I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G

This is my own personal recollection:
About 20 or 30 years ago, ladder makers were besieged with lawsuits as
people who were candidates for the Darwin awards misused ladders and
hurt themselves.
I think many ladder manufacturers were actually sued out of business.
The same thing was going on all over America as we became the litigious
society we are today.
As a result of that activity, ladders now have so much safety and
instructional information on them that you can't find the ladder.
Maybe ladders got better as a result.

I think you will find that the same is true in many other product lines,
as well as services. It sure is true for my doctor. He is retiring
next month and wanted to work a litlle, but the cost of maintaining his
liability insurance makes it problematic.

Somebody has to pay the salaries for all those lawyers.

from the soapbox of:
Pete Stanaitis
----------------------------------------------------

GROVER wrote:

I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G

spaco wrote:

I think you will find that the same is true in many other product lines,
as well as services.**It*sure*is*true*for*my*doctor.**He*is*r etiring
next month and wanted to work a litlle, but the cost of maintaining his
liability insurance makes it problematic.

Somebody*has*to*pay*the*salaries*for*all*those*law yers.

There's a petition going around Washington (state) now to limit
"frivelous" (sp?) lawsuits. In theory, I favor that, but it bothers me as to
who's going to define what is and what is not.

In Spokane, the city attorney is infamous for filing malicious litigation
countersuits every time someone sues the city, regardless of whether the suit
is valid or not.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Larry Blanchard wrote:

There's a petition going around Washington (state) now to limit
"frivelous" (sp?) lawsuits. In theory, I favor that, but it bothers
me as to who's going to define what is and what is not.


Wal-Mart has a policy of never settling a "slip-and-fall" lawsuit. It might
cost them $50,000 to defend a claim that could be settled for $5,000, but
the lawyers know they can't make a dime on a meritless claim.

"HeyBub" writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

There's a petition going around Washington (state) now to limit
"frivelous" (sp?) lawsuits. In theory, I favor that, but it bothers
me as to who's going to define what is and what is not.


Wal-Mart has a policy of never settling a "slip-and-fall" lawsuit. It might
cost them $50,000 to defend a claim that could be settled for $5,000, but
the lawyers know they can't make a dime on a meritless claim.


Wonder if the Yale club has a similar policy. Bit ironic that one of the
prime proponents of curbing lawsuit abuse is suing the Yale club because
he tripped trying to jump up on the stage....

All he had to do was ask for help.

cf. Bork v. Yale Club

scott

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

There's a petition going around Washington (state) now to limit
"frivelous" (sp?) lawsuits. In theory, I favor that, but it bothers
me as to who's going to define what is and what is not.


Wal-Mart has a policy of never settling a "slip-and-fall" lawsuit. It might
cost them $50,000 to defend a claim that could be settled for $5,000, but
the lawyers know they can't make a dime on a meritless claim.

Wrong.... I have an in-law that they settled with for medical expenses
and lost time

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

I think you will find that the same is true in many other product lines,
as well as services. It sure is true for my doctor. He is retiring next
month and wanted to work a litlle, but the cost of maintaining his
liability insurance makes it problematic.

I expect he can find a way around that.
My wife only works a few days a year, and the hospital covers her insurance.
Presumably they pay on hours worked or some such.

On Jun 20, 11:22 am, GROVER wrote:
I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.

When you see the number of warning labels on a ladder, it's not hard
to believe.

Lawyer: That may be so, but you did not instruct potential users of
your products that erecting a ladder in the back of a moving pickup
truck was dangerous. How are they supposed to know that?

R

GROVER wrote:
I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G

I doubt it, but ... there certainly is a cost attributed to it, indirectly.
Companies lump all that under one budget heading known as CODB (Cost of
Doing Business), sort of like Overhead (electric, heat, etc).

