Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan wrote:
"peter" wrote:
Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
reasonable to me.
See:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Thanks for the informative link. Always suspect the media's reporting of
facts.

I've read that before and it ddidn't change my opinion one iota. Coffee
should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated accordingly. Holding a
cup between your legs is simply stupid.

a cup between the legs is stupid but coffee at 212 is also stupid. Apart
from too hot to drink it spoils the taste when it has cooled down.

Matt Whiting schrieb:

And the judge ordered that the claimants paid McDonalds costs too as
well as their own.

That is truly impressive. If only that were the case here...

Not impressive at all. That's the "loser pays" system. The judge *must*
decide like this. But the winner can't claim an arbitrary sum, they just
get paid their attorney's bill, which is carefully examined whether it
seems exaggerated. It's that way in pretty much the whole world...
nearly the whole world, there's one exception, of course.

Chris schrieb:

a cup between the legs is stupid but coffee at 212 is also stupid. Apart
from too hot to drink it spoils the taste when it has cooled down.

It spoils the taste when it is *made* that hot. Coffee gets bitter when
the water is above something like 80°C. But then, is there any taste in
MD's coffee in the first place which could be spoiled?

"skym" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no strong philosophical dispute with
"loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.

It all depends on the way this is managed. Litigators have very little
reason to manage costs if each side pays their own way. This is just
another way of trying to shake someone down.
Why should a winning defendant is a case have to pay his legal fees when
they have had a case against them tossed out.

One of the jobs of the lawyer is to ensure their client does not get to
court, with court being a last resort. Here in the UK the judge will assess
all aspects of each parties conduct in his determination of costs. If he
thinks a party has unreasonably held out settling he may not award all their
costs in their favour, but only make a partial award.
Likewise if a corporation with loads of resources acts in such a way as to
try and exhaust a claimants resources to pressurise then into dropping their
case, the judge will intervene too.

Libel is a good example. A few years ago a popular soap TV star claimed he
was libelled by a newspaper. Right up to the hearing the newspaper offered a
settlement of £200,000 plus his costs to avoid the case going before a judge
and jury.

As it was the TV star refused the offer, the jury said he had been libelled
and awarded him £50,000 damages. They did not know what had been offered
previously by the paper.

As a result of that, the TV star had to pay his own costs and the trial
costs of the newspaper which came to about £200,000. So he was well out of
pocket for chancing his arm.

so whilst we have a general principle that loser pays all the costs, if a
settlement was offered before the trial which was better than the trial
outcome then the winner who turned down the offer cops the costs for the
waste of time.

Hence the lawyers job is best done when he prevents his clients as far as
possible going to court.

The public here anyway are fed up with the compensation culture with people
looking to blame everybody but themselves and are not particularly tolerant
of this type of behaviour. Hence it is normally better to settle than go
before a jury.

Stefan wrote:
Matt Whiting schrieb:

And the judge ordered that the claimants paid McDonalds costs too as
well as their own.

That is truly impressive. If only that were the case here...

Not impressive at all. That's the "loser pays" system. The judge *must*
decide like this. But the winner can't claim an arbitrary sum, they just
get paid their attorney's bill, which is carefully examined whether it
seems exaggerated. It's that way in pretty much the whole world...
nearly the whole world, there's one exception, of course.

Actually, that is even more impressive! The positive behavior has been
institutionalized!!

Matt

Chris wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan wrote:
"peter" wrote:
Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
reasonable to me.
See:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Thanks for the informative link. Always suspect the media's reporting of
facts.
I've read that before and it ddidn't change my opinion one iota. Coffee
should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated accordingly. Holding a
cup between your legs is simply stupid.

a cup between the legs is stupid but coffee at 212 is also stupid. Apart
from too hot to drink it spoils the taste when it has cooled down.

I didn't say it should be at 212, I said it should be assumed that it
could be that hot and treated accordingly. It is the same as treating
all guns as though they are loaded, whether they are or not. It just
makes sense.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
I didn't say it should be at 212, I said it should be assumed that it
could be that hot and treated accordingly. It is the same as treating
all guns as though they are loaded, whether they are or not. It just
makes sense.

Some assumptions are reasonable. Some are not. Some analogies are
reasonable. Some are not.

Your assumptions and analogies are not reasonable.

A gun is intended to kill and, unless you are suicidal, you should not be
putting one in your mouth. Coffee is intended to be put in the mouth.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
I didn't say it should be at 212, I said it should be assumed that it
could be that hot and treated accordingly. It is the same as treating
all guns as though they are loaded, whether they are or not. It just
makes sense.

Some assumptions are reasonable. Some are not. Some analogies are
reasonable. Some are not.

Your assumptions and analogies are not reasonable.

A gun is intended to kill and, unless you are suicidal, you should not be
putting one in your mouth. Coffee is intended to be put in the mouth.

It is a very good analogy and you simply can't follow it. You should
assume the worst case when dealing with things that can harm you,
whether than be hot coffee, a gun or a car. I always look both ways at
intersections even when I have the green light. Sure, the other drivers
are supposed to stop at the red, but what happens when a drunk comes
through? I know people that don't even look the other way as they
figure that they have the green light so all is well. Since coffee is
made in machines that boil water in most commercial establishments, one
should assume that the water may be as hot as boiling in the worst case.


Matt

You should assume the worst case when dealing with things that can harm you, whether than be hot coffee, a gun or a car.

The standard is a reasonable person, not a paranoid person. Should I
treat a baby bottle as if it were filled with poison (because it =could=
be?)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:


If tea is supposed to be served boiling, and coffee is supposed to be
served "very warm", then tea would be handled differently from coffee
by a reasonable person.


Jose, have you ever heard or seen an advertisment for "Very Warm Coffee"? I
haven't. On the other hand I see signs for "Hot Coffee" all over the place.