Hey guys, I really need help with this homework assignment. There are 3 discussion post problems and I need them to be well thought out and well written. The answers do not have to be long, I just need all the points mentioned.
Discussion post 1
Grocery store chain isn’t liable for motorized cart collision, state supreme court rules BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS (HTTP://WWW.ABAJOURNAL.COM/AUTHORS/4/) SEPTEMBER 19, 2019, 2:35 PM CDT
The Ohio Supreme Court has reversed an award of more than $360,000 in a suit against a grocery store chain that provided a motorized shopping cart to a customer who caused a collision and injured the plaintiff. The court said Giant Eagle wasnâ€™t liable because there is insufficient evidence that its actions caused the incident. Court News Ohio (http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2019/SCO/0919/180883.asp) and Cleveland.com (https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/09/ohio-supreme-court-rules-giant-eagle-not-responsible-for-motorized-cartcollision.html) have coverage. The plaintiff in the case, Barbara Rieger, died last month. She was injured in December 2012 at a Giant Eagle in Brook Park, Ohio, when another shopper, Ruth Kurka, hit Riegerâ€™s shopping cart with her motorized cart, according to the Ohio Supreme Courtâ€™s Sept. 19 opinion (http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2019/2019-Ohio-3745.pdf). Rieger, who had been standing at the bakery counter, was knocked to the ground and taken to the hospital by ambulance, incurring $11,511 in medical bills. Kurka died before trial, and her estate settled with Rieger for $8,500. At trial, Rieger provided deposition testimony by Kurkaâ€™s husband, who said his wife had never been trained on how to operate the motorized cart. Rieger also presented evidence that there were 117 incidents involving motorized cars at Giant Eagle stores from 2004 to 2012. TweetLike 19 Share Share
10/3/2019 Grocery store chain isn’t liable for motorized cart collision, state supreme court rules
Deposition testimony by a Giant Eagle representative submitted at trial established that there are no instructions for operation on the motorized carts, and Giant Eagle assumes that people who use the carts know how to drive them. Jurors also heard evidence that Kurka had been driving motorized carts for more than a year and had no prior incidents. She was diagnosed with dementia before the incident. Jurors awarded $121,000 in compensatory damages and nearly $1.2 million in punitive damages. An appeals court lowered the punitive damages to $242,000. On appeal, Giant Eagle contended that the appeals court had eliminated the need to prove negligence and made the store an insurer for motorized cart incidents when it affirmed the verdict. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Giant Eagle and said a trial judge should have granted a directed verdict to the grocery store chain.
10/3/2019 Grocery store chain isn’t liable for motorized cart collision, state supreme court rules
Copyright 2019 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
It isnâ€™t enough for a plaintiff to assert or speculate that a defendantâ€™s actions or failure to act might have a caused an injury, the court said. Instead, the plaintiff has to show that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendantâ€™s behavior. â€œDespite the fact that Giant Eagle does not provide training for its customers who use the motorized carts, there is no evidence that training would have prevented the accident in this case,â€ the court said.
DISCUSSION POST 2
Inside the Mass-Tort Machine That Powers Thousands of Roundup Lawsuits The weedkiller made by Bayer is the target of a sophisticated legal ecosystem; â€˜call the number on your screen nowâ€™
In late 2016, a group of plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyers took the stage at the yearâ€™s largest gathering of their colleagues to talk up a promising new target. For 30 minutes, they laid out arguments linking the popular weedkiller Roundup to cancer. An arm of the World Health Organization had pegged Roundupâ€™s main chemical ingredient as a probable carcinogen the year before, and it was quickly becoming a focus of the plaintiï¬€sâ€™ bar.
Some product-liability lawyers in the audience in Las Vegas were skeptical. Tying exposure from everyday products like Roundup to cancer often is less straightforward than linking illness to medications or medical devices, said Chase Givens, a lawyer with the Cochran Firm who attended the event. But the presentersâ€™ track records mounting complex cases got the audienceâ€™s attention.
Three years later, more than 42,700 farmers, landscapers and home gardeners have sued Bayer AG, Roundupâ€™s manufacturer, claiming the company knew the herbicide posed a cancer risk but failed to warn consumers. Bayer is contesting the lawsuits and argues that scientiï¬c research and regulatory reviews, including from the Environmental Protection Agency, prove Roundupâ€™s safety.
Behind the surge in lawsuits is a little-known, sophisticated legal ecosystem that includes marketing ï¬rms that ï¬nd potential clients, ï¬nanciers who bankroll law ï¬rms, doctors who review medical records, scientists who analyze medical literature and the lawyers who bring the cases to court.