Pop`

just to many lawsuits over anything now days
people can sue for their own stupidity. you know it's 98% of the lawyers
that make a bad name for the rest of them.
ross
www.highislandexport.com

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:22:04 -0000, GROVER
wrote:

I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


Not too long after I went to work for Cessna Aircraft Company, before
Cessna suspended production of light single engine aircraft in the
late '70's/early '80's, the cost of product liability insurance for
each unit we produced was equivalent to the list price of a C150 (the
smallest, least expensive aircraft we produced at the time). The exact
numbers are lost in the haze of memory but it made the decision to
suspend production of single engine aircraft a no-brainer.

Production of those aircraft didn't resume until congressional action
passed a product liability relief act that put limits on how long the
producer was exposed to product liability for old production units.
Until that time, the company was liable and could be sued in 1980
because of a "defective" unit that left the factory in 1930. Seemed to
me like the "defect" should have been discovered before the airplane
had been in service for 50 years. The lawyers and juries didn't agree.

In short, I'm skeptical of your 30% figure only because it seems low.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"GROVER" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


Cost of litigation is not the only issue. What about advancements that will
never happen because of fear of litigation. For example, think about the
things around us today that we take for granted, and a ladder would be one,
that would never have been developed in the litigious atmosphere of today.
If the caveman had to deal with lawyers the wheel would have never got off
the drafting cave wall.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:45:32 -0700, "Pounds on Wood"
wrote:


If the caveman had to deal with lawyers the wheel would have never got off
the drafting cave wall.

If cavemen had to deal with lawyers there wouldn't be any more
lawyers. In fact it's quite possible that's what first drove man to
use a large stick as a club.


-Leuf

Subject

Litigation is about the only recourse an individual has against a well
funded adversary.

Product/Service liability is a necessity, IMHO.

Having said that, the system is broken.

If people realized what percentage of a physician's fee was to cover
the cost of their liability insurance, for example, the country would
probably revolt.

We need to keep litigation as a tool; however, the system needs major
work, and I'll be the first to admit, I don't know how to do it.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

We need to keep litigation as a tool; however, the system needs major
work, and I'll be the first to admit, I don't know how to do it.


Stop the "No win no fee" litigation funded by lawyers, and impose
penaltys for filing malicious litigation countersuits of 200x amount
claimed. Put a limit of 10% or $300,000 whichever is lower of payout
that can be paid lawyer or law firm. this is a start.

--
replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
Pics at http://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
and http://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:44:28 +0900,
(Jerome Meekings) wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

We need to keep litigation as a tool; however, the system needs major
work, and I'll be the first to admit, I don't know how to do it.


Stop the "No win no fee" litigation funded by lawyers, and impose
penaltys for filing malicious litigation countersuits of 200x amount
claimed. Put a limit of 10% or $300,000 whichever is lower of payout
that can be paid lawyer or law firm. this is a start.

Consider that actual (provable) damages plus realistic legal fees
should be all that is collectable by plaintiffs. All punitive damages
to go to state/appropriate political division general fund.

A comparison between an Alligator and a Litigator is that the
alligator demonstrates more compassion and less greed.
--
Mr.E

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:19:26 -0400, lid wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:44:28 +0900,
(Jerome Meekings) wrote:

....
Consider that actual (provable) damages plus realistic legal fees
should be all that is collectable by plaintiffs. All punitive damages
to go to state/appropriate political division general fund.

....

And if it proves impossible to outlaw contingency fees, make it
illegal to include "punitive" damages when computing the fee.

Make the unsuccessful plaintiff responsible for the cost of defending
the suit. In effect, the cost of defending against an unsuccessful
suit is a damage suffered by the defendant caused by the plaintiff and
should be actionable/recoverable.

Those two items, in themselves might do wonders in cutting down on the
number of frivolous, nuisance lawsuits.

Always did seem strange to me that if "punitive" damages are intended
to be a "punishment" or "fine" on the offending party, why are they
treated differently from other "fines" imposed by the courts.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Jerome Meekings wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:


We need to keep litigation as a tool; however, the system needs major
work, and I'll be the first to admit, I don't know how to do it.



