Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

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..

skym wrote:
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?

So, you ARE agreeing that economics rather than culpability plays a
major role. I think that is where this thread started. :-)

I rest my case.


Matt

On Dec 9, 7:47 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
So, you ARE agreeing that economics rather than culpability plays a
major role. I think that is where this thread started. :-)
I rest my case.

"...plays a major role" in what? Culpability plays the major or only
role in whether the deft should pay anything. As for the deft who
doesn't have the means to compensate a pltf for her loss, it only
makes sense not to pursue the deft. What would be the purpose, except
to harrass?