Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:


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.


That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.


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?


Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
from anger in my opinion.


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" :-))


Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
of jury trials.

Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
aviation related cases to see that.

-Robert

It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side that
does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I think we
should have professional juries; ones trained and have some smarts.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Ross" wrote in message
...

It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side that
does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I think we
should have professional juries; ones trained and have some smarts.


I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

-Robert

In article ,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

Around here hardly anyone ever gets excused from showing up for jury
duty.

Getting past the questioning and actually getting seated on a jury
is a different story.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit
of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most
reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey
shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
reserves actually sit on a jury.

In article ,
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
reserves actually sit on a jury.

I knew what he meant. I've been called to jury duty 4 times in taxachusetts.
The first time was when I was self-employed. It didn't get me excused from
hearing the case, a 5 day trial. The self-employed get screwed since
taxachusetts expects employers to pay employees for the first three days,
and then taxachusetts pays some tiny amount for the remainder.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
reserves actually sit on a jury.

I knew what he meant. I've been called to jury duty 4 times in
taxachusetts.
The first time was when I was self-employed. It didn't get me excused
from
hearing the case, a 5 day trial. The self-employed get screwed since
taxachusetts expects employers to pay employees for the first three days,
and then taxachusetts pays some tiny amount for the remainder.


When I was in Colorado, you'd get $7.50 for mileage, regardless of how far
you have to travel. An employer will pay your regular rate for 1-3 days of
jury duty, but if you're a contractor or self-employed, you're SOL.

I didn't get called for 20 years since I stopped registering to vote (1988).
I don't know how they do it in Wyoming.

My wife was called four times in the last 14 years, but never got past the
initial questioning since her brother is a former cop. All jury duty summons
were for criminal court, never civil court.

At least in Colorado, if you're not empanelled by about the middle of the
first day, you go home and don't have to come back.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:


On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:


I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.


hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.


I see a lot of folks walk up and get excused but I cannot hear why. One
time I was going to ask for an excuse due to lots of work travel. Before
I did the judge gave his talk about duty. I swear I could hear America
the Beautiful playing in the background. After he retired I told him my
story and he laughed. I stayed that day.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have
to agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but
they too often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and
loose a bit of their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could
do a better job of looking at cases from different angles, and
reaching the most reasonable conclusion. The way we select juries
today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

-Robert

That is the fault of the judges and in some cases the legislatures. We have
a judge around here that if you are called for jury duty you can pretty much
plan on being there because unless a close family member is expected to die
during the trial you will be up for selection and even then you will
probably be required to show up with a death certificate after they do at
which point you will be next up. He doesn't let anybody off.

When I was on the panel I saw him tell the CEO of a LARGE company who had
just explained that he had a stock holder's meeting scheduled that, "I know
your number 2 guy and he is more than qualified to handle the meeting and
luckily the trial will probably only last half a day."

This is the same judge that when after the jury pool was asked if we new any
of the lawyers or principles in the case and I answered "Yes, your honor, I
play golf with the defendant's lawyer as I often play with you." He said,
"Yes, Mr. Giacona, I've seen you allegedly play golf and I've seen you lie
on a score card but you weren't under oath so I won't hold that against
you."