On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "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" :-))

That's the difference between the Civil and Legal court system. OTOH
the Legal part seems to be heavily swayed in that direction as well.
At least they are supposed to be prove guilt, which is not necessary
in a civil action.


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.

A large, local company was sued for billions in the breast implant
issue. The lawyers pushing the case made more than the entire
corporation gross per year. In the end it was far easier and much
cheaper to just give them a couple Billion dollars than to fight junk
science with true science. The average juror is easily mislead by junk
science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
a so called expert to sway the jury.


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

It would be rare for some one, or any one for that matter to be tried
by a jury of people who would truly be their peers.

I have never survived the selection process. Either I have too much
education, I'm in the wrong income group, my knowledge base includes
items pertaining to the case. If that weren't enough, my deep belief
in the concept that a person is responsible for their own actions
would do it. They can't ask about religious beliefs.


Roger (K8RI)

-Robert