Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , wrote:

The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

how many times does someone without assets get sued?

'nuff said.

You're kidding, right?

What would be the point in suing someone without assets unless you
like personally supporting a lawyer?

ok, I was being, ahem, obsure. It seemed that skym believes
that the legal system determines fault and deep pockets is secondary.
However, I think we can agree that lawyers only go after those with
assets, making it obvious that they aren't interested in determining
fault but rather getting money.

You mean being a lawyer is a business and lawyers don't truely believe
all their clients are innocent?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "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" :-))

That's the difference between the Civil and Legal court system. OTOH
the Legal part seems to be heavily swayed in that direction as well.
At least they are supposed to be prove guilt, which is not necessary
in a civil action.


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.

A large, local company was sued for billions in the breast implant
issue. The lawyers pushing the case made more than the entire
corporation gross per year. In the end it was far easier and much
cheaper to just give them a couple Billion dollars than to fight junk
science with true science. The average juror is easily mislead by junk
science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
a so called expert to sway the jury.


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

It would be rare for some one, or any one for that matter to be tried
by a jury of people who would truly be their peers.

I have never survived the selection process. Either I have too much
education, I'm in the wrong income group, my knowledge base includes
items pertaining to the case. If that weren't enough, my deep belief
in the concept that a person is responsible for their own actions
would do it. They can't ask about religious beliefs.


Roger (K8RI)

-Robert

In article , wrote:

ok, I was being, ahem, obsure. It seemed that skym believes
that the legal system determines fault and deep pockets is secondary.
However, I think we can agree that lawyers only go after those with
assets, making it obvious that they aren't interested in determining
fault but rather getting money.

You mean being a lawyer is a business and lawyers don't truely believe
all their clients are innocent?

Well, that wasn't my point, but I don't disagree with the statement.

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

skym wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.

The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

Tell me you aren't really this naive? If this had been a local mom and
pop coffee shop that had no liability insurance, do you really think a
jury would have made this award? Do you even think the lawyer would
have even taken the case? These cases and awards are DIRECTLY related
to the wealth of the defendant. This isn't by statue, I agree, but it
is de facto.

Matt

Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year
and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than $7,000. If
the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather than fund the
public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000 per student. Are
you going to vote for that tax increase?

I am not sure that the cost of private schools will remain as high if
all public schools were gradually converted into private schools. We
would also not be paying taxes to support public schools in the new
system. Eventually we would probably end up with the same taxes even
if the average standard of education went up (as we would hope) in the
new system. There would also be more efficiency and less or no money
spent on the beauracracy needed to run public schools. In the end it
may or may not work more reliably than the current system, I just
don't know.

I don't know the specifics of Ohio but the larger point is what do we
mean by the system works or doesn't work? If we want every child in
the US to be in a school regardless of the quality of education
imparted, it can be achieved through public schools alone. On the
other hand if we want every child to have a very high standard of
education then such a system would be woefully inadequate. A system of
private schools alone would also serve neither objective and you could
say "it doesn't work" but the present system also doesn't work
according to many. A private school system has the benefit of being
more efficient and in the long run would definitely produce much
better schools per dollar spent. Obviously it will not be perfect but
no system will ever be perfect.


Look at Ohio for a real-world example of where vouchers and
general-poplation private schooling *doesn't*, and is unlikely to work as
you think possible. If you can show one state where general-population
private schools *do* work as you think they might, then there is room for
discussion.

Neil

Recently, posted:

Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a
year and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than
$7,000. If the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather
than fund the public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000
per student. Are you going to vote for that tax increase?

I am not sure that the cost of private schools will remain as high if
all public schools were gradually converted into private schools. We
would also not be paying taxes to support public schools in the new
system. Eventually we would probably end up with the same taxes even
if the average standard of education went up (as we would hope) in the
new system. There would also be more efficiency and less or no money
spent on the beauracracy needed to run public schools. In the end it
may or may not work more reliably than the current system, I just
don't know.

Look at Ohio for a real-world example of where vouchers and
general-poplation private schooling *doesn't*, and is unlikely to work as
you think possible. If you can show one state where general-population
private schools *do* work as you think they might, then there is room for
discussion.

Neil

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System"
and now refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the
system".

And I have coined a corollary:

"These days, justics is considered served when the law is satisfied."

I mentioned this to a lawyer; he was not happy about it, but did not
refute me.

Ang. C.

On Dec 8, 11:04 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"



That's the difference between the Civil and Legal court system. OTOH
the Legal part seems to be heavily swayed in that direction as well.
At least they are supposed to be prove guilt, which is not necessary
in a civil action.

Those statements make no sense. There is no "legal court system" that is separate from the "civil system." In fact there is no "civil system". Within the "legal system" there are civil cases, which include the myriad of disputes between private parties, although it also includes disputes involving governments; and there are criminal actions. Perhaps you meant "criminal" instead of "legal."


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.

I've done, and do, both. Believe me, the arbitration process is at
least as "inconsistent" as the jury system. For example, did you know
that in arbitration, the arbitrator is generally not even required to
follow the law? As long as his decision is not patently fraudulent
(e.g., bribery), it will be upheld no matter how utterly wrong on the
facts and the law. An arbitrator is not even required to give a
rationale for his decision, All he is required to do is fule for one
party or the other without explanation, They often do write an
explanation, but what is in the opinion is not grounds for review.
Juries don't have to give an explanation either, but their decisions
are subject to review by a judge and appellate system, In fact, in
the McD verdict, the judge reduced the jury award. That would not
have been possible in an arbitration.


In the end it was far easier and much
cheaper to just give them a couple Billion dollars than to fight junk
science with true science.

That is patent nonsense. Socalled junk science exists on both sides,
as does true science.

The average juror is easily mislead by junk
science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
a so called expert to sway the jury.

Yep, either way.

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

You've named one case. And that was the crriminal case. A jury
nailed him in the case tried in the terrible "civil court system." So
are you now cricizing the "legal court system" (i.e., criminal case)
that you above held in such high regard?



I have never survived the selection process. Either I have too much
education, I'm in the wrong income group, my knowledge base includes
items pertaining to the case. If that weren't enough, my deep belief
in the concept that a person is responsible for their own actions
would do it. They can't ask about religious beliefs.

....or the attorneys and judge saw you for what you are- a man with
mind like a steel trap. Once it's closed, its very hard, or
impossible to open.

On Dec 9, 6:50 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Tell me you aren't really this naive? If this had been a local mom and
pop coffee shop that had no liability insurance, do you really think a
jury would have made this award? Do you even think the lawyer would
have even taken the case? These cases and awards are DIRECTLY related
to the wealth of the defendant. This isn't by statue, I agree, but it
is de facto.
Matt

They would have rendered the compensatory award. Certainly not the
punitive award, since mom and pop probably didn't have over 700 scald
cases in the prior years, or have conducted research and had prior
knowledge that the coffee was not fit for human consumption. In fact,
I'll bet that if mom and pop knew those things, they would have
lowered the temp. It's the fact that McD knew it and did nothing that
contributed to this result. The amount of punitive damages can be
based on worth and income, but not underlying liability for punitive
damages.

Don't know if an attorney would have taken the case. If mom and pop
had few assets, they could not pay the damage that the plaintiff
incurred, So why sue them? Would you, or would you enjoy putting
people into bankruptcy?

Also, juries aren't told whether the defendant has insurance, nor are
they typically told of the defendant's worth at trial. (Of course, I
agree that they all know that McDs is a large wealthy corporation.).
That is specifically to prevent juries from possibly being swayed by
that irrelevant fact in the liability phase of the trial..