I agree that there seem to be a number of examples of spurious lawsuits, but don't fall for the old demagogue tactic of using the most ridiculous stories to sway opinions. That is what those that wish to loosen the liability laws to a point of ridiculousness want. The simple fact is that capitalistic interests don't think they should be held responsible for their products. They have successfully changed the perception of trial lawyers in the US to shady characters. But the truth of the matter is that if it weren't for the trial lawyers taking them on (for a contingency fee, to be sure) these same interests would have destroyed many a life without consequence of any sort. The business interests have also turned the idea of a contingency fee into a perjorative, when the facts are that many times the attorney has all the risk as they don't collect unless they are successful AND can last long enough to make it through appeals. Most corporations, even though found to be liable, just outlast the plaintiff's in the appeals process.

I agree that there is a need to reform, but I believe that most of it should come on the side of the plaintiff.

Folks need to quit fallin' for the old "PR/change perceptual reality" game. When the fox steps into the hen house to keep things safe there, some hens need to think that through a bit.

Mick