Matt Whiting wrote in news:WkR5j.1031$2n4.27076
@news1.epix.net:

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.


One could easily make the argument that you have to be an idiot to eat at
Mcdonalds in the first place. McDonalds obviously know this so therefore
they have a responsibility to look after their idiots


Bertie