

I do not drink coffee but my husband always has that problem. By the time he puts his cream and sugar in it and stirs it, he usually has to reheat it. The ONLY place that he has to put extra cream to cool it down is Dunkin Donuts...you can't drink their tea or coffee or hot chocolate for an hour!

 

At starbucks, just ask for it extra hot. Its simple. :D

 

Sent from my SGH-T589 using Tapatalk

[tracyanns]

I'm not trying to take anyone's opinion away from them, I'm just trying to help educate some people regarding this specific case. I must have missed the earlier posting that contained these facts. My bad.

 

If I had been on the Concordia during the tragedy and felt that my life (or my wife's) was in danger at any point, I would be asking for a lot more than $14,000.

 

But if you had been on the Concordia and made it safely onto the lifeboat and to shore before the ship was completely on its side and lights went out and you faced no injuries, would you still feel that your life had been in danger? I think while onshore, most of those were thankful to be safely off the boat and were not in the imminent danger that those still trapped on the boat were on... For 2 people on shore with no physical injuries and not having to had witness the worst, I don't think that $28,000 is bad.

 

$28,000,000 isn't going to make you forget about it or make you feel any differently, it certainly wouldn't make you any safer 5-10 years later when it will finally gets paid out.

 

I will never argue that McDonalds should have taken that $20,000 offer and given it to her. I will argue that for her to hire a lawyer to PUNISH them, that was wrong. To hire a lawyer to get what is justified, yes, to punish them because they didn't give you what you wanted...we all have walked away from opportunites that we should have taken but didn't, this was theirs. But let's face it, the more money she got, the more money the lawyer got...ESPECIALLY if he included for the legal fees to be paid by McDonalds in the settlement. Greed didn't drive her, but it did drive her lawyer...pretty sure a 79 year old woman didn't want into a random lawyers office and slam her purse down on the table and say...OK, they didn't give me what I want, then let's take 'em down...that is a Personal Injury Lawyer attitude.

[runnerandme]

It took me all of two minutes to find more information about a poster than anyone should be able to access.....AND I just typed in two first names...:eek:

 

I am now changing a few security settings. I also have removed access to photos on photo sharing sites, etc.

 

Sad to say, there are cyber stalkers.

 

I know this is off topic, but since the issue of personal information was brought up, I thought I would see just what a person could find out with minimal information. Got my answer..TOO MUCH.

[LittleMiss]

they find out about your personal life? how does that happen on an anonymous message board, I wonder? through personal info on a sig maybe? through individual postings from the poster themselves? through posting personal pix? through a cruise countdown clock?

 

I dont know but the only way I know anything about a poster is through their own posted/uploaded info. That is of course if I believe any of that info!LOL

 

 

I myself am a retired army/commercial airline pilot living in Alaska with my family now...and we raise sled dogs...and DH was a petroleum engineer for the pipeline... just sayin'...and happy to share that info btw...no big deal to me.

 

They'll ask questions all in fun or not so fun, you answer figuring no harm and then Wala! Everything you said they will connect it with your view of the disaster. And don't be a therapist God knows don't be a therapist then definitely of you don't agree then your a horrible therapist... SMDH