Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

kontiki wrote in news:b1Y4j.21813$B25.17352
@news01.roc.ny:

Jay Honeck wrote:
I still can't honestly
come up with something the government does well.... besides
spend other people's money.

Small-town local governments occasionally function well. Once a city
grows beyond ~25,000 people, everything gets dicey.

An excellent argument for smaller government.




No it isn't. That's not an argument at all!

It's a throwaway Will Rogers cracker barrel wannabe statement that even
Will Rogers would have ****ed on.


Bertie

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

"Yes - I have a name" wrote in news:3PZ4j.4090
$6k1.3271@trndny02:

"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.


I wouldn't buy it there for the simple reason it's ****ing McDonalds!


Bertie

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


Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons
paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."


Read his post in its entirety.

I have. It's not out of context all all. That one sentence is the key. His
"solution" relies on the schools putting pressure on the public schools.
It's foundation, in some places is called "vouchers". It gives lower income
people access to privat eschools, but is not a long-term solution to
anything else.

You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is not
going to do away with the nanny state. It is only going to stall and create
a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that will never disappear.

"Yes - I have a name" wrote in message
news:3PZ4j.4090$6k1.3271@trndny02...
"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.

And when they tired lowering the temp, they had customer complaints that it
got cold too fast.

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

I don't buy anything at McD's and haven't for twenty years.

Not only is the food crap, but I don't want to subsidize Joan Croc, a far
out, goofy leftist.

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Throwing private schools into the mix of "school choice" -- without
fixing the underlying conflicting interests in this employee-employer
relationship -- would be a disaster, IMHO. And that's just not going
to happen in today's political climate.

Which, of course, brings us back to where we started -- and are
stuck.

The first thing that needs to happen is the abolishment of the local school
board system. Politics and education do not mix well.

Schools should be run by a panel of professional educators, with some
oversight by a panel of parents, to keep things honest.

Where would a business be if consumers of the product got to elect the board
controlling the company every two years.

Decisions are usually contrary to stability and consistency of the
educational process.

The other thing that needs to be done is get the educational professionals
out of the decision making loop that are not currently in the classroom.
Some of the people making decisions at the state and national school board
level are so out of touch with reality, that teachers still in the classroom
actually laugh at some of the programs they institute. The decisions they
make are so opposite to what is needed, laughing is all you can do, or you
will cry.
--
Jim in NC

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote


It's obvious the education establishment only wants solutions that keep
themselves in power and the teachers feeding at the public trough.

Morgans, your lithium prescription has evidently run out.

Whatever. After a day at school, I'm far too tired to argue. You win.
You always do, because you are always right.

If anyone doesn't believe that, I'll tell them to ask you. You will tell
them how you are always right.
--
Jim in NC

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

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote

Yes, many teachers are stupid. Perhaps the vast majority.

Morgan's story never changes and it's right out of the AFT playbook. He's
a shill and a damn ignorant one at that.

And you sir, are a total ass that would not listen to reason if it was an
atom bomb going off inside his ear.

Keep living in your la-la land. Call me ignorant if you want, but I would
rather be know as that, than an ass.
--
Jim in NC