Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:13:54 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Jose wrote:



If so,
and you were served that drink in a Styrofoam cup, expecting it to be at
its proper temperature, and through some user error spilled it on your

Which should have caused the case to be thrown out of court as there
is no such thing as a Styrofoam cup.


I like the personal responsibility approach myself. I test the coffee
before I commit to my lips.

Me too.

Perhaps education is the answer. Perhaps if we were better prepared to
take on life......perhaps if........... :-)))

Shirley you jest? :-))



Or consider shooting a rifle with cartridges that make it kick back with
such force that it breaks your shoulder. Now, rifles are =supposed= to
kick back, anybody who shoots knows this. But these particular
cartridges (the same type you've used before) generates enough force
that the rifle breaks your shoulder and the bullet goes into the next
county, hitting an accordion player.

This may very well be allowed under law. In almost every state, I
believe an argument can be made successfully for shooting an accordion
player :-))

Can I add bagpipes?



You expected =some= kickback, but
not =that= much. You could have braced yourself better, but thought
that these cartridges were just like the others that came in the same box.

Being better braced is likely to cause more damage.



In both cases we're dealing with expectations which influence one's
actions. Sometimes the difference between reasonable expectations and
what is actually delivered are sufficient to be actionable. However, in
all cases it is easy to ridicule.

Which reminds me of an incident wayyy back in my younger days. There
were three, sometimes four of us who would go out to do some target
practice at the local dump. Usually this was done with a wide
assortment of handguns. I had a Colt Python and a S & W heavy frame
357. (I've forgotten the model number). One of the guys who had gone
to high school with us came along. He wanted to try the 357 but was
afraid of the recoil and noise, so I loaded up the Python with some
hollow base wad cutters in 38 Spl and let him shoot those . Now said
shooter was under the impression he was shooting 357's and every one
there was doing their best to add to that impression.

After 4 or 5 shots he was doing well and had relaxed. Actually he was
doing about as good as the rest of us. Of course every one there,
except him had different expectations of that last round coming up.
He was expecting more of the same and every one else was expecting I
had put one of *my* regular loads in there. Well shucks, when it comes
to disappointing one or three, I'd much rather disappoint one and
please three.

Relaxed as he was he put that last round right through the center of
the target, BUT the recoil left that Python at an angle good for Duck
hunting. Fortunately that was the last round in the gun as said
shooter was more than a little unhappy although it was more likely due
to all the laughter than the recoil. So, here I had met the
expectations of three at the expense of one.

The Python was so heavy there was no danger of hurting him, but the
recoil and noise sure did surprise him.

BTW of all the guns I had back then I only had one that hurt to shoot.
It was a tiny little 5 shot 38 Spl. One cylinder load and my wrist
would be hurting. +P loads were torture.

The hardest kicking was a 350 Mag given to one of the guys when he got
out of "The Service". One shot and I couldn't see a thing. It dumped
my hat right down over my eyes.

Roger

This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no way
to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no lapse
in personal responsibility. In the cartridge we have a reasonable
expectation denied. The real difference is the lack of ability to test.
One could make the argument that firing the rifle and not getting the
expected response wasn't negligence since no test was available. The
only option would have been to not fire the rifle at all.






The JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge.
[...] THAT is where the problem is.

I think we can all agree with that.

You think? It's much more entertaining to make fun of lawyers.

Jose