Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.



Not all cases look legitimate on first viewing, and that's the viewing
that the lawyer who will decide whether to risk a contingincy case will
see.

All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.



Small fry (or even big fry) with legitimate cases can still lose.

Cite one.



Why should a lawyer risk it when the downside is on him?


There is no downside on loser pays.

No it doesn't.

Is this the five minute argument, or do you want the full half hour?

All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Then why aren't they all settled on first viewing?

Cite one.

Cite one what? All you'll do is disagree that the case was (or wasn't)
legitimate.

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 in message
t...

Is this the five minute argument, or do you want the full half hour?


Give me all you've got, I expect it will take less than a minute.



Cite one what?

Cite a legitimate case that lost.



All you'll do is disagree that the case was (or wasn't) legitimate.


Let's find out if you're right about that. Cite a legitimate case that
lost.

On Mar 3, 8:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"


All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Steve, good for you. From the time I first heard about the case
pending by the lady against McDonalds for the hot coffee, I'd always
said it was a legitimate claim, but lots of people said I was wrong.
I guess you, like me and her attorney, would have seen that the lady's
case was legitimate "on first viewing." Since she won it was, by
definition, legitimate. Just think how much time, expense and effort
would have been saved if Judge McNicoll had been on the case and
available "on first viewing" to let everyone know what the outcome
should have been!!

I just wish she'd had a "loser pays" rule to rely on since McDonalds
obviously ignored what was apparant "on first viewing."

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 3, 8:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"


All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Steve, good for you. From the time I first heard about the case
pending by the lady against McDonalds for the hot coffee, I'd always
said it was a legitimate claim, but lots of people said I was wrong.
I guess you, like me and her attorney, would have seen that the lady's
case was legitimate "on first viewing." Since she won it was, by
definition, legitimate. Just think how much time, expense and effort
would have been saved if Judge McNicoll had been on the case and
available "on first viewing" to let everyone know what the outcome
should have been!!

I just wish she'd had a "loser pays" rule to rely on since McDonalds
obviously ignored what was apparant "on first viewing."


All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.

All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.-

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.

wrote in message
oups.com...

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.


You are incredibly naive. End of story.

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.

You are incredibly naive. End of story.


Not a very good argument. I didn't expect you to admit defeat this
quickly.

What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
have been appropriate?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Not a very good argument. I didn't expect you to admit defeat this
quickly.


What did I write that you misconstrued as an admission of defeat?



What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
have been appropriate?


I stated quite early in this thread that loser pays has no downside.

All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.

Well, actually I don't think that's true. Or, if you prefer, "I
disagree." Although I have not researched the case deeply, I have done
a bit more reading than the headlines about it.

My take is this (and I'm making the numbers up because I don't remember
what they really were).

Normally, hot coffee is served at 160 degrees. That's what one expects.
At 160 degrees, a spill is painful, but not extremely injurious. The
claimant expected 160 degree coffee, and took the risk of a 160 degree
injury.

However, McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees. They made more
money that way (presumably because more customers bought it, since on a
commute, the coffee gets cold) At 180 degrees, a spill is extremely
injurious. (My own experiments with pool temperatures convince me that
one degree is very noticable, at least in that range - it is not much of
a stretch IMHO that twenty degrees when near boiling would make a big
difference)

So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their
product at an unexpected temperature.

The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
it's not that simple.

On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.
A loser pays client might never have brought the case.

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.