Your point about tort reform aside, she's not guilty yet. She's been charged. (With an outrageous bail worthy of a murder charge, if I may add.)

I keep wondering if a cruel joke had fallen upon her by someone in the kitchen. And what's even bugging me more is to whom does that finger belong?

I believe your comments about tort reform to be mostly accurate. I too believe that many americans believe money to be a sort of panacea and they will do most ANYTHING to horde as much as possible. But I think you have overlooked the effects of a minimum wage that has not kept pace with the cost of living. In a society where people must work 50 or 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job to pay for a basic lifestyle(shelter, food, children), it is understandable why the allure of the quick buck and the downfall of ethical behavior(not to mention men like Tom Delay, in positions of great influence, who cannot act ethically as well) is rampant. If people were able to work hard for 40 hours a week and earn enough in this time, they would have time to spend with family and friends, to participate in their community, and in general have a more balanced and rich(not in terms of money but of dynamic quality) life. Cooperations like walmart succeed by denying healthcare and paying low wages. These are the same people that shop at their stores because they are forced to buy the least expensive goods to live.

Anyways, the disintegration of personal accountability, ethical conduct, and consideration of the impact of ones actions on others, is a problem with many sides and must be considered as such. We must all continue to identify the web of causality and act against these forces one by one, that is person by person, against problem by problem.

One crazy woman isn't a sign of anything.

The tort system is working perfectly fine here. Hell, I doubt anything even happened in court. Yes, she hired a lawyer that wrote some papers. Then Wendy's lawyers wrote some papers. I'm sure her lawyer is questioning his/her sanity for taking on the case.

While it is unfair that Wendy's has lost money over this, I have a hard time feeling bad about it. Oh no, people are going to Burger King instead! Who cares....

Further, if she HAD been telling the truth, then she would have every right to sue Wendy's. Do you think people shouldn't have that right?

I don't know what liberals you talk to that say the war in Iraq is the only problem. It my guess that you haven't talked to them very long.

There is no proof that tort reform would benefit anyone but corporations. I don't understand why you're in their pocket.

If Ayala is indeed guilty of wrongdoing here, and the tort system is working well, as mattk suggests it is, then she will be held not only criminally responsible, but will also repay Wendy's for its losts profits. Will this happen? Doubtful. Will she even end up losing the house she apparently owns in Vegas? Doubtful.

Basicly Aaron is right. The "chili finger" is just an example of the moral deterioration of U.S. society. Irresponsible excesses of American rights, lack of consideration for harm to other people and tort is only part of it.

What an interesting site! Has the feel of a chat in a quiet country diner. Where are we? Naybe just outside Des Moines.

About Ayala's Find. Have there been any comments on the fact that America has now set itself up to be the victim of the slightest rumour or allegation? So she found a finger, so what? Can you imagine the same thing in Italy? And they are supposed to be emotional people!

What the incident tells me is that there must be people right now studying how best to influence American society based on just such events. The fault, obviously, lies in the fact that Americans are brainwashed from a very young age to worry about what others think of them, and what others think of what others think of them.

It's in fact what MAKES an American, and it is the Achilles heel of the entire society. Fortunately, there are so many such events starting with Abu Ghraib and finishing with Ms Ayala, that they all wash over each other like a successive wave of small earth tremors.

But ultimately it just makes eveyrone's that much easier to manipulate. My solution? Start to teach kids to worry about their own opinion of themselves and not what others think of them.

I totally disagree with you. This incident highlights how seriously many businesses now take proper health and safety precautions. Wendy's International, Inc. quickly responded to the claim by tracking the product and ingredients and checking on employees. I don't believe a company that large, even started by a caring man like Dave, would strive for the sanitary standards and safety of employees that our society enjoys, for the most part, if we did not have the right to sue. The argument that big business will do the right thing has been disproved time and time again. It was a lie cast back during the rise of industrialization in America. Today we see what happens when large American companies engage in business overseas with out the fear of the American justice system: Union Carbide in Bhopal. One lazy con artist represents nothing. There is just as many of them as there are unethical businesspeople. If she committed a crime let's hope she is dealt with properly. What more can we ask for?

