Air Canada to face class action suit from obese

[sharkman]

How about suing an airline because the flight attendant brought you a 7-up instead of a Sprite or Ginger Ale? Weren't there several hot drink lawsuits, not just McD's? At any rate, I'm only referring to the idiocy of spilling your coffee on yourself and then suing the restaurant for it. Quite stupid, don't you think?

[cybercoma]

How about suing an airline because the flight attendant brought you a 7-up instead of a Sprite or Ginger Ale? Weren't there several hot drink lawsuits, not just McD's? At any rate, I'm only referring to the idiocy of spilling your coffee on yourself and then suing the restaurant for it. Quite stupid, don't you think?

The lawsuit was because Air Canada broke the Air Canada Public Participation Act 1988 by not providing bilingual service. Do you really think the courts would humour a case about a flight attendant giving a client the wrong kind of pop?

[sharkman]

Court cases were won over restaurants serving hot coffee were they not? That's pretty frivolous and not unlike serving Sprite instead of 7-up.

The Airline language suits beg many questions. Did the flight attendant have any french language or none at all? Was the question for soda misheard? Were they perhaps out of the soda in question? The plaintiff brought at least two different lawsuits for the same issue and was obviously some kind of Quebec activist. And the courts loved it.

[Wilber]

Whatever, whenever one of these frivolous suits results in an award, it will be the other passengers who ultimately pay for it.

[cybercoma]

Court cases were won over restaurants serving hot coffee were they not?

You tell me. You're the one using it as an example. The case that you're referring to, I believe, is from an elderly woman in New Mexico that suffered third degree burns when she spilled McDonald's coffee in her lap. If you want to talk about incidents that raise questions, shouldn't one be wondering why the heck the coffee was so hot that it could cause third-degree burns? The award was excessive, which is what gave the case notoriety. However, the case itself doesn't seem all that frivolous when you consider that McDonalds refused to cover any of her medical costs, in spite of their coffee being clearly too hot if it would cause third-degree burns.

[cybercoma]

Whatever, whenever one of these frivolous suits results in an award, it will be the other passengers who ultimately pay for it.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Air Canada has an obligation to follow particular rules as a condition of its privatization. The laws might be unreasonable or even unconstitutional, but I don't see how the lawsuit is frivolous if Air Canada is breaking the law.

[Wilber]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Air Canada has an obligation to follow particular rules as a condition of its privatization. The laws might be unreasonable or even unconstitutional, but I don't see how the lawsuit is frivolous if Air Canada is breaking the law.

It's frivolous if it is solely done for the purpose of shaking down the company. If Air Canada is truly privatized, why is it subject to rules that its competitors are not? No doubt for consistencies sake you would maintain the same stance on laws concerning pot right?

[cybercoma]

It's frivolous if it is solely done for the purpose of shaking down the company. If Air Canada is truly privatized, why is it subject to rules that its competitors are not? No doubt for consistencies sake you would maintain the same stance on laws concerning pot right?

I certainly wouldn't say the police have no right to arrest someone possessing pot. Of course they do, since there is a law against it. The McDonald's example was not a criminal suit, nor was it Canadian. As for Air Canada, it is subject to particular legislation that made its privatization possible. If that legislation is unconstitutional, its shareholders are free to challenge it in the courts. You can't blame someone for holding them accountable to the laws that have been created.

[Wilber]

When it comes to awarding damages, the test should be how much suffering was caused to the plaintiff, not whether a law was broken. If a law was broken, the law breaker is accountable to the state, not the plaintiff. We see that in courts all the time when the suffering of victims is all but ignored in criminal cases.

It was government which decided to privatize Air Canada and government which set the conditions. Many of those conditions were political and had nothing to do with ensuring competition. The company had no say in the matter and has no recourse unless government decides to change its mind. Government will not do anything that it sees as politically unacceptable no matter how fair it is. Because the airline business is federally regulated in almost every way, the government can make life very difficult for anyone who challenges it. Contrary to what you may think, in real life not everything is subject to the Charter or Constitution.

[cybercoma]

Presumably the law was created to protect francophones from harm. Since the passenger could not get service in French, he was harmed and the lack of French service on the flights also harmed the entire francophone community.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the law. My opinion is pointless. I'm just saying that the case follows logically from the legislation.

