(not asking for advice, just a thought that popped into my head)

I understand that medical injuries are a factor in something like a missing caution sign, but how is it that someone can sue and win in a case of common sense when a company has no sign? For example, many companies use signs so they are not liable for theft at say a public laundromat but some don’t have this. How do they avoid a lawsuit when they don’t have a sign even though it is common sense? What type of law protects a customer when a business lacks a sign and allows them to win against a business owner?

  • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    In my region ( USA), ordinary people simply don’t have the resources for individual lawsuits like this.

    It would have to be a well connected or monied individual to have any chance. Or the situation is so egregious and documented enough, that a law firm thinks it can make money, by taking most of the winnings from the victims

    • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      that a law firm thinks it can make money

      This is unfortunately rather common in the USA, specifically the issue of nuisance-value lawsuits: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/351/

      So even without a meritorious lawsuit, a law firm can extract what is essential a ransom, because for a targeted business or individual, they would have to pay their own way for a defense attorney, taking time to go to court, and all sorts of other headaches. It can indeed seem reasonable to just pay a few thousand dollars to the attacking law firm just to make them go away.

      Even if one jurisdiction were to implement some of those proposed solutions to nuisance-value lawsuits, there are 50 US States and the federal courts, so pernicious law firms can just go forum shopping.

      For the specific issue of SLAPP lawsuits – frivolous lawsuits claiming defamation, as a means to drain the target of their time and money to mount a defense, typically targeting critics – the solution is fairly clear: anti-SLAPP laws that would make the plaintiffs of such garbage lawsuits pay the defendant’s expenses. California and Texas have excellent anti-SLAPP suits, and so do almost a majority of states, but not the federal judiciary. We need a federal anti-SLAPP law ASAP.

      • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I see this in my own field as patent trolls.

        Not ordinary people, and relatively rare per capita; but the population is big enough to have many parasites; or a very proficient few based on what they practice.

        My life would be easier professionally if the top ten patent trolls went out of business nationally

    • Theo@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It actually IS common in the US where I am. All over in local news but on stories in many other states. Like caution Hot on McDonald’s coffee was a lawsuit but I think they ended up settling. I was just asking for example based on what people can tell me about fair business practices laws and how they might apply since I am lacking on law literacy and was curious. But I’m guessing it really only works against big organizations that usually end up settling anyway to avoid the bad publicity. I was just curious how a lawyer would win.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Like caution Hot on McDonald’s coffee was a lawsuit but I think they ended up settling.

        The lady tried to get McDonald’s to cover her medical bills for the coffee melting her labia shut and they refused. That is why she ended up getting a massive settlement, because McDonald’s had a massive number of severe injuries from their unsafe coffee temps over years.

      • moonlight@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        The McDonald’s coffee thing was because it was way hotter than necessary, and caused severe burns. So not as frivolous as it was made to seem.