Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Dec 2, 1:49 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
--
Jay Honeck


Here are the facts:

1. Pltf, age 79, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup.
2. She was passenger in the car; she placed the cp between her legs
to hold it whhile sh added cream and sugar.
3. As she removed the lid, the contents spilled on her legs.
4. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
A surgeon determined that she suffered 3rd degree, full thickness,
skin burns over 6% of her body, specifically her inner thighs,
perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin area..
5. She was hospitalized for 8 days, undergoing skin grafting.
6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.
7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F.
8. They admitted that they had made no effort to study the safety
issues of this temperature.
9. Other establishments typically serve it around 135-140 F.
10. McD enforces its rule to hold the temp at 185 +/- 5 deg.
11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.
12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
13. An expert on thermodynamics testified that liquids at 180 F would
cause full thickness skin burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
14. The evidence also established that as the temp increases over
155, the extent ofthe burn increases exponentially.
15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
16. The plaintiff had initially offered to settle for $20,000.00.
17. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but it was
reduced to $160,000 due to plaintiffs's own contributory negligence.
18. The jury ruled for $2.7 mmillion punitive damages, which equals 2
days' of McD's coffee sales.
19. The COurt reduced the pun dam tto $480,000, even though
characterizing McD's conduct as reckless, callous and willful.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
the case.
7.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
Jose wrote:
It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.

His grasp of the tort system is about on par with his other knowledge.

And this guy's a teacher?





The statement is true but not complete, as are all such statements made to
push a position.

There's nothing wrong with the concept that proposes protection for the
"average citizen" from a corporation's bottom line, but the statement is
deceiving if not completed as it actually exists in today's legal system.

Actually there is something wrong with it. Consider:

1) Outside of theft, fraud/misrepresetation, or negligence (no, not
where they need to be imniscient) what damage could a corporation cause that
should be illegal or civil tort?
2) Laws exist for EVERYONE, not just the "average citizen". If
everyone's rights, even just Bill Gates and his peers, then YOUR rights are
not secure. To wit:

"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

3) A companies bottom line is their ultimate profit after expenses are
deducted from revenues. Unless those revenues are gotten illegally (a
stretch right there, nowadays), what interest does anyone have outside an
"arms length" trade?


What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in
many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used, the
citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the other way
around.

When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large
corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous ability to
change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against corporations
for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.

The kicker in all this are the lawyers. The problem is that if the citizen
is dishonest, it is supposed to be incumbent on the lawyer to act as a
shield between an honest corporation and the dishonest citizen.
A HUGE percentage of the lawyers unfortunately for the country, have
chosen NOT to act as this ethical buffer and instead BENEFIT from the
dishonest citizen seeking litigation against corporations. The result of
this has been a large enough swing from honesty and ethics among lawyers
to influence the balance of the legal system away from ethics and into a
large amount of dishonesty and unethical practice by lawyers that has
literally turned the system into a business for profit.

Add to this the dishonest lawyers THEMSELVES initiating action against
corporations based completely on their personal dishonest and unethical
practice and you have the present legal system of the United States.

There are of course lawyers out here who are honest and ethical. You can
spot them in 5 seconds. They are poor by the standard of living used to
present the average income of lawyers in the United States. I actually
can't think of 1 single lawyer (and I know many) known to me personally
who is honest and ethical as I would define these terms, who I would
consider in the top income level of the legal profession.

I agree with all that; but your very premises are steps 4-17 and 1-3 have
been deleted.

You assert that the "average American" is entitled to more protection that
others. That's a "gang" mentality. No one accrues more rights or entitlement
to protections by being a member of a group. That's a major facet of
collectivism.

You might consider this a major factor in how we got to this problem in the
first place.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:
What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in
many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used,
the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the
other way around.

It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The concept
of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide the merits,
rather than up to some other agency to decide what the listener may or
may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.

I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when
lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought after
for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I knew
anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.
Lawyers were in fact some of the most respected members of the community.
All gone now. Typical of the lawyers in my present community are an entire
segment, and I literally mean an entire large office building, almost
entirely filled with attorneys specializing in drop and fall, auto
accidents, and the vast majority and the most financially rewarded, an
entire cadre of attorneys specializing in medical malpractice.

One might say it began when lawyers found they could make buckets of money
getting criminals, particularly gangsters off from charges. In many cases,
they were consultants to gangsters, advising them how to conduct their
crimes with the least likelihood of capture or successful prosecution.

And no, I don't mean the "bootleggers" and bank robbers of the 1920's and
30's, I'm referring to the gangs of the 1870's and onward.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY.

"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!!!)

Recently, Doug Carter posted:

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould wrote:

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
local priority. On a national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
and results (educated students) are causally related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html

To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
meaning.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
not positively impressive.

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
for our lack of success in educating these youth?

--
Neil

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
the case.

THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
enlightening.

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

I'm curious to know: Did the woman's hired guns go after the Bunn
Corporation, makers of the coffee brewing equipment that McDonald's
used? Clearly their equipment is brewing coffee that is too hot?

How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
suddenly to make her spill the coffee?

Where does this end?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ross wrote:

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.

And you can have it right now in some types of cases and some jurisdictions.
The "professional jury" is a judge. Of course both sides have to go along
with it and the other side probably won't want to for the same reasons you
want to.

Jay Honeck wrote:

How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
suddenly to make her spill the coffee?

Where does this end?
--

You forgot the car manufacturer who designed a vehicle with
brakes that allow sudden stops or turns which caused the
coffee to spill.

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."