Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:


Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
this reply.


That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.


So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?


Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
from anger in my opinion.


Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
damage to the woman.
Interesting!
You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))


Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
of jury trials.

Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
aviation related cases to see that.

-Robert

It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side that
does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I think we
should have professional juries; ones trained and have some smarts.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI