Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash [Archive]

Jose

March 3rd 07, 04:33 PM

> A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
> everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
> a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
> legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
> vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.

First, it's "loser". If you're any looser with your spelling, people
will brand you a loser. :)

Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you
cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by
small-resource folks against larger companies, who are more likely to
win at trial simply through outspending on lawyers. That's also a
common tactic - drown the assaulting party in their own legal fees until
they run out of time and money, even before the trial starts. "Loser
pays" doesn't address this, and in fact exacerbates the problem.

This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim B

March 3rd 07, 04:46 PM

Agreed. My spelling sucks. ;)
Jim

Steven P. McNicoll

March 3rd 07, 04:52 PM

"Jim B" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most civil lawsuits are settled between the parties without going to
> trial.
> This method is often used by the suing parties lawyers as a method of
> frightening the defendant into paying the suing party huge sums of money
> to
> avoid an actual trial. It's a tactic. Often the costs of defending such
> a
> lawsuit, if you take it all the way through a trial, will exceed the
> requested pre-trial amount the suing party asks for settling.
>
> A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
> everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist
> on
> a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the
> defendants
> legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
> vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.
>

An excellent idea. It will never happen.

601XL Builder

March 3rd 07, 05:20 PM

wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:28 am, "Denny" > wrote:
>> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>> claiming defective design...
>> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
>> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>>
>> denny
>
> If cirrus doesn't fight this one to the bitter end, they are part of
> the problem, not part of the solution...
>
> Someone needs to explain to Cory Lidel's widow that suing Cirrus will
> not bring her husband back from the dead, and that he died because of
> his own poor decision making. If she want to sue someone, she should
> sue the estate of the flight instructor who failed to properly coach
> his student.
>
>

Not just Cirrus. All the GAMA members, AOPA, EAA, Boeing, Airbus, and
those groups insurance companies need to band together and very publicly
fight this suit.

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 07, 05:29 PM

On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in m>:

>I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing
>full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society.
>They are the worst sort of scum.

Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are
officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal
labyrinth; that is as it should be.

It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people,
are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at
who we put in the highest office of the land.

Matt Whiting

March 3rd 07, 06:08 PM

Stefan wrote:

> Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
> knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by
> attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
> not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

True, but attorneys file the suits and it is the threat of a great
number of suits or a class action suit that causes the settlements. It
is the settlements before at trial occurs that causes the problems as
much as it is the large occasional settlements. Dow-Corning settled in
the implant suits when it wasn't even at fault. That is simply wrong
and is a result of lawyers filing lots of suits that cost a fortune to
defend against. So the lawyers take a lion's share of the blame, but I
agree that judges and juries have their fair share as well along with
the plaintiffs.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 3rd 07, 06:09 PM

Jim B wrote:

> Most civil lawsuits are settled between the parties without going to trial.
> This method is often used by the suing parties lawyers as a method of
> frightening the defendant into paying the suing party huge sums of money to
> avoid an actual trial. It's a tactic. Often the costs of defending such a
> lawsuit, if you take it all the way through a trial, will exceed the
> requested pre-trial amount the suing party asks for settling.
>
> A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
> everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
> a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
> legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
> vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.
>
> Jim
>
>

I'm not sure a "looser" should have to pay, the the loser certainly
should! :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 3rd 07, 06:12 PM

Jose wrote:

>> A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
>> everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant
>> insist on
>> a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the
>> defendants
>> legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit.
>> I'd
>> vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.
>
>
> First, it's "loser". If you're any looser with your spelling, people
> will brand you a loser. :)
>
> Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you
> cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by
> small-resource folks against larger companies, who are more likely to
> win at trial simply through outspending on lawyers. That's also a
> common tactic - drown the assaulting party in their own legal fees until
> they run out of time and money, even before the trial starts. "Loser
> pays" doesn't address this, and in fact exacerbates the problem.
>
> This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry.
>
> Jose

Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support
lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it. Kind of like an EPA
superfund. I haven't thought this through extensively, but I think this
could be a way to mitigate the legitimate concern you raise, yet still
have a loser pays system that minimizes some of the present abuse.
Doesn't many parts of Europe already have a loser pays system? I think
they are precedents that show such a system can work and still allow the
little guy to get satisfaction when warranted.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 3rd 07, 06:14 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in m>:
>
>
>>I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing
>>full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society.
>>They are the worst sort of scum.
>
>
>
> Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are
> officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal
> labyrinth; that is as it should be.
>
> It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people,
> are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at
> who we put in the highest office of the land.
>

Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the
problem. Numerous frivolous suits and huge class action suits are also
part of the problem. They can cause companies to settle when they
shouldn't even before a case goes to trial. So, lawyers cause huge
problems even before a jury is ever selected.

Matt

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 07, 06:39 PM

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in m>:
>>
>>
>>>I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing
>>>full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society.
>>>They are the worst sort of scum.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are
>> officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal
>> labyrinth; that is as it should be.
>>
>> It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people,
>> are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at
>> who we put in the highest office of the land.
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the
>problem.

So you agree that juries are often too emotional to be rational?

>Numerous frivolous suits

What constitutes a frivolous suit?

>and huge class action suits are also part of the problem.

Are you suggesting that class action suits should be outlawed?

>They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even
>before a case goes to trial.

We all have to make choices.

>So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected.
>
>Matt

Would you prefer that attorneys NOT represent their clients?

Viperdoc[_4_]

March 3rd 07, 07:26 PM

Yes, they will sue the flight instructor, but he probably had very limited
liability coverage compared to the relatively deep pockets of the product
liability insurance for Cirrus.

Think about the relative amounts for lost income and wages they can claim in
such a lawsuit against Cirrus. Even if Cirrus "wins", or it never goes to
trial, it is still going to cost them millions.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 3rd 07, 07:29 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you
> cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by small-resource
> folks against larger companies, who are more likely to win at trial simply
> through outspending on lawyers. That's also a common tactic - drown the
> assaulting party in their own legal fees until they run out of time and
> money, even before the trial starts. "Loser pays" doesn't address this,
> and in fact exacerbates the problem.
>
> This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry.
>

No it doesn't. Small fry with legitimate cases pay their lawyers out of
their winnings. A loser pays system has no downside.

Matt Whiting

March 3rd 07, 09:36 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>>in m>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing
>>>>full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society.
>>>>They are the worst sort of scum.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are
>>>officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal
>>>labyrinth; that is as it should be.
>>>
>>>It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people,
>>>are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at
>>>who we put in the highest office of the land.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the
>>problem.
>
>
> So you agree that juries are often too emotional to be rational?

Yes, having sat on a jury I would say that often they are. Not always,
but often.

>>Numerous frivolous suits
>
>
> What constitutes a frivolous suit?

One not based on fact. The breast implant suit is a very visible example.

>>and huge class action suits are also part of the problem.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that class action suits should be outlawed?

No, but the law firm that files the class action should be liable for
all suit related costs of the defendant should the class action be
either lost or thrown out by a judge.

>>They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even
>>before a case goes to trial.
>
>
> We all have to make choices.

And this is a choice that makes lawyers rich at the expense of all of us
who buy anything.

>>So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> Would you prefer that attorneys NOT represent their clients?

No, I simply prefer that attorney's be liable for the defendants legal
costs when they lose.

Matt

Don Tabor

March 3rd 07, 09:49 PM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:22:29 -0600, "Jim B"
> wrote:

>A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
>everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
>a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
>legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
>vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.

Most frivolous litigants have no assets and you would never collect in
a loser pays system.

