Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
which caused extensive injuries.

Ah, reasoning only a lawyer could love. Or concoct.

I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.

Coffee drinkers know this from experience. Non-coffee-drinkers often
know this as well, through a quality known as "common sense" --
something the jury clearly did not possess or recognize.

Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
reckless disregard for human safety.

"Reasonable" is clearly in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the
jurors decided to "stick it to da man" (AKA: The big corporation with
deep pockets) without regard to common sense.

In the absence of any kind of structural failure (as in the cup
bursting open) most people would blame the "operator" -- which, in the
case of the McDonald's coffee spill was the woman. In the case of
the Cessna crash, the "operator" was the pilot -- although I'm sure
the attorneys will do whatever they can to show that the Caravan
failed in some basic way.

Everyone feels bad that the woman spilled hot coffee on her privates.
I've heard that she required reconstructive surgery to her nether
regions -- something that surely no one would want to endure. I feel
sorry for her -- but she spilled the coffee on herself. In this, she
was the "operator" -- and she blew it.

In much the same way, I feel bad for the Caravan pilot who died. I'm
sure he suffered horribly during those last few moment. Sadly, he was
the "operator" -- and he blew it.

The skydivers who died, on the other hand, may have a case against the
operator. They were merely passengers in the plane that (apparently)
the pilot flew into weather neither he nor the aircraft could
handle.

Of course, money isn't going to help them anymore.

The heirs of these passengers, on the other hand, *may* have a case
against the "operator" -- the pilot. In the absence of some sort of
basic structural flaw in the Caravan, however, stretching the case to
punish the maker of the vessel in which they were flying seems rather
ludicrous -- and I hope common sense will prevail in a way that did
NOT occur in the McDonald's case.

Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).

THAT is where the problem is.

I think we can all agree with that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote in
:

You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and
there is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more
careful, but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled
HOT coffee, which caused extensive injuries.

Ah, reasoning only a lawyer could love. Or concoct.

I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.



Aaaangh!

Wrong.

You'll burn it if you get it over about 185 degrees.

And starbucks makes mud flavored ****water.


Bertie

I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.

I don't drink coffee. Feh. So perhaps the following words are just the
mindless rant of a putz. No matter. I have experience with drinking
other hot liquids, and I know people whose taste buds are so deranged
that they believe coffee is meant to be ingested orally.

I don't know whether we differ on the specifics (of hot water) or on the
principle of expectations, so let me ask you a different question - is
there =any= beverage which is supposed to be (and expected to be) served
hot, that should not be served (or drunk) boiling hot - that is, at 211
degrees Fahrenheit (372.6 degrees in a more civilized system)? 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
daughter, and only =then= found out that the liquid was =so= hot that it
would boil over if it were taken up in an elevator, then, even granted
that the error in handling was yours, would you not feel that you were
mislead into handling the beverage less carefully than you would have
had you known beforehand that it wasn't just hot, it was goddamn boiling
HOT? The difference being that an error that might have caused pain and
a lesson, instead causes serious injury and perhaps blindness?

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. 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.

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.

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
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?


The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.




randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

"randall g" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?


The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings.

They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
cups.

This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.


I guess someone being stupid has merit for you. That's appropriate:
birds-of-a-feather and all that.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
cups.


I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up, that
Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee was being
served too hot.

I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******, I
usually make my own anyway)

On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.

randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca

This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
*NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
would be the end of it.
The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
McD's set back.
So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.
I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.

randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca

This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
*NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
would be the end of it.
The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
McD's set back.
So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
-Robert

So you liability for something is based on how you respond to the
complaint? That is a very stupid principle. What if McDonald's had
told the truth and said we are sorry you are stupid, but being stupid is
often painful? If I walk in front of a semi on the interstate that will
hurt also. Is it the truck driver's fault or the truck maker's fault
that I got hurt?

Matt

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:46 am, randall g wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.
I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings. This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.

randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RGhttp://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam:http://www.katkam.ca

This was a fun case to study in law class. It was a classic example of
how to perfectly lose a case. There is nothing McD's could have done
better to lose that case. When the lady first got hurt, she wrote a
letter to McD's explaining what happened and asking for her medical
bills to be covered. McD's corporate office wrote back a very, very
nasty letter to her telling her "duh coffee is hot" and expressing
*NO* sympathy. If they had said "Sorry you were hurt, its not our
policy to pay for damages you incurred" or even just ignored her that
would be the end of it.
The lady then showed the nasty letter to her neighbor who showed it to
her attorney son. Her son took up the case soley based on the letter
McD's set back.
So the case goes to trial and they interview the McD's manager. The
attorney had just finished showing the jury images of the deformed
lady's "areas" and had just had shown all the surgeries the woman had
had to repair her damage. The McD's manager got up there and told the
jury "Sorry, coffee is not, get over it". Many scholars believe if he
had said "Damn that looks bad, I feel sorry for her, but our coffee is
hot", then the jury would have found in favor of McD's. In addition
the temp of the coffee was hotter than McD's policy.
-Robert

This is an interesting summation.

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.

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?

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" :-))

A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
about all the justice you can afford"



--
Dudley Henriques

On Dec 2, 1:49 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
--
Jay Honeck


Here are the facts:

1. Pltf, age 79, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup.
2. She was passenger in the car; she placed the cp between her legs
to hold it whhile sh added cream and sugar.
3. As she removed the lid, the contents spilled on her legs.
4. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
A surgeon determined that she suffered 3rd degree, full thickness,
skin burns over 6% of her body, specifically her inner thighs,
perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin area..
5. She was hospitalized for 8 days, undergoing skin grafting.
6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.
7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F.
8. They admitted that they had made no effort to study the safety
issues of this temperature.
9. Other establishments typically serve it around 135-140 F.
10. McD enforces its rule to hold the temp at 185 +/- 5 deg.
11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.
12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
13. An expert on thermodynamics testified that liquids at 180 F would
cause full thickness skin burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
14. The evidence also established that as the temp increases over
155, the extent ofthe burn increases exponentially.
15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
16. The plaintiff had initially offered to settle for $20,000.00.
17. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but it was
reduced to $160,000 due to plaintiffs's own contributory negligence.
18. The jury ruled for $2.7 mmillion punitive damages, which equals 2
days' of McD's coffee sales.
19. The COurt reduced the pun dam tto $480,000, even though
characterizing McD's conduct as reckless, callous and willful.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
the case.
7.