Individual plaintiï¬€s can become commodities that are bought and sold by marketers, with prices based on demand. The more lawsuits that get ï¬led, the more pressure companies face to settle.
Building up thousands of cases against a single target gains momentum at conferences like the one in Las Vegas, called Mass Torts Made Perfect. The twice-yearly shindig is product-liability lawâ€™s big stage, drawing more than a thousand plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyers and vendors vying for their business over informational panels, cocktail hours and appearances by celebrities such as Peyton Manning and Nelly.
The real headliners are the target products. They include e-cigarettes, baby powder, ï¬reï¬ghting foam and birth-control devices. None have sparked the same level of interest as the weedkiller.
The Roundup litigation is a big threat to Bayer, the 156-year-old German company that last year acquired Monsanto, Roundupâ€™s inventor and main marketer, for $63 billion. Since the deal closed, juries have awarded $2.4 billion to plaintiï¬€s in the ï¬rst three Roundup cases to go to trial. Bayerâ€™s shares have dropped 27% since the ï¬rst verdict in August 2018. Bayer is appealing the three awards, which courts have reduced to $190.5 million. Additional trials have been delayed as the company and plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyers discuss settlement.
The herbicide ï¬rst caught plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyersâ€™ eyes in the spring of 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, deemed Roundupâ€™s active ingredient, glyphosate, â€œprobably carcinogenicâ€ to humans. Bayer rejected that ï¬nding, accusing the group of cherry-picking studies and ignoring others that regulatory agencies have relied on to determine Roundupâ€™s safety.
Just days after the WHO agency published its ï¬ndings, personal-injury law ï¬rm Weitz & Luxenberg PC registered the domain name www.RoundupInjuries.com. Within months, television advertisements hit the air seeking Roundup users who got cancer. Before yearâ€™s end, the ï¬rst lawsuits were ï¬led.
Florida plaintisâ€™ lawyer Mike Papantonio speaks about Roundup at Mass Torts Made Perfect, a conference he founded.
Lawyers have clamored to sign up Roundup plaintiï¬€s, making it the top product targeted by mass-tort lawyers and marketing companies in recent years, according to X Ante, which sells data to companies on mass-tort advertising. Between January and September, the weedkiller appeared in 654,280 broadcast and cable-TV advertisements costing an estimated $77.8 million, an X Ante analysis of Kantar Media CMAG and Media Monitors data shows. The number of advertisements is four times that of the next most-targeted product or drug for mass-tort lawsuits.
Bayer blamed lawyer advertisements for more than doubling the number of plaintiï¬€s from July to October.
Bayer oï¬ƒcials and industry groups say the ability of plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyers to rapidly build injury lawsuits burdens companies with costs and threatens innovation, raising the prospect that a product declared safe now could be targeted for damages years or decades later.
Personal-injury lawyers say they advocate for consumers with no other recourse against big companiesâ€”and that their sprawling system lets them compete against deep-pocketed corporations.
â€œWe operate just like any other industry,â€ said Mike Papantonio, a Florida plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyer who founded Mass Torts Made Perfect. â€œOne ï¬rm may be wonderful on memos, appeals and brieï¬ngs, another ï¬rm is really good at trying the case.â€
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a frequent critic of the plaintiï¬€sâ€™ bar, estimates that in 2016 plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyers collected $77 billion in fees on tort cases. Lawyers collect a percentage of settlements struck between companies and plaintiï¬€s.
The ï¬rst step is getting the word out about an allegedly harmful product, often through TV and online advertisements.
â€œIf you or someone you love used Roundup, and were diagnosed with cancer, call the number on your screen now,â€ says one TV spot sponsored by Guardian Legal Network. The ad touts the multimillion-dollar verdicts and urges callers to ï¬le a claim before itâ€™s too late.
Callers to Guardian, one of the largest mass-tort marketing companies, are routed to call centers around the country. There, operators run through a list of questions: Has the caller used Roundup? When, and for how long? When was the caller diagnosed with cancer, and what type?
Law ï¬rms also buy targeted online ads and create social-media pages, some of which steer users to automated chat programs that run through similar screening questions.
If hotline callers qualify as potential plaintiï¬€s, the lead-generation companies hired by law ï¬rms send them law-ï¬rm contracts to sign and request their medical records for further
screening. Other lead-generation companies working on spec sell the leads to law ï¬rms. Brokers sometimes stand between a lead generator and a law ï¬rm.
Tennessee resident Sherry Brobeck was browsing Facebook about two years ago when an advertisement popped up, alerting non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients that lawyers were evaluating cases for potential Roundup lawsuits.
