Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Morgans wrote:
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.

I have two problems with this. First, professional educators (read NEA) are
a big part of the problem. Second how are you going to have the parental
oversite without the elections? And if you only let parents run for the
offices or worse only let parents vote then you get into the whole taxation
without representation thing.


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

That is a problem with all elected governments.


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.

Most school administrators come up from the ranks of teachers.

Yes - I have a name wrote:
"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. (begin a cheap *******, I
usually make my own anyway)

Well, a simple Google search shows that the ideal brewing temperature
for coffee is 200 degrees F give or take 5 degrees and the "holding"
temperature for coffee is 175 or higher. 175 will give you a wicked
burn and freshly brewed coffee could easily be 200 degrees. I
personally think McDonald's got shafted in this case and I've heard the
arguments on both sides MANY times.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

To me the degree of the injury was simply not relevant. Had the woman
not done something patently stupid, she would have had NO injury at all.
It isn't McDonald's fault that she did something stupid. And it isn't
Cessna's fault if a pilot does something stupid. I'm not saying that is
the case in this incident and we'll have to wait for the NTSB to give us
an idea where the stupidity lies.

Matt

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

I got out of teaching because of the direction education was heading.
Many other highly talented professional educators retired early
also.
Corporal punishment worked when I went to school. Students learned,
classrooms were not in a steady state of kayos and teacher turn over
was low. No school shootings either.
I put most of the blame on the N.E.A and the ACLU. These
organizations have done more harm to this country than any foreign
military has ever done to the United States of America.
If someone is offended by this statement. GOOD. The truth hurts.

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

This is an interesting summation.

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.

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?

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" :-))

A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
about all the justice you can afford"



--
Dudley Henriques

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.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:



Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is
not going to do away with the nanny state.


Yeah, we all need to build our own roads!


Bertie

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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

snip...


You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))

A wise man once said "In the United States justice system, you get just
about all the justice you can afford"



--
Dudley Henriques


Minor nit, Dudley, but I do believe it is a legal system. I think it
hasn't been a "Justice" system for some time.

Al G