Stop the "No win no fee" litigation funded by lawyers, and impose
penaltys for filing malicious litigation countersuits of 200x amount
claimed. Put a limit of 10% or $300,000 whichever is lower of payout
that can be paid lawyer or law firm. this is a start.


I like the British system, which is: loser pays. If you lose
the lawsuit, you pay for all legal fees including the costs
incurred by your adversary. This would give the large
companies more incentive to fight frivolous lawsuits rather
than settle out of court. In addition, it would make many
people take a second look before filing a frivolous lawsuit.
With the "no fee if we don't win" system that we have now,
lawyers seek out people and try to get them to sue.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

I think one of the first things we need to do is get the american people
to wake up and think for themself. To my very limited knowledge of
courtroom procedure, I have never heard of the attorneys going into the
jury room. As as sure as god made little green apples , you can find 23
people on this site that would not give a huge award , meaning 100
millon for whatever , then again I would not be surprised to find 12
that would award that amount. I guess we are our own worst enemy

"O D" wrote in message
...
I think one of the first things we need to do is get the american people
to wake up and think for themself. To my very limited knowledge of
courtroom procedure, I have never heard of the attorneys going into the
jury room. As as sure as god made little green apples , you can find 23
people on this site that would not give a huge award , meaning 100
millon for whatever , then again I would not be surprised to find 12
that would award that amount. I guess we are our own worst enemy


A generation raised on a steady diet of corporate villains and legal heroes
isn't likely to change things. Until we can say "greed" without what seems
a prefix of "corporate," there will be no thoughtful deliberation.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

We need to keep litigation as a tool; however, the system needs major
work, and I'll be the first to admit, I don't know how to do it.

You file a suit, you lose, you pay ALL costs. (then follow that up by a
Federal law prohibiting law school graduates from holding public office).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Another factoid.

I was involved as defendant in a law suit where a kid had the end of one
finger cut off because he ran into a fire extinguisher cabinet and caught
his finger in it. There were 5 defendants, and it was settled on the court
house steps. The kid got about $25,000, less probably 1/3 for his lawyers.
Each defendant ended up paying about $10,000 in settlement and legal costs.

So, $50,000 had to change hands, so the injured party could get $17,000.
Not very efficient, but that's what happens when you can't agree on a
settlement.

Old Guy


"Pounds on Wood" wrote in message
...


"GROVER" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


Cost of litigation is not the only issue. What about advancements that
will never happen because of fear of litigation. For example, think about
the things around us today that we take for granted, and a ladder would be
one, that would never have been developed in the litigious atmosphere of
today. If the caveman had to deal with lawyers the wheel would have never
got off the drafting cave wall.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com

"GROVER" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


EVERYTHING includes the cost of anticipated legal expenses. Call it product
liability insurance if you will.

"GROVER" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


Take a look at these sites for some entertainment

http://www.mlaw.org/wwl/loonylawsuits.html

http://www.centerjd.org/private/myth..._liability.htm

http://www.overlawyered.com/product/

I used to have a site bookmarked that gave relative cost of product
liability as to cost per product. Darn if I can't find it.

Allen

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:47:48 -0400, "Allen Roy"
wrote:



Take a look at these sites for some entertainment

....

http://www.centerjd.org/private/myth..._liability.htm

"Court statistics. In typical products liability cases (non-asbestos),
injured victims win before juries in only 31 percent of cases. "Tort
Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996," U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
NCJ-179769 (August 2000)"

31%, huh. Probably means at least 50% should never have been filed.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Jun 21, 12:04 am, Tom Veatch wrote:

http://www.centerjd.org/private/myth...ducts_liabilit...

"Court statistics. In typical products liability cases (non-asbestos),
injured victims win before juries in only 31 percent of cases. "Tort
Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996," U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
NCJ-179769 (August 2000)"

31%, huh. Probably means at least 50% should never have been filed.

