Like Button

Monday, June 23, 2008

It's My Right

"I deserve better." We live in a world that tells us a lot about what we deserve. We deserve more pay our coworkers tell us. We deserve a break McDonalds tells us. We deserve health care some of our candidates for president tell us. The term is means "to merit." When we say "You deserve X," we mean, "There is something you have done or something about you that merits X." The original idea in the word meant "be entitled to because of good service," and that original intent still holds. We understand "deserve" to mean "entitled."

This moves closer to the idea being expressed. "Deserve" or "entitled" never carries a sense of privilege. It is not your privilege to receive that which you deserve. Instead, it is your right. You've earned it; you ought (in a moral sense) to receive it. For instance, if you work for a person at an agreed wage for an agreed time, it isn't a privilege to receive the pay. It is a right. You are owed that pay and to fail to receive it would be theft.

Now we're at the dilemma of "deserve." If the term refers to something to which we have a right, it is not merely incorrect to fail to receive it. It is immoral, perhaps even criminal. That is, if it is true that we all deserve health care (as an example), then it is not merely advisable that we receive it. It is mandatory. A serious injustice is being perpetrated on us as long as we don't have it. And what, in the case of health care, qualifies us for this right? Apparently it's the fact that we're human. Human beings have certain inalienable rights because they're human. Health care is one of them. But if that is the case, then it is not merely an injustice that some Americans don't have health care; it is a vast injustice that every human being on the planet who, by right of the fact that they're human, is entitled to health care doesn't have what they have the right to have! The horrors of it all!

Oddly, the human right to health care doesn't seem to have come up before recent times. That's strange, isn't it? I mean, it it's a right because we're human, shouldn't it always have been a right ... as long as we are or have been human? "Oh," someone might say, "but health care itself is fairly new." And that may be true to some extent. So ... to what future right are we now entitled because we are human?

Still doubt it? Consider today's favorite American pastime. It used to be baseball. No longer. Now it seems like our favorite pastime is litigation. We will sue for anything. You all know about the woman who sued McDonalds because they served her hot coffee. The nerve of them ... serving coffee hot! If she had only known, she never would have put it where it would spill in her lap. Someone is going to pay!! Maybe you've heard about the woman who is suing Victoria's Secret because when she was putting on a thong underwear a decorative medal piece flew off and hit her in the eye. You see, she has a right! Nothing should ever go wrong with a piece of clothing ... ever! Someone is going to pay!! You probably haven't heard about the man here in Arizona who is suing the high school because it rained at the graduation. Seriously. "It ruined my jacket. And they knew it was going to rain!" No one seems to be saying, "But ... you knew. Why didn't you bring an umbrella?" You see, we have rights! Bad things don't just happen. There are no unfortunate accidents. And I am not going to pay for it! Someone else is. We have the right to have perfect weather and hot coffee that doesn't burn and medicine without the remotest possibility of mistake. You can't provide it? Fine! Someone is going to pay! I deserve better!

You see, the thing just keeps piling up. And it's all predicated ... on a lie. There are really quite a few rights that humans have because they are human. "A break" is not on that list. Neither is health care. You don't deserve a new Mercedes because you are a human being. Nor is it a mandate on society that no human be below the poverty line. There is no "human right" that says, "No human should make less than X." It's just not there.

We really like the language of entitlement. It gives our wishes greater weight. The problem is that rights carry with them a moral responsibility. If, as the Beastie Boys argued, you have to "fight for your right to party", you will also need to fight for everyone else's right to party and consider it a moral black eye if someone does not yet have their right to party. And the same is true for every other right we wish to claim. Perhaps we would do well to examine things a little more closely before we pile them in the "rights" category. Being a member of the human race has its privileges, but we should be careful about what we declare we deserve.

11 comments:

DagoodS said...

Do you know why the jury awarded so much money in the McDonald’s case? Did you know the judge reduced the amount of the verdict?

Stan said...

I know you are a legal expert (or as "legal expert" as I know), so I would very much be interested in finding out why the jury awarded any money in this case.

Stan said...

Of course, I could just look it up. According to this site, it was because McDonalds knew their coffee was hot (hotter than normal) and the woman received burns that required extensive medical work. It also points out that the appeal dropped the amount from $2.7 million to $480,000.

I am still at a loss. So McDonalds has hot (hotter than normal) coffee. To me, if something is hot, I don't put it where it can burn me. To me, I'm responsible for my safety. To me, unless there is actual negligence (and "They knew it was hot" doesn't rise to that level), I don't consider it a lawsuit. But, hey, as you well know, that's just me. ;)

DagoodS said...

