Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

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

On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:

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?

Yes. If remember anything from law school it was that anytime you go
to a jury trial the results will be unpredictable. They did establish
that McD's had a policy for what temp the coffee should be and that
the manager of this location did know it was higher than that, so you
could argue that the jury was interested in that too. However, you
have to remember that this was a case of someone being disfigured.
Jurys can be very emotional about that type of stuff.

-Robert

Matt Whiting wrote:

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?

Nope, it is based on what the jury perceives is reality and who
they think deserves the sympathy.

If the defendant convices the jury he is a heartless asshole, the
plaintiff will probably win.

If the plaintiff convices the jury he is a babbling idiot and got
what he deserved for being so stupid, the defendant probably wins.

If McDonald's had responded with, gee we are sorry that you got hurt,
but fresh coffee is hot and you should be more carefull in the future
and here's some coupons for happy meals, the outcome would have likely
been very different.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 3, 3:45 pm, wrote:

If McDonald's had responded with, gee we are sorry that you got hurt,
but fresh coffee is hot and you should be more carefull in the future
and here's some coupons for happy meals, the outcome would have likely
been very different.

Funny, I'm thinking of insurance settlement checks that include a
"final settlement clause" on the endorsement line for the check.
Wouldn't it be funny to require that she endorse the free happy meal
coupons and that endorsement stated that this was a final settlement
of damages!!
Of course a jury may just ignore the settlement or a judge *may* rule
it as unconscionable, but it would be funny. "Look woman, you got your
damn happy meal, what more do you want from us?!"

-robert