I think you're misreading that, Tom. I believe the operative phrase
is "win before juries". Lawyers like to settle (Yay! We both won!).

R

In article . com,
GROVER wrote:

I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G

I can tell you that the maker of my favorite folding ladder pulled out
of the US for that very reason

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:22:04 -0000, GROVER
wrote:

I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


Yes, my thoughts are that your "knowledgeable" people are in error.

Anticipated legal expense is usually expressed in a "Company's"
overhead expense as a liability reserve. That reserve changes based
on actual occurance and payout.

I will not quote figures, but, as an ex maker of an inherently
dangerous product, I would say your figure is far, far, far,
overstated.

A company's liability in an accident is based on several factors. 1.
Failure to manufacture the product to established safety standards. 2.
failure of the product through some flaw in the manufacturing process.
3. Failure to warn the buyer of the inherent danger of the product,
and to explain the proper use.

Stupidity that leads to improper use of the product does not
constitute a liability for the manufacture, although many settle cases
of that nature in order to stay out of court.

But maybe the ladder business is different.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:22:04 -0000, GROVER
wrote:

I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

Perhaps some others in the NG have some thoughts on this.
Joe G


Yes, my thoughts are that your "knowledgeable" people are in error.

Anticipated legal expense is usually expressed in a "Company's"
overhead expense as a liability reserve. That reserve changes based
on actual occurance and payout.

I will not quote figures, but, as an ex maker of an inherently
dangerous product, I would say your figure is far, far, far,
overstated.

A company's liability in an accident is based on several factors. 1.
Failure to manufacture the product to established safety standards. 2.
failure of the product through some flaw in the manufacturing process.
3. Failure to warn the buyer of the inherent danger of the product,
and to explain the proper use.

You left out

4. Ability of lawyer to convince simple-minded juries in personal
injury/damage suits.

The expense of this until some legislative relief was a major factor
(not the only one, but certainly a major contributor) to a period of
time not so long ago wherein there were _no_ manufacturers of
single-engine prop aircraft in the US. Simply to costly/risky as
opposed to the potential market. Happily, that has turned around.

--

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
Yes, my thoughts are that your "knowledgeable" people are in error.

Anticipated legal expense is usually expressed in a "Company's"
overhead expense as a liability reserve. That reserve changes based
on actual occurance and payout.

I will not quote figures, but, as an ex maker of an inherently
dangerous product, I would say your figure is far, far, far,
overstated.

A company's liability in an accident is based on several factors. 1.
Failure to manufacture the product to established safety standards. 2.
failure of the product through some flaw in the manufacturing process.
3. Failure to warn the buyer of the inherent danger of the product,
and to explain the proper use.

Stupidity that leads to improper use of the product does not
constitute a liability for the manufacture, although many settle cases
of that nature in order to stay out of court.

But maybe the ladder business is different.

Frank

A few years back there was a segment of 60 Minutes or Dateline about a
ladder company going out of business because of lawsuits. I don't recall
the details, but the ladders were not defective according to your
description, but were modified, damaged, and mis-used, but the lawsuits went
on. I can easily believe the 30% figure from what I saw.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:59:46 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
Yes, my thoughts are that your "knowledgeable" people are in error.

Anticipated legal expense is usually expressed in a "Company's"
overhead expense as a liability reserve. That reserve changes based
on actual occurance and payout.

I will not quote figures, but, as an ex maker of an inherently
dangerous product, I would say your figure is far, far, far,
overstated.

A company's liability in an accident is based on several factors. 1.
Failure to manufacture the product to established safety standards. 2.
failure of the product through some flaw in the manufacturing process.
3. Failure to warn the buyer of the inherent danger of the product,
and to explain the proper use.

Stupidity that leads to improper use of the product does not
constitute a liability for the manufacture, although many settle cases
of that nature in order to stay out of court.

But maybe the ladder business is different.