What we need is a 'loser's lawyer pays' system.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Marty Shapiro

March 3rd 07, 10:45 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
>>>>wrote in m>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action,
>>>>>knowing full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our
>>>>>society. They are the worst sort of scum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are
>>>>officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the
>>>>legal labyrinth; that is as it should be.
>>>>
>>>>It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people,
>>>>are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at
>>>>who we put in the highest office of the land.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the
>>>problem.
>>
>>
>> So you agree that juries are often too emotional to be rational?
>
> Yes, having sat on a jury I would say that often they are. Not
> always, but often.
>
>
>>>Numerous frivolous suits
>>
>>
>> What constitutes a frivolous suit?
>
> One not based on fact. The breast implant suit is a very visible
> example.
>
>
>>>and huge class action suits are also part of the problem.
>>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that class action suits should be outlawed?
>
> No, but the law firm that files the class action should be liable for
> all suit related costs of the defendant should the class action be
> either lost or thrown out by a judge.
>
>
>>>They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even
>>>before a case goes to trial.
>>
>>
>> We all have to make choices.
>
> And this is a choice that makes lawyers rich at the expense of all of
> us who buy anything.
>
>
>>>So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you prefer that attorneys NOT represent their clients?
>
> No, I simply prefer that attorney's be liable for the defendants legal
> costs when they lose.
>
> Matt
>

It's not just that they can get emotional, there is also the attitude
by many on a jury that "It is only the insurance company's money".

Many years ago, I was on a civil jury that involved an injury to a
passenger on a commuter flight. IIRC, the aircraft was a Beech 99. The
aircraft hit severe turbulence, and one passenger, who had removed her
seatbelt, was badly injured. None of the other passengers, all of whom had
heeded the pilots announcement to ensure their seatbelts were fastened,
were not hurt.

The facts, as presented to us, were that the injured lady was very
badly overweight and needed a seatbelt extender. She first refused to wear
it and only did so when the pilot said he would call the police and have
her removed from the aircraft. She then agreed to wear it and put it
on. Seven other passengers all testified that this lady removed her
seatbelt during the take-off roll and was bragging to them that "you don't
have to wear a seatbelt on an airplane." Four passengers even pleaded with
her to put it back on when the pilot announced that there was turbulence
ahead. They said her response was "The pilots just like to order us
around. You don't need to wear a seatbelt in an airplane."

When the trial was over and we went back to the jury room to
deliberate, we all agreed that this lady was injured and that her medical
bills were reasonable. However, I refused to award her any money
whatsoever as I felt she was 100% at fault. The first vote was 5-1 (only 6
people on a civil jury in New York at this time) in favor of giving her the
amount requested (approximately $600,000, of which $450,000 was for pain
and suffering). When I explained why I was opposed to giving her a penny,
two other jurors immediately agreed with me. The jury forelady then told
us we were extremely selfish as this lady had been badly injured and
deserved some compensation. The forelady then added "It's only the
insurance companies money. It won't cost the airline anything."

We ended up a hung jury (3 award nothing, 2 award medical bills but
no pain and suffering, and 1 award everything). I have no idea what the
eventual disposition of the case was.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 07, 11:07 PM

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:49:30 -0500, Don Tabor > wrote
in >:

>
>What we need is a 'loser's lawyer pays' system.

Unfortunately, with Congress and the Judicial Department primarily
populated by Lawyers, that's not likely.

Peter Dohm

March 4th 07, 12:01 AM

> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
> claiming defective design...
> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>
I am fairly sure that we beat this issue to death in the recent past, and I
suspect that I participated then as well, but (just in case) here goes:

The problem in torts is not really the lawyers, the judges, or even the
juries (despite my personal feelings); but is instead the result of two
doctrines which were written into our laws about 50 years ago, and which
desperately need to be repealed!

They are:
Strict Liability
Joint and Several Liability

After we fix the root cause of the problem, it will be time to look and the
merits of a "loser pays" system, or some variation thereof.

Just my $0.02
Peter

Matt Whiting

March 4th 07, 12:07 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
>> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>> claiming defective design...
>> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
>> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>>
> I am fairly sure that we beat this issue to death in the recent past, and I
> suspect that I participated then as well, but (just in case) here goes:
>
> The problem in torts is not really the lawyers, the judges, or even the
> juries (despite my personal feelings); but is instead the result of two
> doctrines which were written into our laws about 50 years ago, and which
> desperately need to be repealed!
>
> They are:
> Strict Liability
> Joint and Several Liability
>
> After we fix the root cause of the problem, it will be time to look and the
> merits of a "loser pays" system, or some variation thereof.

How so? I don't see the connection? Cirrus has NO liability in the
Lidle crash and thus neither doctrine above should be an issue.

Matt

Peter Dohm

March 4th 07, 12:13 AM

> It's not just that they can get emotional, there is also the attitude
> by many on a jury that "It is only the insurance company's money".
>
> Many years ago, I was on a civil jury that involved an injury to a
> passenger on a commuter flight. IIRC, the aircraft was a Beech 99. The
> aircraft hit severe turbulence, and one passenger, who had removed her
> seatbelt, was badly injured. None of the other passengers, all of whom
had
> heeded the pilots announcement to ensure their seatbelts were fastened,
> were not hurt.
>
> The facts, as presented to us, were that the injured lady was very
> badly overweight and needed a seatbelt extender. She first refused to
wear
> it and only did so when the pilot said he would call the police and have
> her removed from the aircraft. She then agreed to wear it and put it
> on. Seven other passengers all testified that this lady removed her
> seatbelt during the take-off roll and was bragging to them that "you don't
> have to wear a seatbelt on an airplane." Four passengers even pleaded
with
> her to put it back on when the pilot announced that there was turbulence
> ahead. They said her response was "The pilots just like to order us
> around. You don't need to wear a seatbelt in an airplane."
>
> When the trial was over and we went back to the jury room to
> deliberate, we all agreed that this lady was injured and that her medical
> bills were reasonable. However, I refused to award her any money
> whatsoever as I felt she was 100% at fault. The first vote was 5-1 (only 6
> people on a civil jury in New York at this time) in favor of giving her
the
> amount requested (approximately $600,000, of which $450,000 was for pain
> and suffering). When I explained why I was opposed to giving her a penny,
> two other jurors immediately agreed with me. The jury forelady then told
> us we were extremely selfish as this lady had been badly injured and
> deserved some compensation. The forelady then added "It's only the
> insurance companies money. It won't cost the airline anything."
>
> We ended up a hung jury (3 award nothing, 2 award medical bills but
> no pain and suffering, and 1 award everything). I have no idea what the
> eventual disposition of the case was.
>
WARNING: I am not an attorney; the following is my layman's opinion!

IMHO, this is a wonderful example of the evil of "Strict Laibility." Simply
because the injury occurred on the aircraft operators flight, she was
justified in suing for her injuries. The judge was not permitted to dismiss
the case on the grounds of her contributory negligence, as he may otherwise
have been able to do. Further, the doctrine of "Strict Liability" would
have also guided his instructions to the jury.

Just my $0.02
Peter

RomeoMike

March 4th 07, 12:24 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dow-Corning settled in
> the implant suits when it wasn't even at fault. That is simply wrong
> and is a result of lawyers filing lots of suits that cost a fortune to
> defend against. So the lawyers take a lion's share of the blame, but I
> agree that judges and juries have their fair share as well along with
> the plaintiffs.
>
> Matt

Yeah, in the case of the silicone breast implant fiasco, it was a judge
in Alabama, where one of the class actions landed, who unilaterally
decided, despite a lack of medical evidence, that silicone was causing
all kinds of medical problems. That one ignoramus, who essentially set
himself up as an expert in epidemiology, was the cause of huge awards
being distributed. It took some years for the science and analysis to be
done to disprove a connection to all the systemic diseases that award
recipients claimed to have gotten from silicone.

Chris

March 4th 07, 12:37 AM

"Denny" > wrote in message
s.com...
>I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
> claiming defective design...
> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

It is the case here in the UK, the loser pays both sides costs.

Jose

March 4th 07, 01:29 AM

> Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it.

