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

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message .. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...

"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...



Is that a challenge?


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Amazing how far off topic this group can get...



Is that a challenge?


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.

Jose wrote:

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?

This brings up an interesting hypothesis....involving ultimate
responsibility...personal responsibility......and responsibility based
on expectation.
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed. It is interesting to
note that an actual definition for the scenario is completely arbitrary
and subject to local standard be that legal or belief.
Personally, I favor the personal responsibility approach. Since the
actual temperature of the coffee is an unknown (and this is a given
since the drinker is not the supplier), the element of expectation can
be assumed, but is it correct? I say it isn't.
Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and
not the supplier, there is a transaction involved in passing the hot
coffee from the supplier to the receiver.

Where lies the potential danger? To the receiver of course. Is it not
the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual temperature
of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking) involving the
coffee that can cause harm to the receiver? It's true the coffee in a
styrofoam cup is SUPPOSED to be the right temperature but it's ALSO true
that styrofoam can hide the actual temperature of what is contained in
the cup.
One side of the equation postulates that the receiver should be immune
from testing the temperature in the cup carefully before drinking based
on an assumption that the receiver's well being has been considered by
the supplier and thus the actual temperature of the coffee need not be
physically checked before committing the lips to whatever temperature is
inside the cup.
The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the
responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING as relates to his personal safety, thus
physically checking the temperature of the coffee before committing to
the lips.
It's an interesting conundrum, and the ultimate answer lies with
whatever the local authority dictates and in the case of damage,
whatever a lawyer can do to convince a jury.

The real rub in all this isn't the coffee or the award. It involves
issues much more complex than these mere factors. The REAL rub is in how
we as people choose to live out our lives; seeking protection from
things that can hurt us or taking the necessary steps to do all we can
to insure we don't get hurt.
I like the personal responsibility approach myself. I test the coffee
before I commit to my lips.
Perhaps education is the answer. Perhaps if we were better prepared to
take on life......perhaps if........... :-)))

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 :-))


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.

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


--
Dudley Henriques

This brings up an interesting hypothesis.[...]
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed.

Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and not the supplier...

Actually, that is not true. The temperature of the beverage (I did not
assume it was coffee) could be at the supplier's convenience.

Is it not the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual temperature of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking)

For drinking, yes. For carrying the drink out to the car, maybe not.
You might lift the cup over the heads of your children to get it from
the counter to the table. You could be bumped when this happens, and it
could spill. If you had ordered warm milk, gotten it in an insulated
container, got bumped, and from the screams found that it was actually
boiling hot milk, is it your fault for not making everyone wait at the
counter while you opened the lid and stuck your dirty finger (or a clean
thermometer) into the drink?

The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING

Nothing? Really nothing? That it's not industrial strength acid? Had
the supplier given me =that= in lieu of orange juice, I think I would
have a case.

The REAL rub is in how we as people choose to live out our lives; seeking protection from things that can hurt us or taking the necessary steps to do all we can to insure we don't get hurt.

No, the real rub is how we as a people choose to =think=... whether to
actually consider the facts of an unpleasant and perhaps complex case,
or trumpet the easy thing to ridicule while scoring brownie points on
Usenet.

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.

Granted. Well, almost granted... one could subject a representative
sample of cartridges to an analysis, but that would be inconvenient.
When sitting in a take-out car lane, it is also inconvenient (though
somewhat less so) to put the bag of burgers in the back while carefully
balancing the drink in order to open it and ascertain the degree to
which it might (or might not) be unexpectedly hot before taking what
would be a reasonable risk at the expected temperature. It's a matter
of degree. You preflight an aircraft, and I bet you do a more thorough
preflight if you are going to do aerobatics. Do you preflight a car? A
shopping cart?

It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.

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

Jose wrote:
This brings up an interesting hypothesis.[...]
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed.

Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and
not the supplier...

Actually, that is not true. The temperature of the beverage (I did not
assume it was coffee) could be at the supplier's convenience.

Is it not the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual
temperature of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking)

For drinking, yes. For carrying the drink out to the car, maybe not.
You might lift the cup over the heads of your children to get it from
the counter to the table. You could be bumped when this happens, and it
could spill. If you had ordered warm milk, gotten it in an insulated
container, got bumped, and from the screams found that it was actually
boiling hot milk, is it your fault for not making everyone wait at the
counter while you opened the lid and stuck your dirty finger (or a clean
thermometer) into the drink?

The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the
responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING

Nothing? Really nothing? That it's not industrial strength acid? Had
the supplier given me =that= in lieu of orange juice, I think I would
have a case.

The REAL rub is in how we as people choose to live out our lives;
seeking protection from things that can hurt us or taking the
necessary steps to do all we can to insure we don't get hurt.

No, the real rub is how we as a people choose to =think=... whether to
actually consider the facts of an unpleasant and perhaps complex case,
or trumpet the easy thing to ridicule while scoring brownie points on
Usenet.

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.

Granted. Well, almost granted... one could subject a representative
sample of cartridges to an analysis, but that would be inconvenient.
When sitting in a take-out car lane, it is also inconvenient (though
somewhat less so) to put the bag of burgers in the back while carefully
balancing the drink in order to open it and ascertain the degree to
which it might (or might not) be unexpectedly hot before taking what
would be a reasonable risk at the expected temperature. It's a matter
of degree. You preflight an aircraft, and I bet you do a more thorough
preflight if you are going to do aerobatics. Do you preflight a car? A
shopping cart?

It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.

Jose
As always, there is validity in individual aspects of opposing argument.
I prefer to call this situation "Intelligent use of Usenet"
Best as always.

--
Dudley Henriques

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