Jacqui wrote: "Wendy's International, Inc. quickly responded to the claim by....checking on employees."

Everybody line up please. Now put out your hands. OK, thank you very much. Now back to work everybody.

This is one of the most ridiculous 'arguments' I've seen in days.

I used to respect conservatives like Buckley and Will because I thought they could mount a decent argument supported by more than opinion and unfounded assertion.

As they say, 'one swallow doesn't make a spring.'

This is rich. A private citizenattempting a hoax is a sign that our society is in decline, but a president and his top aides leading our nation to war on a hoax, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars is considered great leadership.

Hey, J. Everett Bainbridge XX: Right on! How true that is.

We will never have true tort reform until we make the attorneys responsible for bringing the frivilous lawsuits pay. Once it hits them in the bottom line maybe some of these firms would think twice before clogging the court system. The system has allowed the problem to grow and the system needs to change it. Until then it's just going to get worse. Why do we think most people have so little disregard for the law?

Nancy - Attorneys _do_ pay when they bring a frivilous lawsuit - do you think this woman is _paying_ her attorney? I highly doubt it. Its much more likely that he was in it for a cut of her lawsuit winnings. At this point, it looks like he'll be winning $0 or less! Further, if it is found that he knew his client is lying, it is likely that he will also be brought up on criminal charges.

...and its not clogging the court system. Come on...you think things like this go to court right away? She'll go to court on fraud charges, thats all.

What is this a diversion? Decline in morality? Ethics? As the cost silently slides past the 300 billion dollar mark...and the US tells the Iraqis to quit squabbling. Aaron you can do better than this.

BTY; Last word on the street is that it's a "Mc Ronald."

Making the attorneys pay won't do a damn thing, as much as we all hate lawyers they are not the ones in the wrong here.

It is a lawyers job to argue cases for their clients. And in these lawsuits, there is simply money to be made. You really can't fault the lawyers for doing there job when it looks like there is a well paying job to be done, and for all the lawyers out there, SOMEONE will take the case. If not this lawyer, then that lawyer.

If anything, faulting them would probably lead to legitimate cases being passed up by all the lawyers because they were worried about the reprucussions. Everyone does deserve a chance to get their case heard at least, if it is a frivilous or a bogus case, that is the plaintiffs fault, not the attorney's.

We are in this mess for two reasons. One is the culture of victimhood. The idea that you get things by being wronged, or that by being unfortunate, or victimized, you become entitled.

Another is, the people who's fault it is, the plaintiffs, really don't pay anything. The lawyers do take the cases for free (for a cut of potential winnings) so it becomes free or costs very little to lock a big company into an enormous legal battle that will cost them millions, encouraging them to cave and settle out of court.

If there is anything that can be done to fix this, large companies must stop caving under the pressure. Even if it costs more in the short term to actually defend yourself, in the longterm this sort of behaviour can't keep going unchecked.

If you place the cost of the courts on the person who's doing the sueing, so suing someone costs something and it becomes imprudent to be frivilous, that would stop alot of this problem. But the thing to keep in mind, the reason why the system is the way it is, if you place the cost burden on the accusser, you run into situations where massive companies are free to walk all over little poor people, because the wronged don't have enough money to take them to court about it.

This is not a liberal/conservative issue, nor a Democrat/Republican issue. This speaks to our society and the "anythingforabuck" culture that America is in right now.

How can you make a political issue out of this. Well if people can make a political issue of a dying woman and her husband's wishes-I guess a finger can qualify

i think it is a political issue, as the article suggests, because it it is an issue of morals, and as well, the issue of tort reform. One party is for tort reform, one party is decidely not. One party is rooted in morals, one is decidely not.

take a guess which is which.

It's also a political issue, not because liberals and conservatives can't agree theres a problem, but because I bet they can't agree on how to fix it.

And I really think this spawns from the culture of victimhood that was created by the modern liberal movement. You get ahead in life by being wronged. (I'm asian, I'm discriminated against, so hire me over the more qualified guy, or I'm poor, I'm uneducated, it's not my fault I robbed that guys house.)