The point isn't that they can't afford it (at least starting out). The
point is that even if they could afford starting the lawsuit, the (much)
deeper pocket can easily bury the plaintiff, raising his legal bills far
beyond what would be reasonable if it weren't a war. And that is what a
lawsuit is - a war.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 4th 07, 01:32 AM

>> Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you
>> cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by small-resource
>> folks against larger companies, who are more likely to win at trial simply
>> through outspending on lawyers. That's also a common tactic - drown the
>> assaulting party in their own legal fees until they run out of time and
>> money, even before the trial starts. "Loser pays" doesn't address this,
>> and in fact exacerbates the problem.
>>
>> This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry.
>
> No it doesn't. Small fry with legitimate cases pay their lawyers out of
> their winnings. A loser pays system has no downside.

Yes, it does. Not all cases look legitimate on first viewing, and
that's the viewing that the lawyer who will decide whether to risk a
contingincy case will see. Small fry (or even big fry) with legitimate
cases can still lose. Why should a lawyer risk it when the downside is
on him?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Dohm

March 4th 07, 01:57 AM

> >> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
> >> claiming defective design...
> >> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
> >> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
> >>
> > I am fairly sure that we beat this issue to death in the recent past,
and I
> > suspect that I participated then as well, but (just in case) here goes:
> >
> > The problem in torts is not really the lawyers, the judges, or even the
> > juries (despite my personal feelings); but is instead the result of two
> > doctrines which were written into our laws about 50 years ago, and which
> > desperately need to be repealed!
> >
> > They are:
> > Strict Liability
> > Joint and Several Liability
> >
> > After we fix the root cause of the problem, it will be time to look and
the
> > merits of a "loser pays" system, or some variation thereof.
>
> How so? I don't see the connection? Cirrus has NO liability in the
> Lidle crash and thus neither doctrine above should be an issue.
>
They built the airplane. As strict laibility was explained to me, that is
sufficient reason that the case must be heard--a judge cannot dismiss it
with prejudice. Therefore, as it was explained to me, the case can go to
trial and a jury can award whatever they see fit.

Again, I am not a lawyer...

Peter

Matt Whiting

March 4th 07, 02:33 AM

Jose wrote:
>> Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support
>> lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it.
>
> The point isn't that they can't afford it (at least starting out). The
> point is that even if they could afford starting the lawsuit, the (much)
> deeper pocket can easily bury the plaintiff, raising his legal bills far
> beyond what would be reasonable if it weren't a war. And that is what a
> lawsuit is - a war.
>
> Jose

Do you have any idea how much 1% of what all of the lawyers in the USA
make each year would amount to as a war chest for the downtrodden? I
don't think many corporations have deeper pockets than that.

Matt

Montblack

March 4th 07, 03:00 AM

("Denny" wrote)
>I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>claiming defective design...

Defective?

A defective design would have missed the building.

Montblack

Steven P. McNicoll

March 4th 07, 03:19 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

>
> Not all cases look legitimate on first viewing, and that's the viewing
> that the lawyer who will decide whether to risk a contingincy case will
> see.

All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

>
> Small fry (or even big fry) with legitimate cases can still lose.

Cite one.

>
> Why should a lawyer risk it when the downside is on him?
>

There is no downside on loser pays.

Ash Wyllie

March 4th 07, 03:36 AM

Bear opined

>Denny wrote:
>> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>> claiming defective design...
>> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
>> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>>
>> denny
>>

>Well, that confirms the impression we have in Switzerland of (some) US
>attorneys.
>Please do not blame a company like FLARM if they add statements like
>"Operation of FLARM is forbidden in the USA or Canada or in aircraft
>registered in the USA or Canada." to their manuals.

What is FLARM? And what are we missing?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

Jose

March 4th 07, 04:04 AM

> No it doesn't.

Is this the five minute argument, or do you want the full half hour?

> All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Then why aren't they all settled on first viewing?

> Cite one.

Cite one what? All you'll do is disagree that the case was (or wasn't)
legitimate.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans[_2_]

March 4th 07, 04:26 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support
>> lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it.
>
> The point isn't that they can't afford it (at least starting out). The
> point is that even if they could afford starting the lawsuit, the (much)
> deeper pocket can easily bury the plaintiff, raising his legal bills far
> beyond what would be reasonable if it weren't a war. And that is what a
> lawsuit is - a war.

If it was a case that the victim's lawyer felt really good about winning,
the lawyer could work in on a basis that he only got paid (and nicely) when
they won.

I agree. A change is long overdue. Changes need to be made, if our society
is to survive.
--
Jim in NC

Steven P. McNicoll

March 4th 07, 04:34 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Is this the five minute argument, or do you want the full half hour?
>

Give me all you've got, I expect it will take less than a minute.

>
> Cite one what?

Cite a legitimate case that lost.

>
> All you'll do is disagree that the case was (or wasn't) legitimate.
>

Let's find out if you're right about that. Cite a legitimate case that
lost.

Matt Barrow[_3_]

March 4th 07, 08:31 AM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not. The lawyers for Cirrus
> will settle rather than enter into a protracted and even more expensive
> court case.
>
> The lawyers for Cory Lidle will win.
>

As Denny said, we need "Loser pays".

Matt Barrow[_3_]

March 4th 07, 09:28 AM

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Denny" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>> claiming defective design...
>> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
>> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>
> It is the case here in the UK, the loser pays both sides costs.

IIRC, the US is the only industrial nation that DOESN'T use "Loser Pays".
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

Bob Noel

March 4th 07, 11:18 AM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> IIRC, the US is the only industrial nation that DOESN'T use "Loser Pays".

consider: We also don't have user fees,

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Thomas Borchert

March 4th 07, 11:54 AM

Ash,

> What is FLARM?

<donning flak jacket>

A solution in search of a problem - at least for you in the US.

FLARM is a collision warning system totally independent of transponders
or ADS-B. It has both an active transmitter and receiver enabling
FLARM-equipped aircraft to detect each other and warn of impending
collisions, employing GPS for position data. A FLARM unit in an
aircraft wil ONLY "see" other FLARM-equipped aircraft. It was invented
in Switzerland and has spread impressively in the glider community both
in Switzerland and Germany because:

1. there are a lot more gliders in Europe and especially in the Alps
than there are in the US
2. gliders rarely carry transponders - though they might in the future,
since transponders with low power requirements are coming to market
3. There is no such thing as TIS in Europe, even though Eurocontrol
requires S mode for GA.

Personally, I think FLARM is a dead end, since it is a niche solution
not endorsed by any ATC authority and S mode, TCAS and ultimately ADS-B
do exactly the same thing, will become viable in gliders and integrate
into what the ATCs of the world have in mind. Which, in turn, will lead
to a market size capable of financing certification for onboard units.

But: The spread of FLARM units in Europe still is impressive.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Denny

March 4th 07, 01:11 PM

> Did anybody see the interview of the lawyer representing Anna Nicole Smith's
> mother and how he bilked Dow Corning on the breast implant deal? He made
> millions, Dow Corning went broke, then the FDA said that the implants were
> indeed safe after all. Scum.
> Jim

I will not hijack this thread by going on to the Dow tragedy - but I
will comment that the plant that made them is near my office and a
number of the people (now unemployed) who actually made the implants
came to me and asked my opinion.. As a result I dove into the
literature and it was crystal clear to me that all the clinical trials
did not show any problems from the immune system being exposed to
silicone.. Time and further studies have ony reinforced those
findings... Just another notch in the gunbelt our unsane legal
system...
denny

Denny

March 4th 07, 01:17 PM

On Mar 3, 10:56 am, Stefan > wrote:
> Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
> knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by
> attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
> not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
failed to keep the playing field level...

denny

BDS

March 4th 07, 01:25 PM

"Denny" > wrote

> Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
> the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
> failed to keep the playing field level...

At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing to
ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the pursuit
of a fast buck.

Lawyers can do nothing without clients.