I always find the McDonald’s case interesting. NOT THAT YOU DID THIS—but it is often used as an indictment against the judicial system. What is fascinating was that the amount of money awarded was from jurors—people, average citizens. Not “the judicial system.” Not even a judge.

In fact, the system itself said, “No, this isn’t right” and then reduced the award by 80%. Yet no one ever talks about that. Sigh.

I read an article written by one of the jurors. (Furious that people were castigating them in such a poor light. As if they were simpletons, desiring to throw money to someone.) They said (and this is from my memory) after the presentation of the Plaintiff’s case (the woman)—they were not inclined to give her very much money.

Yes, she had received some terrible burns (imagine spilling coffee into your crotch, and what all would burn). What bothered them was the cavalier attitude of the McDonald’s expert. Who testified they deliberately kept their coffee hotter than any other restaurant (as you pointed out). But more importantly, they had investigated the incidents of burned coffee, and determined it would happen on a regular basis. Because the incidents so rarely resulted in suits (and even more rarely resulted in payment)—McDonald’s considered this an “acceptable loss” for being known for hot coffee.

That bothered the jurors. A lot. The award was not so much to compensate the woman for her damages, but was a “punitive” damage (a “punishing” damage) to say, “Hey, McDonalds. Human pain and suffering is never an ‘acceptable loss.’”

Part of the reason you have product safety is fear of litigation. Imagine being General Motors. And you discover some part on a vehicle would cause it to blow up one in 100 Million occasions of use. One in 100 Million times, the left blinker would potentially cause the car to explode. It would cost approximately 50 Million Dollars to re-call and repair the switch. OR, you can take your chances, and when it does happen, pay out a few pennies in litigation costs.

Accountants are very good at estimating litigation costs. If that cost is less than what it costs to repair—what does General Motors do?

What happens when it is your daughter who is killed in that car explosion and you hear, “We considered this an ‘acceptable loss’ as compared to the economics of a recall. Here’s a million bucks.”

The jury, in the McDonald’s Case, said, “Nope. Not an ‘acceptable loss.’”

Yes, McDonald’s knew it as hot. Yet they also knew it would spill on people, as coffee does. They also knew people were being burned worse because of their deliberately keeping the temperature hotter. (It is the lowering to the temperature, not the warning labels, which has reduced burns.) And they considered that O.K. At what point do you hold McDonald’s responsible?

Now, I don’t know ALL the evidence of the case. But I give great deference to 7 or 8 ordinary people who sat through the trial—people like you and me who normally think we should be held accountable for our own actions—and they said McDonald’s was responsible.

Stan said...

Just an observation, but it often seems to be the case that the largest sums of money are awarded by jurors rather than judges.

Jim Jordan said...

Dagoods---but it is often used as an indictment against the judicial system. What is fascinating was that the amount of money awarded was from jurors—people, average citizens. Not “the judicial system.” Not even a judge.


Ahem, JUrors aren't part of the JUdicial system?
So, dag, if you LOSE a case, should your clients be able to sue you? That would be the equivalent of coffee spilling in the legal industry, wouldn't it?

Refreshment in Refuge said...

And I hate that word entitlement. It implies that people on welfare are entitled to it. I don'think so!

DagoodS said...

Yes, Jim Jordan, if I do something wrong, my clients should be able to sue me. Called Legal Malpractice. And yes, that is the equivalent of the coffee case.

Stan said...

dagoods,

For the benefit if the "law-uninitiated" (me), could you explain the basic legal definition of "malpractice"? I used to think it meant something intentional, but it seems like it is more and more meaning accidental as well, so I don't know what it means. (Purely legal question.)

DagoodS said...

Stan,

“Malpractice” is a professional failing to perform by the applicable standard-of-care. Doctors, lawyers and accountants primarily. We are held to be responsible to know what to do. You go to professionals because we are professionals. We put ourselves out as having more knowledge and expertise than the average person within certain areas—we are held to being responsible for it.

For example, you probably know the term Statute of Limitations. The time in which a crime can be charged, or a lawsuit can be brought. Do you know what the Statute is for murder? Or selling cocaine? Or for a personal injury suit? Or for libel/slander? Probably not. That is why you go to a lawyer—to say, “This happened to me two years ago” and the lawyer should know whether it is still possible, within the time required in the Statute of Limitations, it is possible to bring suit.

If I fail to file the suit in time (commonly called “Blowing the Statute”) that would be malpractice. Similarly situated lawyers would know when to bring the suit. My failure to do so is a violation of the standard of care; hence malpractice.

As it turns out, “intent” has nothing to do with it. Only very rarely would it be on purpose.

Stan said...

Thanks for the data point. "Violation of the standard of care" sounds ... vague. I hope it's not as vague as, say, "marriage". :)