Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

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.

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

Merely that you switched from a response based on reason to onethat
was only an ad hominum attack. Not typical for you, from what I've
seen on these bbs. In my occupation ("trial lawyer") that type of
response is characteristic of the other guy/gal's deficit of logic,
hence he/she has yielded (perhaps unintentionally) the logical point.
It is a sign of a defeated wit.

Let me ask you this; perhaps it is more enlightening: How do you
define the word "legitimate" in your original response?

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.

OK. I had not noticed that comment was from you earlier, and asked
only as an afterthought. 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.
Making them responsible for their own litigation expenses, win or
lose, helps keep the cost and efficiency more managable than it
otherwise would be. How would you like to litigate what you believe
to be legitimate tax case against Uncle Sam, knowing that they can
bury you financially if the particular judge you get thinks you're
wrong? Which brings us to the other problem with loser pays:
Not all cases are black and white, In fact, extremely few are. Both
sides frequently have good positions, based in good faith, on an
honest difference of opinion or knowledge of the facts. The "loser"
may have been 49.999% right. Is it correct to make them pay the other
side's legal costs for pursuing a claim or defense that is based on a
good faith belief, where the winner will only be decided by how a
majority of some particular 12 people may decide? Again, should
Parker-Hannifin or McDonalds have paid the plaintiffs' attorney fees
and expenses because they put up a good faith defense to claims that
they (and I gather, a majority of the writers on these bbs) believe
were not meritorious claims? Now there would be a motivation for the
defendants to rollover and pay the so-called "legal extortion"!

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

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)


McDonalds sought to satisfy their customers by serving coffee the way most
preferred it.



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.

On close examination it still looks silly.



A loser pays client might never have brought the case.


That's the beauty of loser pays.

McDonalds sought to satisfy their customers by serving coffee the way most
preferred it.

.... and made money that way. Most prefer to drive 80 mph, but the speed
limit is 55. If it becomes UPS policy to drive 80 to beat the
competition, because that's what their customers want, then does "it's a
highway, you expect people to drive fast" gain traction at the site of
the crash?

On close examination it still looks silly.

Not when I examine it.

SPN*: That's because you are silly.

I think not.

SPN*: Exactly.

* (just thought I'd save you some time.

McDonalds took a risk on behalf of some customers to please other
customers. They made money on this. They are therefore responsible for
the consequences.

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.