BDS

Stefan

March 4th 07, 01:45 PM

BDS schrieb:
> At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing to
> ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the pursuit
> of a fast buck.

If it wouldn't be rewarded, this behaviour would stop pretty fast.

Blueskies

March 4th 07, 01:59 PM

"Denny" > wrote in message ps.com...
:
: > Did anybody see the interview of the lawyer representing Anna Nicole Smith's
: > mother and how he bilked Dow Corning on the breast implant deal? He made
: > millions, Dow Corning went broke, then the FDA said that the implants were
: > indeed safe after all. Scum.
: > Jim
:
: I will not hijack this thread by going on to the Dow tragedy - but I
: will comment that the plant that made them is near my office and a
: number of the people (now unemployed) who actually made the implants
: came to me and asked my opinion.. As a result I dove into the
: literature and it was crystal clear to me that all the clinical trials
: did not show any problems from the immune system being exposed to
: silicone.. Time and further studies have ony reinforced those
: findings... Just another notch in the gunbelt our unsane legal
: system...
: denny
:

So....now those ex-employees should sue them back?

;-0

Don Tabor

March 4th 07, 02:05 PM

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:25:28 GMT, "BDS" > wrote:

>"Denny" > wrote
>
>> Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
>> the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
>> failed to keep the playing field level...
>
>At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing to
>ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the pursuit
>of a fast buck.

In the end, the blame falls on the jurors and the voters.

Don

Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

BDS

March 4th 07, 03:03 PM

"Don Tabor" > wrote

> >At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing
to
> >ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the
pursuit
> >of a fast buck.
>
> In the end, the blame falls on the jurors and the voters.

While the jurors are certainly at least partially responsible, there would
be no case without a plaintiff. It all starts with a plaintiff who is
willing to throw away everything they know about responsibility, morals, and
honesty so they can get some easy money.

Consider that many of these cases never make it to court. Defendants
frequently pay the "extortion" money because it is cheaper than actually
defending the case. In each and every one of these situations it takes a
plaintiff who is morally corrupt, and only interested in easy money, to
start the ball rolling.

BDS

Bear

March 4th 07, 07:24 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Personally, I think FLARM is a dead end, since it is a niche solution
> not endorsed by any ATC authority and S mode, TCAS and ultimately ADS-B
> do exactly the same thing, will become viable in gliders and integrate
> into what the ATCs of the world have in mind. Which, in turn, will lead
> to a market size capable of financing certification for onboard units.

Hi Thomas,

I am not sure about Flarm being a dead end.
S mode and TCAS do not solve the problem with fixed obstacle like a
cable or an antenna. Therefore S mode or TCAS is not a complete
substitute of Flarm. In the data base of the European alpine obstacles
more than 54000 objects are saved.

If we talk about powered flying obstacles it would be really great to
have a small, affordable TCAS consuming far less power than today's
units. But how many years will it take? I definitely prefer a affordable
unit that is now available and helps to safe lives now not in a yet
unknown future.

>
> But: The spread of FLARM units in Europe still is impressive.

But it is not only Europe! Have a look at Australia and an Namibia/South
Africa. There is even a compatible product manufactured in Australia
(OzFlarm). Overall their are about 6000 units (Flarm and compatible
products) in use.

Bear

NB Swiss insurance companies supported the development of Flarm. Swiss
insurance companies are well know to be able to judge were they get a
benefit. They apparently came to the conclusion that Flarm decreases the
damage frequency.

Larry Dighera

March 4th 07, 08:56 PM

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:24:09 +0100, Bear > wrote in
>:

>S mode and TCAS do not solve the problem with fixed obstacle like a
>cable or an antenna.

If S Mode beacons provide Lat., Lon., and Altitude data, it would seem
there may be sufficient information to deal with the issue of fixed
obstacle avoidance.

Larry Dighera

March 4th 07, 08:57 PM

Tony

March 4th 07, 09:28 PM

RE Merck taking cases to court -- the same thing happened up at Yale
Med. For a long time their liability insurer would settle nearly
anything. They changed that, self insured, and began defending --
turns out there's a lot (make that a LOT) of cost associated with
bringing a claim, so whoever was suing had to make an important
investment, and the lawyers, working on contingency, began to lose.

Yale's payouts and losses have gone way down since then (at least by
half, if I remember correctly.) The idea was, those 'nickle and dime'
-- (hundreds of thousands of dollar) settlements had added up, and
forcing them to court put a stop to many of them.

The insrurance companies, if you think about it for a bit, have little
to gain by ligating smaller claims. Premiums are adjusted to cover
their 'losses'. On the other hand, if one self insures, as Yale had
been doing (and yes they have big ticket blanket converage as well) a
buck saved in payouts is a buck saved.

The other thing these cases have brought forward is the awful 'rent an
expert' business. There are MDs around who are willing to testify at
the drop of a fee. Many are now discredited -- if their CV of failed
cases is brought to the attention of the jury they find it takes more
than the degree and a goatee to earn respect.

Someone said it's the 98% of the lawyers who give the others a bad
name. The real precentage isn't nearly that high, what needs damning
is the legal system the offers incentives for many of these lawsuits.

On Mar 3, 12:30 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> --EGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Viperdoc" >
>
> >It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not. The lawyers for Cirrus will
> >settle rather than enter into a protracted and even more expensive court
> >case.
>
> >The lawyers for Cory Lidle will win.
>
> I gotta admire Merck for being willing to take each and every Vioxx case
> to court. As long as companies are willing to settle these cases "out of
> court", they will continue to be a good source of income for lawyers.
> Merck, at least, has stood up to the plate and said "If you want some
> money, you're gonna have to work for it"
> But I do agree with others that we need a "loser pays" system.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBRem2VZMoscYxZNI5AQFEBAP8CT9QNjr4L35bloxdom zzAy0Aqz46TWXm
> oIo3lJzEJ/+/EV3xoD5A7cRVSzaGx7/zFY78cXyl5Fo4afqXTHHDWY/e/isTJwDM
> fS5FyBwGgQd7FlkUpUlJtxowF4EvVAEBKmxKVjer3JTO7GjNL+ BiU9wSYD9UxD00
> 5pND+pSRip4=
> =bD8K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Andrew Gideon

March 4th 07, 09:50 PM

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

> Unfair awards are just a small part of the
> problem. Numerous frivolous suits and huge class action suits are also
> part of the problem.

But the latter isn't independent of the former. If jury awards weren't
the lottery prizes they've become (with far better odds, mind you),
there'd be fewer frivolous legal actions.

But jury awards aren't the only issue, I agree. There needs to be more of
a downside to filing frivolous actions. Unfortunately, "loser pays" isn't
enough because juries (as indicated in Marty Shapiro's posting) often make
undeserving claimants "winners".

- Andrew

Matt Whiting

March 5th 07, 12:27 AM

BDS wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote
>
>> Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
>> the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
>> failed to keep the playing field level...
>
> At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing to
> ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the pursuit
> of a fast buck.
>
> Lawyers can do nothing without clients.

Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
malpractice is the patients' fault, right?

Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?

Matt

BDS

March 5th 07, 12:46 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
> malpractice is the patients' fault, right?

> Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
> failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
> the structure, right?

No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.

We are talking about frivilous lawsuits, and my point is that they are
brought by plaintiffs, not lawyers. Trying to put the primary blame on
lawyers, the courts, or judges is along the same lines of dodging personal
responsibility that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.
There would be no frivilous lawsuits without plaintiffs who are willing to
lie and cheat - the plaintiff in every case is in the best position to know
whether they are being truthfull and honest, and if they are placing blame
where it belongs.

What you seem to be saying is that it is OK to sell your soul to win at
something that is morally wrong to be involved in in the first place, as
long as you didn't set up the rules. You seem to feel that if someone else
made the rules for the game then it's OK for you to ignore everything you
should know about fairness and moral behavior just to get some easy money.

I don't happen to feel that way.

