Sounds Fishy To Me
{{entrysubject}}
{{link http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041012/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_tuna_lawsuit_1 High Court to Rule on Tuna Can Case}}
The case raises a technical issue over the family’s access to federal courts if their alleged harm does not amount to at least $75,000 – the minimum required under U.S. law – but the girl’s separate lawsuit alleging physical damages and pain and suffering does.
Beatriz Blanco-Ortega, then 9, was at school in Puerto Rico when she cut her finger on the tuna can and bled profusely for nearly 30 minutes. After a nurse stopped the bleeding, her mother took her in for surgery. The doctor reported she suffered scarring and a minor permanent impairment that could get worse over time.
Blanco-Ortega and her family then filed separate lawsuits in federal court against Star-Kist Foods Inc. The girl’s suit alleged physical damages and pain and suffering; the relatives claimed emotional distress after seeing the girl’s anguish.
Ummm, why has this frivolous lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court? Cases like this – where someone is careless and decides to assault a big corporation for their own safety negligence – are the reason we need tort reform. Personally I find it laughable that a trial lawyer and a senator that takes their money – therefore having a vested interest in their preservation – are trusted when they say they have a plan for tort reform.
Not to disparage the basis for bringing the case to trial. It sounds as if the plaintiffs have a valid argument that the $75k limit is an unconstitutional denial of access to the court. But again, it does not sound as if the tuna company is at fault for someone slicing their finger open on a tuna can.