[Wilber]

The law has nothing to do with protecting francophones or it would apply to all Canadian carriers. It has everything to do with what was politicaly acceptible in Quebec. Any penalties arising from breaking the law would be due the State in th form of fines etc. Any award to the plaintiff should be based solely on any damages they suffered.

[cybercoma]

The law has nothing to do with protecting francophones or it would apply to all Canadian carriers. It has everything to do with what was politicaly acceptible in Quebec. Any penalties arising from breaking the law would be due the State in th form of fines etc. Any award to the plaintiff should be based solely on any damages they suffered.

The other carriers weren't built by taxpayers' (francophones included) dollars either. The is a result of selling off a Crown corporation. The shareholders bought into knowing full-well what obligations would need to be met.

[Wilber]

The other carriers weren't built by taxpayers' (francophones included) dollars either. The is a result of selling off a Crown corporation. The shareholders bought into knowing full-well what obligations would need to be met.

The taxpayers didn't give it to those shareholders, they got a good buck for it. Trouble is, too many of them think they still own it.

[guyser]

At any rate, I'm only referring to the idiocy of spilling your coffee on yourself and then suing the restaurant for it. Quite stupid, don't you think?

No I don't think its stupid.

McD's was guilty of being stupid, incredibly stupid, instead preferring to quietly pay off people, numerous people and ignoring their own internals that told them the temp of the coffee and the way it was consumed and how it was consumed.

They were sued for negligence, and lost.

[Wilber]

Sucks for those of us who like HOT coffee.

[guyser]

Sucks for those of us who like HOT coffee.

Not in the slightest. It had to do more with the vessel it was delivered in, poor lids prone to fall off and gross negligence on the part of McD.

When it comes to awarding damages, the test should be how much suffering was caused to the plaintiff, not whether a law was broken.

Compensatory damages do just that.Punitive damages are different and this is where McD lost big time. They could have settled for as little as $18,000 (med expenses) but they think they know better.

Damages are issued to right a wrong, correct a flawed design and to send a message.

[Wilber]

Not in the slightest. It had to do more with the vessel it was delivered in, poor lids prone to fall off and gross negligence on the part of McD.

Compensatory damages do just that.Punitive damages are different and this is where McD lost big time. They could have settled for as little as $18,000 (med expenses) but they think they know better.

Damages are issued to right a wrong, correct a flawed design and to send a message.

I much prefer McD's lids to Tim's, can't understand how they haven't been sued. Maybe because they aren't as big in the US.

Punative damages should not go to the plaintiff but they usually do. Let the plaintiff name a charity maybe but they should not profit personaly.

[cybercoma]

The fact of the matter is that McDonalds was negligent causing serious bodily harm (third degree burns). They were tried in a civil suit, rather than a criminal suit. The case is in a unique position between the two. The woman was suing for her medical bills, which McDonalds arrogantly refused to cover in their offered settlement. By losing in court, they had to award the woman the cost of her medical bills, but they were also punished with punitive damages for their criminal negligence because you can't put a corporation in jail. They go to the plaintiff because she is the one that suffered due to their wrongdoing and the punishment is meant to dissuade them from committing that wrong again.

[Wilber]

They go to the plaintiff because she is the one that suffered due to their wrongdoing and the punishment is meant to dissuade them from committing that wrong again.

Too bad our criminal courts don't follow the same philosophy when it comes to victims.

[cybercoma]

Too bad our criminal courts don't follow the same philosophy when it comes to victims.

Our criminal courts had nothing to do with that trial. In fact, that was a tort case (in the US) and very rarely are punitive damages awarded here and almost never like that.

Edited December 19, 2011 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

Our criminal courts had nothing to do with that trial. In fact, that was a tort case (in the US) and very rarely are punitive damages awarded here and almost never like that.

Just pointing out that our criminal courts don't take much consideration of victim suffering when it comes to sentencing. Punative damages are supposed to be there to penalize the company, not make the plaintiff richer over and above the damages they suffered. That just encourages more litigation.

[-TSS-]

Aviation is very important in a country like Canada. Travelling by train from Toronto to Vancouver, how many hours does it take? Too many in any ways.

By the same token I am so 100% against any domestic flights in my home-country, Finland. My country is only 1/3 of the size of Ontario in geographic terms but yet we have a fairly extensive network of domestic flights.

Given the fact that aviation may not be exactly the most ecological way to travel, in that case travelling short distances by plane is just unnecessary. There is nowhere in Finland you couldn't get into within max 8h on train/bus.

Edited December 21, 2012 by -TSS-