BDS

Matt Whiting

March 5th 07, 12:59 AM

BDS wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
>> malpractice is the patients' fault, right?
>
>> Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
>> failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
>> the structure, right?
>
> No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.

They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

> We are talking about frivilous lawsuits, and my point is that they are
> brought by plaintiffs, not lawyers. Trying to put the primary blame on
> lawyers, the courts, or judges is along the same lines of dodging personal
> responsibility that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.
> There would be no frivilous lawsuits without plaintiffs who are willing to
> lie and cheat - the plaintiff in every case is in the best position to know
> whether they are being truthfull and honest, and if they are placing blame
> where it belongs.

If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
involved and I agree with your original assertion. However, virtually
all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
simple.

> What you seem to be saying is that it is OK to sell your soul to win at
> something that is morally wrong to be involved in in the first place, as
> long as you didn't set up the rules. You seem to feel that if someone else
> made the rules for the game then it's OK for you to ignore everything you
> should know about fairness and moral behavior just to get some easy money.

I'm not sure what you are saying above so I have no idea if I agree with
it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...

Matt

BDS

March 5th 07, 02:11 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

No, they are not identical. This is a stawman that is designed to sidestep
the issue at hand.

> If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
> involved and I agree with your original assertion.

I said originally that the lawyer was partially to blame, but that the
primary blame belongs with the plaintiff. A plaintiff can stop a lawsuit
any time he or she pleases, or can choose not to start one in the first
place, and the lawyer is obliged to follow the client's wishes.

> all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
> as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
> it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
> settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
> cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
> lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
> simple.

The final decision to proceed or settle always lies with the plaintiff, not
the lawyer. The final decision on what amount to settle for always lies
with the plaintiff, not the lawyer.

> it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
> involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
> idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
> innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...

You place all the blame on the lawyers, courts, and judges. It seems that
you believe that the plaintiff is the innocent bystander when in fact the
entire suit could not even start without them.

A few years ago a construction van stopped suddenly at an intersection and
his unsecured ladder flew off the top of his truck into traffic. My wife
hit it going highway speeds as it flew out in front of her. We could have
claimed all sorts of bogus injuries just like the scumbags who want to make
a quick buck but only asked them to pay for the damage done to one tire.
The guy was flabbergasted. We chose not to participate in the bull**** and
guess what, because of that there was no lawsuit. Some time later my wife
nudged another vehicle at a stop light and barely marked the plastic trim on
the two vehicles. Guess what, the other woman sued claiming a dozen
injuries from the 5 mph accident, lost work time, etc., etc., etc., and the
insurance company paid her 5 figures. Do you think that would have happened
without her participation? Give me a break.

People like to blame lawyers for all the bad things that happen with regard
to frivilous lawsuits, and believe me, I have no particular love for them.
However, the very same people who say that the system is messed up and do
all the complaining are the same ones who will sign on to a bogus suit if
they think they can cash in on it.

What it boils down to is that their moral compass is for sale at the right
price.

BDS

Matt Whiting

March 5th 07, 02:53 AM

Jose

March 5th 07, 04:09 AM

> provided, of course, that the obstacle database is
> up to date and accurate.

I don't see what this has to do with an obstacle database. The
transponder on the obstacle will state where it is. That should be
sufficient (as long as it's not lying!)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 5th 07, 04:26 AM

>> Lawyers can do nothing without clients.
> Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical malpractice is the patients' fault, right?
> Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design the structure, right?

Without addressing the validity of the =use= of the analogy, I'll point
out that lawyers (and soldiers) are the only professions (I know of)
that do more business the more of them there are. (I suppose one could
force athletes to fit in there too.)

Consider why, and consider what they do (differently from all other
professions). Then reconsider the analogy.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thomas Borchert

March 5th 07, 08:00 AM

Bear,

> S mode and TCAS do not solve the problem with fixed obstacle like a
> cable or an antenna.
>

That's true. But only very special kinds of flying take you close
enough to those obstacles to be a factor that can't be handled by
normal established terrain avoidance gear like TAWS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Barrow

March 5th 07, 09:06 AM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the US is the only industrial nation that DOESN'T use "Loser Pays".
>
> consider: We also don't have user fees,

And some do. Analogy fails.

Larry Dighera

March 5th 07, 09:42 AM

On 4 Mar 2007 13:28:59 -0800, "Tony" > wrote in
om>:

>
>Someone said it's the 98% of the lawyers who give the others a bad
>name. The real precentage isn't nearly that high, what needs damning
>is the legal system the offers incentives for many of these lawsuits.

LAWSUITS FLYING IN LIDLE CRASH

The families of former New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his
flight instructor Tyler Stanger claim the crash of their Cirrus SR20
into a Manhattan apartment building was caused by a "catastrophic
failure of the flight control system." A statement released () by Todd
Macaluso, the lawyer representing the families of Lidle and Stanger,
claims that FAA and NTSB data show that Cirrus aircraft have "a
history of aileron failures" and "there have been other accidents
involving flight control failures, several of which resulted in
deaths." The suit also names Teledyne, Hartzel Propeller, S-Tec,
Honeywell and Justice Aviation. The NTSB has not yet determined a
cause for the Oct. 11 crash, but an update to its preliminary report
released in early November focuses on the role of a 13-knot crosswind
in the accident and makes no mention of control anomalies. Cirrus has
declined comment on details of the crash investigation. New York
television station NY1 says the cause of the crash will determine
whether Lidle's family gets a $1 million insurance payout from Major
League Baseball. Meanwhile, the owner of an apartment 13 floors above
the impact point is suing Lidle's family for $7 million, claiming the
crash ruined his home.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/819-full.html#194589

Larry Dighera

March 5th 07, 09:52 AM

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:09:47 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> provided, of course, that the obstacle database is
>> up to date and accurate.
>
>I don't see what this has to do with an obstacle database. The
>transponder on the obstacle will state where it is. That should be
>sufficient (as long as it's not lying!)

There is no need to install a Mode S transponder on each and every
obstacle. If the Mode S equipped aircrafts' reported positions are
continually compared by ground-based computers against the coordinates
of obstacles. Then ATC could warn a pilot if the flight was too close
to them. That way, very little additional hardware would be required.
Just a thought.

Bob Noel

March 5th 07, 11:28 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> There is no need to install a Mode S transponder on each and every
> obstacle. If the Mode S equipped aircrafts' reported positions are
> continually compared by ground-based computers against the coordinates
> of obstacles. Then ATC could warn a pilot if the flight was too close
> to them. That way, very little additional hardware would be required.
> Just a thought.

won't work in areas of poor radar coverage, which tends to be where you
need it (e.g., close to the ground)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Matt Whiting

March 5th 07, 12:11 PM

BDS wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.
>
> No, they are not identical. This is a stawman that is designed to sidestep
> the issue at hand.

Not at all. You are confusing disagreeing with your assessment of the
issue with sidestepping it. Nice try.

>> If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
>> involved and I agree with your original assertion.
>
> I said originally that the lawyer was partially to blame, but that the
> primary blame belongs with the plaintiff. A plaintiff can stop a lawsuit
> any time he or she pleases, or can choose not to start one in the first
> place, and the lawyer is obliged to follow the client's wishes.

The lawyer isn't obliged to represent any client in a tort case the last
I knew. When did this change?

>> all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
>> as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
>> it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
>> settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
>> cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
>> lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
>> simple.
>
> The final decision to proceed or settle always lies with the plaintiff, not
> the lawyer. The final decision on what amount to settle for always lies
> with the plaintiff, not the lawyer.

Most people don't have a clue if they should proceed or how much they
should ask for. This is all driven by the lawyer. Do you watch the
lawyer adds on TV? They constantly advertise about the size of the
awards they have earned for their clients and how they can do the same
for you. Are you a lawyer?

>> it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
>> involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
>> idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
>> innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...
>
> You place all the blame on the lawyers, courts, and judges. It seems that
> you believe that the plaintiff is the innocent bystander when in fact the
> entire suit could not even start without them.

