skym wrote:
Criticizing the system based on the McDonald's case is a fallacy. The
reason it got so much attention is because it was an abberant result,
at least as far as the jury verdict. The judge reduced the damages
substantialy, which shows one of the safeguards that the system has.
They are not perfect, but they usually work.

The point is that there never should have been an award to reduce as
McDonald's should not be held culpable for the stupidity of its
customers. The only way the system would have worked in this case would
be if the judge had thrown out the award and then jailed the lawyer for
wasting the court's time.

Matt