â€œI called them immediately,â€ Ms. Brobeck said. Her husband, Michael, died from that cancer in early 2010, and she had searched unsuccessfully for a local lawyer to ï¬le a lawsuit. She said the familyâ€™s oncologist wondered at the time of her husbandâ€™s 2009 diagnosis if the cancer arose from the Roundup Mr. Brobeck bought by the case to clear weeds from land in the Appalachian foothills they converted to an RV campground.
Ms. Brobeck had struggled to repay debts racked up after her husbandâ€™s uninsured cancer treatments and for a time took a second job as a grill cook. â€œI didnâ€™t have anything to lose,â€ Ms. Brobeck said of her decision to call.
After giving an operator her basic information, she got a call two hours later from a lawyer at Louisiana-based law ï¬rm Pendley, Baudin & Coï¬ƒn LLP. He asked about her husbandâ€™s illness, she said, whether she had receipts for their Roundup purchases, and if she could send a copy of the death certiï¬cate. She did.
While Ms. Brobeck worked to pay down property liens brought on by her husbandâ€™s medical bills, her lawyers contacted the St. Louis-based Onder Law Firm, a big personal-injury ï¬rm. Onder was compiling plaintiï¬€s to sue Bayer in St. Louis Circuit Court, which has attracted thousands of other lawsuits over drugs and medical devices.
Pendley and Onder struck a deal for Ms. Brobeckâ€™s case that is typical in the personal-injury law business. Onder handles local matters such as ï¬lings and jury selection, and if the case makes it to trial, Pendley lawyers will argue it, lawyers for the ï¬rms say. If Ms. Brobeckâ€™s case settles, Pendley will receive the majority of the fees, with a smaller amount going to Onder. In November 2018, Ms. Brobeck became part of a group suing Bayer in a St. Louis court.
Lead generators can charge law ï¬rms for each signed plaintiï¬€, or a ï¬‚at monthly rate. The price of a mass-tort client, like any commodity, rises and falls depending on market interest.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Whatâ€™s the best way to resolve claims that a companyâ€™s product is dangerous? Join the conversation below.
Legal marketers say the price to acquire a signed Roundup client peaked in August and September at between $3,000 and $6,000 a plaintiï¬€, after a report that Bayer was close to settling the litigation. Lower-value cases, by comparison, can cost $100 or less per plaintiï¬€.
Edward Lott, president of lead-generation ï¬rm ForLawFirmsOnly Marketing, said his law-ï¬rm clients have paid around $1,350 each for â€œzero-riskâ€ Roundup leads that he will replace with a new plaintiï¬€ if, for instance, their medical records donâ€™t back up the injuries they described over the phone.
â€œFor every big mass-tort attorney out there, itâ€™s very much a science in how much theyâ€™re paying per lead,â€ said Scott Hardy, a marketer who charges law ï¬rms a ï¬‚at rate of as much as $15,000 a month to sponsor case-speciï¬c pages on his website, TopClassActions.com.
Consumer Attorney Marketing Group, one of the largest lead generators, sends law-ï¬rm clients data on how many leads come a week from their TV, radio and online advertisements. Ads the company runs for hundreds of law ï¬rms send between 20,000 and 25,000 calls a month to a call center in Hermosillo, Mexico. Those who meet initial standards get a call from a CAMG employee in California, who walks them through the paperwork needed to sign with a law ï¬rm.
On a recent afternoon, CAMGâ€™s Los Angeles call center buzzed with conversations between operators and potential plaintiï¬€s for cases related to metal hip implants, asbestos and contaminated Flint, Mich., water. Between 7,000 and 8,000 callers a month become signed clients, said company co-founder Steve Nober. The TV ads, he said, help people connect an injury or disease to its possible cause. â€œItâ€™s that ah-ha moment,â€ he said.
Roundup has been one of the ï¬rmâ€™s top campaigns for years, Mr. Nober said. His data shows Roundup ads have had the most success airing during daytime reruns of programs including â€œThe FBI Files,â€ â€œM*A*S*Hâ€ and â€œMy Wife and Kids,â€ a time of day when people who have purchased garden or landscaping items are likely to be watching.
Mr. Lott and other marketers say some law ï¬rms will sign up almost anyone who says they used Roundup and got non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the primary cancer the litigation is focused on. Others want only those who used Roundup at least 30 times a year for many years, or those who used Roundup at work.
Lawyers and marketers describe the mass-torts practice like an investment portfolio: Firms take on some high-risk cases that are years from a payday but cheaper to acquire, and pricier ones that are surer bets and close to a conclusion. If done right, money will trickle in regularly as cases resolve.
Plaintiï¬€sâ€™ law ï¬rms may spend $20 million to $30 million pursuing long-term, complex cases like Roundup, said Mr. Papantonio, the Florida lawyer who has represented plaintiï¬€s in large cases such as the BP PLC oil-spill litigation. â€œYou have to have a war chest so you can run as long
as you want to,â€ said Mr. Papantonio, who estimates his ï¬rm represents about 2,000 Roundup plaintiï¬€s.
Jean McCrea called a number from a TV advertisement earlier this year that said Roundup could be linked to a cancer her husband has had since 2013, chronic lymphocytic leukemia. She had heard before that Roundup could be carcinogenic, but didnâ€™t realize CLL, a type of nonHodgkin lymphoma, could qualify for a lawsuit.
â€œWeâ€™ve never done anything like this,â€ the 74-year-old Arizona resident said of responding to the advertisement from local law ï¬rm Goldberg & Osborne. She told the ï¬rm her husband used Roundup on a half-acre property sprinkled with fruit trees they used to live on in Madera, Calif. After a few phone calls, she was sent paperwork to sign.
Consumer Attorney Marketing Group signs up between 7,000 and 8,000 clients a month for law irms, says co-founder Steve Nober.
A lawsuit was ï¬led on the coupleâ€™s behalf in Arizona in August and sent to U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where thousands of federal-court Roundup lawsuits have been centralized.
Retired Californian Brenda Huerta didnâ€™t know lawyers had gone forward with a lawsuit in her name for months after its January 2016 ï¬ling, she said, until her sisterâ€™s friend saw mention of it online.
Ms. Huerta had been in remission from cancer for about a year when a call came in 2014 from her husbandâ€™s health insurer looking to recoup the more than $1 million it paid to treat her nonHodgkin lymphoma. â€œWe were so grateful to them, we said absolutely,â€ the 65-year-old Ms. Huerta said.
A lawyer at the Miller Firm in Virginia told her the cancer could be tied to years of Roundup exposure. She and her husband had used it in their yard, as had sod farmers who leased their land in Tehachapi, Calif.
Companies facing such lawsuits argue the mass-tort machine encourages the proliferation of claims, which in turn pressures them to settle, even if they believe their products are safe. They say the system makes it easy for lawyers to ï¬le nearly identical complaints in rapid succession, with just a few paragraphs changed about each plaintiï¬€, giving defendants little to go on to gauge the legitimacy of any given case.
Defense lawyers point to the Vioxx painkiller litigation, in which court documents show that nearly one-third of plaintiï¬€s who had ï¬led claims by the time of a $4.85 billion settlement with drugmaker Merck & Co. failed to meet the criteria necessary to collect any money.
TV lawyers who pass on clients to bigger ï¬rms â€œare building inventory without close scrutiny being given to the claims that they have ï¬led, and hoping that hard work by other lawyers will lead to a mass settlement that will allow them to cash in,â€ said Mark Behrens, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP who advises Bayer on mass-tort issues.
Bayer said it would like to see more transparency around who is sponsoring and funding plaintiï¬€sâ€™ lawyer advertising.
Gary Falkowitz, whose call-center company Intake Conversion Experts has signed up 50,000 cases for lawyers since 2016, sees it diï¬€erently. â€œClaimants will have an almost impossible job to bring these claims on their own,â€ he said. â€œThe more people law ï¬rms are representing, the more of a chance you can hold these companies responsible.â€
A rumor this summer that Bayer had made a multibillion-dollar settlement oï¬€er, said Mr. Lott, caused the marketerâ€™s phone to ring oï¬€ the hook, and drove up the price brokers were charging
11/25/2019 Inside the Mass-Tort Machine That Powers Thousands of Roundup Lawsuits – WSJ
Copyright Â© 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit https://www.djreprints.com.
for leads. Anticipation grew for a payout to be shared by the advertising law ï¬rms, legal funders, trial lawyers and Roundup users.
â€œWhat they hope for is that the Monsantos of the world come in and say, hereâ€™s $10 billion, spread it how you like,â€ Mr. Lott said of the lawyers he sells leads to. â€œThatâ€™s what theyâ€™re looking for.â€
DISCUSSION POST 3
As we are all adjusting to life with the Coronavirus there is large ethical dilemma confronting business. Who do save and who do allow to die? What resources are expended and what resources are expended? Imagine that you are the CEO or Risk Mitigation Officer at a hospital and the doctors present you with the ethical question that is posed in the Washington Post article that I’m posting. How do you respond? Is a hospital negligent that it was unprepared for a pandemic? Would it be considered wrongful death? Of course there probably are not any right or wrong answers but you must provide some guidance. Time to speak up give your thoughts.