Not at all. I clearly stated earlier than I believe juries are a key
part as well. I also believe that some plaintiffs are as well, but I
think that is a very small part of the overall problem and not even
close to being the primary cause as you claim.

> A few years ago a construction van stopped suddenly at an intersection and
> his unsecured ladder flew off the top of his truck into traffic. My wife
> hit it going highway speeds as it flew out in front of her. We could have
> claimed all sorts of bogus injuries just like the scumbags who want to make
> a quick buck but only asked them to pay for the damage done to one tire.
> The guy was flabbergasted. We chose not to participate in the bull**** and
> guess what, because of that there was no lawsuit. Some time later my wife
> nudged another vehicle at a stop light and barely marked the plastic trim on
> the two vehicles. Guess what, the other woman sued claiming a dozen
> injuries from the 5 mph accident, lost work time, etc., etc., etc., and the
> insurance company paid her 5 figures. Do you think that would have happened
> without her participation? Give me a break.

Good for you and your wife. That is the way the system is supposed to
work. You get compensated for your legitimate losses that were the
direct result of someone else's negligent action.

Who do you think gave her the idea that she could get all of this? I
very much doubt she dreamed that up on her own. It was either her
lawyer or watching too much TV.

> People like to blame lawyers for all the bad things that happen with regard
> to frivilous lawsuits, and believe me, I have no particular love for them.
> However, the very same people who say that the system is messed up and do
> all the complaining are the same ones who will sign on to a bogus suit if
> they think they can cash in on it.

Not all, but I certainly believe the majority. Throw in the judges,
juries and a small number of nasty plaintiffs and you have our current
mess. I include the politicians as well, but since most are lawyers
they really fall into the lawyer category.

> What it boils down to is that their moral compass is for sale at the right
> price.

Yes, and the lawyers have largely helped set that price and encouraged
their clients to go after it.

Matt

BDS[_2_]

March 5th 07, 01:55 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Who do you think gave her the idea that she could get all of this? I
> very much doubt she dreamed that up on her own. It was either her
> lawyer or watching too much TV.

Exactly!! A lawyer may have given her the idea that she could get the
money, that's true. But, she is the one who ultimately decided to pursue
it. She could easily have decided that is was morally wrong to claim that
she had injuries that she really didn't have.

If some tells you that you can get some money if you lie and cheat, will you
lie and cheat? And, if you do, is it someone else's fault that you did, or
was it a choice you made?

> > What it boils down to is that their moral compass is for sale at the
right
> > price.
>
> Yes, and the lawyers have largely helped set that price and encouraged
> their clients to go after it.

Yes, some lawyers definitely do that. However, ultimately it is up to the
individual to decide whether their honesty is worth giving up for a pay out.
When they do it is sad that some think they can place the blame for that on
their lawyer.

BDS

Tim

March 5th 07, 03:13 PM

Denny wrote:
> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
> claiming defective design...
> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>
> denny
>

SHe should be chastised and ridiculed for this. Unreal. The only one
to sure would be the estate of the CFI, if at all. The cfi's family and
Cory's families should sue each other.

This is as bad as the parker hannifin decision.

Disgusting.
Cirrus should figh - just on principle. It is time to take a stand and
not allow this to kill ga manufacturers a second time around.

Larry Dighera

March 5th 07, 03:50 PM

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:28:59 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>
>won't work in areas of poor radar coverage, which tends to be where you
>need it (e.g., close to the ground)

Good point.

Andrew Gideon

March 5th 07, 04:14 PM

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:42:02 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> claim the crash of their Cirrus SR20 into a
> Manhattan apartment building was caused by a "catastrophic failure of the
> flight control system."

Why can't I have a job where I can make up facts as I go along? What a
time saver that would be.

- Andrew

Bear

March 5th 07, 06:25 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> There is no need to install a Mode S transponder on each and every
> obstacle. If the Mode S equipped aircrafts' reported positions are
> continually compared by ground-based computers against the coordinates
> of obstacles. Then ATC could warn a pilot if the flight was too close
> to them. That way, very little additional hardware would be required.
> Just a thought.
>

Please look at this picture:
http://www.flarm.com/pics/high_resolution_picts/Kabelsalat_FlarmTechnology.bmp

You see the surrounding of the Lake of Lucerne with small (private) and
big aerial passenger tramways. This obstacles are all defined in the
database of Flarm.
I think this picture is an accurate reply to your thought ;-).

Jose

March 5th 07, 08:59 PM

> Why can't I have a job where I can make up facts as I go along? What a
> time saver that would be.

Become a meteorologist. :)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dave J

March 5th 07, 10:41 PM

> >> Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
> >> failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
> >> the structure, right?
>
> > No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.
>
> They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

No, they're not. A more fitting analogy, would be to a gun. As we have
all heard many times, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Regardless of whether you're a fan of that statement, I think the
logic matches well with lawyers and their clients -- to a degree.

To make your engineering analogy work, a better story would be the
client who specifically asked an engineer to design the building so
cheaply that it would start to fall to pieces shortly after his client
had sold it. [ As an aside, most engineers are members of associations
like IEEE or ASME that do have ethics codes that would prohibit
this. ]

Most lawyerly behavior is not really immoral so much as it is amoral.
They do their job, which is very clearly defined as serving their
clients. It's an issue that has been discussed at length by attorneys
over the ages, but in the US system, courts are adversarial: the
lawyer's job is zealously represent his client. He has no
responsibility to "truth" or "social benefit," etc. (I understand that
European courts are more fact-finding and solution-seeking than
American. Typically, European judges, for example, take a more
proactive stance in managing cases than in the US, where the judge
just plays referee.)

Now, lawyers, unlike guns are people, so should have some personal
sense of right and wrong, but they also have a responsibility to do
their jobs well. It puts them in a bit of a gray area.

I agree with most here that the lawsuits on aircraft companies for
crashes that are not their fault are deeply, deeply, problematic, I
don't think the solution is killing the lawyers or making them somehow
more "moral." (And of course, there's the little question of who's
morality are we talking about?)

The problem is the clients, their incentives, and *their* sense of
reponsibility and fairness.

-- dave j
-- not a lawyer, but an engineer

Larry Dighera

March 5th 07, 11:26 PM

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:59:25 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>Become a meteorologist. :)

Or join the Bush administration. :-)

LWG

March 5th 07, 11:48 PM

The real problem is the standard of proof and admissibility in civil cases.
In every jurisdiction I know of, in negligence cases an expert can provide
an opinion if his opinion is based upon a reasonable degree of certainty
*or* probability in his field. That means that if something is more likely
than not, defined as 50.00...001% likely, an expert can express an opinion
as to causation. Remember that the state must prove a criminal defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and/or to a moral certainty. Some civil
causes of action require clear and convincing evidence before a plaintiff
prevails.

I think there is a little more mass to the Lincoln Memorial on the back of a
penny than to Lincoln's head. Thus an expert can express an opinion to a
reasonable degree of mathematical certainty or probability that a flipped
penny will land on heads. Now anyone who knows anything about flipping
pennies knows that's nonsense -- one can't tell how a coin will land on the
next flip -- but this guy can swear to it before a jury. Add a little grey
hair to a good resume, and a plaintiff can walk away with a lot of money
with nothing but fluff for evidence on causation.

It's hard to blame the plaintiff. How can you really fault her for making a
claim? She is only asking that a jury compensate her for someone else's
fault. If she can't prove it, she loses the case. If her lawyer can't
prove it, he loses money and time. We need to focus on the reason why so
much silly, careless and irresponsible conduct results in big jury awards.
I submit that in part, the reason is due to an unreasonably low standard of
proof in civil cases.