Frank

A few years back there was a segment of 60 Minutes or Dateline about a
ladder company going out of business because of lawsuits. I don't recall
the details, but the ladders were not defective according to your
description, but were modified, damaged, and mis-used, but the lawsuits went
on. I can easily believe the 30% figure from what I saw.



Easy enough to prove or disprove. Do you know of a publicly traded
company that makes ladders? Look up their annual report and see what
the reserve is as a percent of cost of goods sold.

I just went on the Werner bancruptcy site and quickly waded through a
bunch of the court documents. In the overview, no mention was made of
excessive litigation being a cause of bancruptcy. The loss of a Home
Depot contract, the unanticipated increase in the price of aluminum,
etc. but no mention of litigation, pending or otherwise. Werner is a
private holding company, (recently sold as part of the restructuring
required from chapter 11, and remaining private), so they do not have
to report their financials publicly, but maybe there are others.

I still disbelieve the 30% figure, but not interested enough to go on
with this.

Frank

Frank wrote:

I just went on the Werner bancruptcy site and quickly waded through a
bunch of the court documents.

Just for funzies, checked out Bauer Ladder, Wooster, Ohio.

They seem to be doing quite nicely along with their neighbor, The
Wooster Brush Company.

Both are still under local ownership as far as I know, and have been
around forever or at least it seems that way.

OTOH, RubberMaid, a Wooster institution, got greedy, got in trouble,
got sucked up by Newell, who then used an excuse to close them down,
go to China, and also building a plant out in the SoCal desert.

BTW, Wayne County, of which Wooster is the county seat, is a VERY rich
agricultural community.

Maybe those "Wayne Country Farmers" know something about how to run a
business.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

snip

OTOH, RubberMaid, a Wooster institution, got greedy, got in trouble,
got sucked up by Newell, who then used an excuse to close them down,
go to China, and also building a plant out in the SoCal desert.

snip


Lew

Some number of years back, frontline did a piece on wal-mart. They claimed
RubberMaid had a price increase due to increases in raw materials. Wal-mart
refused to pay the increased prices and by this time Wal-mart was big enough
that by not selling to them, RubberMaid was unable to sell enough to stay in
business without moving manufacturing overseas to meet the price Wal-mart
was willing to pay.
Don't know how much truth there is in that.

ron

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:09:48 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:

Frank wrote:

I just went on the Werner bancruptcy site and quickly waded through a
bunch of the court documents.

Just for funzies, checked out Bauer Ladder, Wooster, Ohio.

They seem to be doing quite nicely along with their neighbor, The
Wooster Brush Company.

Both are still under local ownership as far as I know, and have been
around forever or at least it seems that way.

OTOH, RubberMaid, a Wooster institution, got greedy, got in trouble,
got sucked up by Newell, who then used an excuse to close them down,
go to China, and also building a plant out in the SoCal desert.

BTW, Wayne County, of which Wooster is the county seat, is a VERY rich
agricultural community.

Maybe those "Wayne Country Farmers" know something about how to run a
business.

Lew


I think that's right. I know I only use Wooster and Purdy brushes.
Wince at the cash register, but they make finishing a joy (if that's
possible); clean them well and they will last indefintely.

You can borrow my Unisaw, but don't ask for my brushes. :~)

Frank

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:22:04 -0000, GROVER
wrote:

I have no documentation to confirm this, however it seems believable.
According to some knowledgeable people the cost of a ladder includes
30% in anticipated legal expenses. Thus a ladder selling for $100
includes $30 to fund actions of folks who fall off the product.

I have read that or a similar "fact" many times, but that does not
make it true, But I'll bet it's some significant money.

According to Peter Huber in "Galileo's Revenge" all this rot/rort
started with Yale law professor Guido Calabresi and his book "The
Costs of Accidents" Maybe a sticker on the ladder:- "If you have a
problem with the cost of this ladder, ring this lawyer asshole on xxx
xxxx xxxx"

Or, change to the British method of legal billing, the loser pays all.
That tends to make you pretty sure you have a good case.