People didn't use to sue each other nearly as much as they do now. It use to be that if you couldn't be reimbursed for what you lost, or if someone had made an honest mistake, there was no reason to sue. It was meant to obtain what people had due to them. But now, if you are in any way wronged, it is as if you are 'entitled' to 800 million dollars because you spilled coffee on your lap. It's the perverse sense of what's due that fills up our courts. If you slip and break your ankle, because your clumsy, 50 years ago no one would have thought to sue the person who owned the property you slipped on....because they have nothing to do with it. But now, anyone with a broken ankle suddenly thinks the world owes him a favor...that he's suppose to get $300,000.00 when he breaks his ankle, whomever he has to sue to get it.

And I really think this spawns from the culture of victimhood that was created by the modern liberal movement.

Thats just silly. Take your strawman or strawmen as it were and shove it.

So some of you think con artists are a new phenomenon and that it was caused somehow by liberalism or Democrats or Republicans or a new lack of morals?

Think, people, think. It’s good for you.

Correct, Hope, conmen have been around since the dawn of time. The concept of suing someone for a self inflicted or frivilous injury or incident has not been around that long, however.

No, I did NOT say liberals were the cause of FRAUD, I said there were the cause of the victim mindset that makes people feel entitled to power and gain by being unfortunate or abused.

Read hope, read. It's good for you.

Um Yeah, nice that you call my argument silly, yet offer no counter point. Typical trollish behavior. You have nothing to say, save to argue.

Um Yeah, nice that you call my argument silly, yet offer no counter point. Typical trollish behavior. You have nothing to say, save to argue.

When you are worthy of my time ill let you know.

There was certainly no need for me to go after your strawman.

Liberals are no more responsible for this then say Conservatives.

AGain, you post...but say nothing. THere are words, but no meaning behind them. You merely troll for arguments and try your best to make a complete ass out of yourself. You succeed.

THere are words, but no meaning behind them.

Oh im sorry, do go on explaining how Liberals are responsible for everything bad that ever happened ever.

Liberal has basically become a code word for rightards since they cant say uppity Negroe or crafty Jew anymore.

The Wendy's hoax case is interesting because it illustrates how a completely unjustified claim can cause substantial loss to a business, leaving the business with no recourse.

The Wendy's Corp. would probably have a great fraud claim against the hoaxer, but even winning the suit would do the company no good. The hoaxer couldn't possibly pay the damages.

I empathize with some of the posts above to call for greater lawyer responsibility, but lawyer's aren't the only problem. Lawyers play by the rules that are given them by the legislatures and the courts.

If we really want to reduce the amount of litigation in this country, we need to modify the rules of civil procedure to remove the incentives that currently exist for lawyers to "play along" with plaintiffs who file frivolous cases. Currently, a hoaxer like this one can file suit, "roll the dice" and see what happens. If the defendant "wins" the plaintiff has no responsibility for the defendant's attorneys' fees.

One proposal, that I recount in a book I've written on the subject, would be to allow defendants to shift their attorneys' fees onto plaintiffs who decline a reasonable settlement offer.

Having this kind of fee-shifting offer of judgment rule would force plaintiffs to value their claims accurately by putting them at risk of reimbursing the defendants if they overvalue their claims.

Georgia recently became the fifth state in the country to adopt a fee-shifting offer of judgment rule. Check out my blog at www.jonathanbwilson.com for more background.

I read briefly, and I have one question JBW? If the Il. Supreme Court race was about tort reform, what was in the pot for the republican that won?

I understand the need for the democrat winning because there's lots to be had in winning the race and having the means to keep the "Tort Train" on schedule.

What's in it for the republican if he's there to just apply the brakes? Spending millions to be the brakeman??

Lol. MJohnson, you're right.

I barely have time to skim, much less read as carefully as I should.

Aaron, the tort reform "W" would like to suppress is that which occurs in cases portrayed in the movie "A Civil Action." It's true that medical malpractice gets the spotlight. What he really wanted was to bog the process down in federal courts. There was no emphasis on a solution to the real problems. If doctors are willing to place themselves on a pedestal, then they must be held acountable for their actions. There is a need for reform, such as the award for "no coordination" and the result is spilt coffee in the lap. My solution to this in no more drive-thrus, and it would be an added benefit to our health, such as, park, get out and walk, plus it would reduce our dependance on oil.