For the legal-minded, yes Daubert helped (albeit on a slightly different
point), but doesn't apply to every forum and doesn't go far enough.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> Denny wrote:
>> I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>> claiming defective design...
>> Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
>> \We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

Bob Noel

March 6th 07, 12:48 AM

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Most people don't have a clue if they should proceed or how much they
> should ask for. This is all driven by the lawyer. Do you watch the
> lawyer adds on TV? They constantly advertise about the size of the
> awards they have earned for their clients and how they can do the same
> for you.

After an injury on a business trip (and 14 days in the hospital), I received
dozens of letters and cards from lawyers wanting to represent me.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel

March 6th 07, 12:49 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >Become a meteorologist. :)
>
> Or join the Bush administration. :-)

even better: become a political analyst.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 03:00 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:59:25 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Become a meteorologist. :)
>
> Or join the Bush administration. :-)
>

Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 03:02 AM

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Most people don't have a clue if they should proceed or how much they
>> should ask for. This is all driven by the lawyer. Do you watch the
>> lawyer adds on TV? They constantly advertise about the size of the
>> awards they have earned for their clients and how they can do the same
>> for you.
>
> After an injury on a business trip (and 14 days in the hospital), I received
> dozens of letters and cards from lawyers wanting to represent me.
>

You must be mistaken, Bob, as BDS says that simply isn't going to happen
given the high integrity and ethics of the American Lawyer. :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 03:06 AM

Dave J wrote:
>>>> Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
>>>> failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
>>>> the structure, right?
>>> No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.
>> They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.
>
> No, they're not. A more fitting analogy, would be to a gun. As we have
> all heard many times, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
> Regardless of whether you're a fan of that statement, I think the
> logic matches well with lawyers and their clients -- to a degree.

Really? I've never had any of my guns talk to me and suggest I go out
and shoot someone. Lawyers are all the time trying to talk clients into
hiring them to sue someone. Bzzt! Please try again.

> To make your engineering analogy work, a better story would be the
> client who specifically asked an engineer to design the building so
> cheaply that it would start to fall to pieces shortly after his client
> had sold it. [ As an aside, most engineers are members of associations
> like IEEE or ASME that do have ethics codes that would prohibit
> this. ]

Again, this only holds if the engineer suggested to the client that they
hire the engineer to design such a building. Again, I don't think this
happens much in the engineering profession (I am an engineer), but it
happens all of the time with lawyers. I see several TV ads EVERY time I
watch TV that encourage people to do exactly this.

> Most lawyerly behavior is not really immoral so much as it is amoral.
> They do their job, which is very clearly defined as serving their
> clients. It's an issue that has been discussed at length by attorneys
> over the ages, but in the US system, courts are adversarial: the
> lawyer's job is zealously represent his client. He has no
> responsibility to "truth" or "social benefit," etc. (I understand that
> European courts are more fact-finding and solution-seeking than
> American. Typically, European judges, for example, take a more
> proactive stance in managing cases than in the US, where the judge
> just plays referee.)
>
> Now, lawyers, unlike guns are people, so should have some personal
> sense of right and wrong, but they also have a responsibility to do
> their jobs well. It puts them in a bit of a gray area.

Bingo. This is why your analogy to guns is so stupid and wrong.

> I agree with most here that the lawsuits on aircraft companies for
> crashes that are not their fault are deeply, deeply, problematic, I
> don't think the solution is killing the lawyers or making them somehow
> more "moral." (And of course, there's the little question of who's
> morality are we talking about?)

For the record, I've never advocated killing lawyers, nor would I ever.
However, I do advocate a loser and loser's lawyer pays system more
akin to what exists in parts of Europe.

Matt

Larry Dighera

March 6th 07, 03:19 AM

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:49:20 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >Become a meteorologist. :)
>>
>> Or join the Bush administration. :-)
>
>even better: become a political analyst.

How many political analysis have been exposed fabricating their facts
compared to the number of journalists who have exposed the corrupt
practices of politicians?

Bob Noel

March 6th 07, 04:02 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> How many political analysis have been exposed fabricating their facts
> compared to the number of journalists who have exposed the corrupt
> practices of politicians?

who watches the watchers?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel

March 6th 07, 04:03 AM

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > After an injury on a business trip (and 14 days in the hospital), I
> > received
> > dozens of letters and cards from lawyers wanting to represent me.
>
> You must be mistaken, Bob, as BDS says that simply isn't going to happen
> given the high integrity and ethics of the American Lawyer. :-)

Must have been the painkillers... :-/

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Dave J

March 6th 07, 04:08 AM

Matt, I don't understand the intensity of your rhetoric. There is no
reason to call anybody stupid because you disagree with them. In fact,
our disagreement is, in my opinion, not as great as you seem to think.

Like all people, some lawyers will "do the right thing" and some will
not. If you, as a client, are looking to do the wrong thing, you will
always be able to find legal assistance from someone. The primary
incentive is still with the client, who, despite the lawyer's take,
still stands to gain handsomely, with little or no risk of his own.
(This is actually better than the attorney working on a contingent
basis, who will invest his own time and stands to lose at least his
own investment.)

I do not agree that people are somehow not aware of the potential
spoils they can get out of the legal system without the lawyers
advertising. Well, some probably need the advertising, most certainly
do not. Heck, after hospital and crime dramas, courtroom dramas are
probably the next most popular TV show format. If you don't have a
clue how the system works, you have to have been living under a rock.

Finally, I fully agree that the incentives to sue are too great. The
risk/reward equation for the dabbling plaintiff is not appropriate.
The trick is to create a system that allows serious cases to go
through while discouraging garbage suits.

You believe that loser-pays would accomplish this. I, and many here
are suggesting that loser-pays may discourage the garbage, but it will
also discourage some serious cases. Your assertion that people with
valid claims always win and so need not worry about paying is only
true if you define validity based on the outcome. I believe reality
says otherwise; sometimes the wrong party loses.

Here's a variation on a theme other posters have mentioned: limit the
damages that the plaintiff can collect, but do not limit the damages
that defendant may have to pay, with the difference going to the
state, or some special victim's fund, or you can take the money out
back and burn it -- it really doesn't matter.

The important thing is that potential plaintiffs and their attorneys
have much less to gain -- diminishing their incentive to play, and
potential defendants still have a strong incentive to avoid being
asked to play.

-- dave j

Mxsmanic

March 6th 07, 05:12 AM

Bob Noel writes:

> Must have been the painkillers... :-/

In that case you can sue the pharmaceutical companies instead. They have more
money than the companies building small aircraft, anyway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert

March 6th 07, 08:48 AM

Matt,

> Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.
>

At least they don't start wars and kill tens of thousands of people
(and thouands of Americans - for many, the others don't really seem to
count) based on blatant lies.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

March 6th 07, 08:48 AM

Bear,

> You see the surrounding of the Lake of Lucerne with small (private) and
> big aerial passenger tramways. This obstacles are all defined in the
> database of Flarm.
>

Yes, but...

Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
level of information?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

BDS

March 6th 07, 10:47 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> > After an injury on a business trip (and 14 days in the hospital), I
received
> > dozens of letters and cards from lawyers wanting to represent me.
> >
> You must be mistaken, Bob, as BDS says that simply isn't going to happen
> given the high integrity and ethics of the American Lawyer. :-)

What Matt is missing here is that there was no lawsuit despite the fact that
the lawyers tried their best to make one happen. The reason - there was no
plaintiff.

BDS

BDS

March 6th 07, 10:56 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Really? I've never had any of my guns talk to me and suggest I go out
> and shoot someone. Lawyers are all the time trying to talk clients into
> hiring them to sue someone. Bzzt! Please try again.

I agree that the lawyers in some of these cases are partially to blame and
have said that from the start.

It's sad though to see you defending people who can be so easily swayed to
lie and cheat if there is a little easy money involved, and that if someone
else was able to talk them into it, they are not then responsible.

The way it should be is that each of us is responsible for our own actions,
regardless of what someone tries to convince us to do, and especially if we
know that what they are suggesting is dishonest and immoral.