The other side of this topic which you probably disagree with, is issues such as asbestos, PCBs, etc. needs to be addressed, and the responsible party/ies need to pay. Where does accountability start, and stop. If we are willing to discuss morality across the board, then all the antics of all politicians need an examination.

I'll start the "Moral & Ethics Decay Hit List," and throw out Tom Delay as an elected official and Enron as a corporation. In regard to web blog ethical behavior, I submit Radical Redneck for automatic deletion of posts, and Steve Bowers as writers that get a pink slip on Friday. Are you serious about morality and ethics? It's your turn to pick.

I can only hope that was humor, the idea that you would outlaw drive throughs in response to grandma spilling coffee...if not, you fit right in with the canadian NDP or british green party.

The point of the tort reform was to stop lawyers from fishing for judges, that is, holding the case in whatever court they feel the judges are the most frivilous or biased toward them in. All the reform does is 'fair' things out, you get what judge you get.

This applies to the class action lawsuits where, with plaintiffs in 35 states, the lawyer gets to pick the venue. Class action lawsuits are mostly a bunch of garbage alltogether though, as far as I'm concerned. They aren't like they are in the movies. In real life, the lawyer really goes out and does this sort of thing all by himself half the time. They are GREAT cases for lawyers, because 10% of 10 million dollars is 1 million dollars, but all 1 million of the defendants, upon who's behalf the lawyer is suing, get a wopping $9.00 out of it in the mail.

A Civil Action was a true story even if it was a movie. The movie was fairly accurate. The number of cases lost far outweigh the cases where there is an award. There needs to be a closer look at insurance companies to truly resolve the problem.

I didn't say outlaw. If people can't maneuver throuh a drive-thru, place an order and drive away unharmed, it would do them good to park, turn off the engine and exercise by walking in.

OK MJ I’ll bite.

What have the Green Party over here done. So far I'm unaware of their desire to outlaw drive throughs or their policies on coffee on Grandmothers.

I lost the link, so I give up, cheap-shot retracted.

In honestly, I may be mistaking the british green party for that other british party who's name I can't remember. You've got labour and 1 other socialist/left party.

But I read an election platform list, about the major issues said unknown british party planned to campaign on. I wish I could find it, ridiculously frivilous things. Sounded more like a list of 1 egocentric mans pet peeves then an election platform.

Hi MJ,

We’ve got all sorts over here. There are three main parties Labour (Blair) Conservative (Thatcher and Major) and the Liberal Democrats (normally seen as between the other two parties but since Blair has moved the Labour party so far right this is looking more left wing – generally it’s considered centrist). Our system doesn’t treat third parties well but the Lib Dems have generally been between 10 and 20% of the electorate over the past 20 years.

The Lib Dems seem to have come up with a pretty good package of policies this time and will I suspect get more votes than usual. Our system can be very hard on third parties so they are unlikely to increase in influence. Probably the policy that would be most noticed from an American right wing view is that the Lib Dems have and still are totally against the war in Iraq. To be fair though this issue isn’t really as strongly left or right over here. There are plenty of people who disagreed with the war in the UK from all sides of the political spectrum and people from all sides who supported it (the more left winger certainly emphasize the human rights aspects and did from the very beginning rather than WMD).

I normally quite like the Greens (you could’ve guessed that right), but with one notable exception have been disappointed with their policies this year.

I completely agree with Aaron. All of you who are claiming that this is an isolated incident and that one swallow does not mean spring are not taking the time to do your research. If you had paid attention to any of the tort reform that Bush was backing, you would have seen hundreds of examples of people abusing the court system for their own personal gain. The biggest issue brought up by the tort reform review was that in most cases, the plaintiff hardly received any reward. Even in cases where the supposed victim is set to receive millions of dollars, the majority goes to court costs and lawyer fees. It is interesting to note that the high profile lawyer decided to drop Alaya as a client when she decided not to go after the big bucks. Yes, society on the whole is feeding the litagous nature of man, but it also the lawyers who are pushing these victims to the front lines.