BDS

Stefan

March 6th 07, 11:06 AM

BDS schrieb:

> However, ultimately it is up to the
> individual to decide whether their honesty is worth giving up for a pay out.

If somebody came to me and told me that I could win a couple of millions
with a silly liability suit... would I do it? If this would mean the
bankrutpy of somebody else, I hope not... But if it were "only" an
insurances money? Frankly, I fear I would take the chance to solve a
couple of my financial problems. Yes, most certainly I would. Call me
corrupt, and I agree. It's easy to not be corrupt if you have enough
money. It's far more difficult if you struggle.

So don't blame the individuals, they're just weak humans. Blame the
system that offers them the opportunity. To both, the attorney and the
plaintiff.

Where I live, you can't make a fortune with such lawsuits. Maybe, if
you're lucky, you get a couple of thousand dollars, but that's it. Not
really worth the effort. And for the attorney it's forbidden to work on
a percentage basis, he just bills his time, so no fortune there, either.

Of course our system has some drawbacks, too, but that's another thread.

(BTW,this is the most civilised discussion I've read in this group for a
long time, as OT as it is.)

Stefan

Stefan

March 6th 07, 11:14 AM

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
> Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
> level of information?

And here the flatlander speaks. I invite you to fly through the alps
with an underpowered light single. Until then, just believe that of
course the gliders *must* fly there, working helicopers must, too, and
all those light singles which fly through the valleys and want that
safety option to make a 180.

I can point you to a couple of accident reports where the pilots (mostly
flatlanders like you) didn't apply this safety tactic and ended in the
rocks. And then, there are a couple of accident reports of those who
applied the correct tactic and ended in a wire.

Stefan

Bob Noel

March 6th 07, 11:28 AM

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

[snip]
> So don't blame the individuals, they're just weak humans. Blame the
> system that offers them the opportunity. To both, the attorney and the
> plaintiff.

It doesn't need to be one or the other. Blame them all, the money-grubbing
lawyers, the money-grubbing plaintiffs, and the whole corrupt system.

--
Bob Noel
(trimming must be too hard...)

Stefan

March 6th 07, 11:36 AM

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> Personally, I think FLARM is a dead end, since it is a niche solution
> not endorsed by any ATC authority and S mode, TCAS and ultimately ADS-B
> do exactly the same thing,

No, they don't. The point of FLARM (besides low power consumtion) is
that it has some algorithms which are tweaked for glider operations.
Gliders tend to fly pretty near to each other (within meters is not
uncommon), be it circling in gaggles, be it shifting from one thermal to
the other. You don't want permanent alarms in those situations. But you
want an alarm when some glider one or two kilometers away approaches you
on a potential collision course. It's not tirvial to distinguish those
situations, especially the circling one, but the FLARM algorithms do an
amazingly good job, and they get even better with each version.

But I agree that FLARM is a very focused solution. Focused on preventing
glider to glider midairs. In Europe, we've had several such midairs
every year. Some pilots managed to bail out, but there was more than one
death each year. A thorough analysis shows that, because of its slim
silhouette, it's simply impossible to see a glider in time when it
aproaches you straight ahead, even when the weather is cristal clear and
you scan the horizon fully concentrated. But you can't scan the horizon
fully concentraded for 6 or 8 hours, which is the duration of a typical
glider cross country flight, and the weather isn't always cristal clear.
This situation led to the development of FLARM, developed by soaring
engineers for the soaring community.

All subsequent developments like the obstacle database are interesting
features by themselves, but were added later.

Stefan

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 11:53 AM

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> How many political analysis have been exposed fabricating their facts
>> compared to the number of journalists who have exposed the corrupt
>> practices of politicians?
>
> who watches the watchers?
>

The watcher watchers, of course.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 11:55 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.
>>
>
> At least they don't start wars and kill tens of thousands of people
> (and thouands of Americans - for many, the others don't really seem to
> count) based on blatant lies.
>

Only in your mind. I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack
squarely on Clinton's shoulders. His inaction against the building
terrorist threat emboldened them and allowed them to plan and execute
their attack.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 11:57 AM

Dave J wrote:
> Matt, I don't understand the intensity of your rhetoric. There is no
> reason to call anybody stupid because you disagree with them. In fact,
> our disagreement is, in my opinion, not as great as you seem to think.

I didn't call anyone stupid. I called the analogy stupid, which is was.

> Like all people, some lawyers will "do the right thing" and some will
> not. If you, as a client, are looking to do the wrong thing, you will
> always be able to find legal assistance from someone. The primary
> incentive is still with the client, who, despite the lawyer's take,
> still stands to gain handsomely, with little or no risk of his own.
> (This is actually better than the attorney working on a contingent
> basis, who will invest his own time and stands to lose at least his
> own investment.)
>
> I do not agree that people are somehow not aware of the potential
> spoils they can get out of the legal system without the lawyers
> advertising. Well, some probably need the advertising, most certainly
> do not. Heck, after hospital and crime dramas, courtroom dramas are
> probably the next most popular TV show format. If you don't have a
> clue how the system works, you have to have been living under a rock.
>
> Finally, I fully agree that the incentives to sue are too great. The
> risk/reward equation for the dabbling plaintiff is not appropriate.
> The trick is to create a system that allows serious cases to go
> through while discouraging garbage suits.
>
> You believe that loser-pays would accomplish this. I, and many here
> are suggesting that loser-pays may discourage the garbage, but it will
> also discourage some serious cases. Your assertion that people with
> valid claims always win and so need not worry about paying is only
> true if you define validity based on the outcome. I believe reality
> says otherwise; sometimes the wrong party loses.
>
> Here's a variation on a theme other posters have mentioned: limit the
> damages that the plaintiff can collect, but do not limit the damages
> that defendant may have to pay, with the difference going to the
> state, or some special victim's fund, or you can take the money out
> back and burn it -- it really doesn't matter.
>
> The important thing is that potential plaintiffs and their attorneys
> have much less to gain -- diminishing their incentive to play, and
> potential defendants still have a strong incentive to avoid being
> asked to play.

I think a loser and loser's lawyer pays system would very effectively
accomplish this goal.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 6th 07, 11:58 AM

BDS wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> Really? I've never had any of my guns talk to me and suggest I go out
>> and shoot someone. Lawyers are all the time trying to talk clients into
>> hiring them to sue someone. Bzzt! Please try again.
>
> I agree that the lawyers in some of these cases are partially to blame and
> have said that from the start.
>
> It's sad though to see you defending people who can be so easily swayed to
> lie and cheat if there is a little easy money involved, and that if someone
> else was able to talk them into it, they are not then responsible.

I'm not defending plaintiffs who would do that. Where did you get that
from?

> The way it should be is that each of us is responsible for our own actions,
> regardless of what someone tries to convince us to do, and especially if we
> know that what they are suggesting is dishonest and immoral.

Yes, we are all responsible for our actions as are the lawyers. I
believe that lawyers are the chief instigators in most large lawsuits.

Matt

Thomas Borchert

March 6th 07, 12:20 PM

Matt,

> I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack

What on earth does that have to do with the Iraq war?yone's?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

March 6th 07, 12:20 PM

Stefan,

> I invite you to fly through the alps
> with an underpowered light single.

How nice of you. But I have done that quite a bit, thank you.

No offense, but the tone in your message(s) is quite unnecessary.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stefan

March 6th 07, 12:28 PM

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

>> I invite you to fly through the alps
>> with an underpowered light single.
>
> How nice of you. But I have done that quite a bit, thank you.

Actually, reading your post concerning the cables and always being able
to fly in regions where there's no such threat, I doubt it. Or maybe you
did and were just lucky.

> No offense, but the tone in your message(s) is quite unnecessary.

Your tone isn't any better, believe me. Maybe it's a cultural thing
between a Nordlicht and a Bergler.

Stefan

Jose

March 6th 07, 01:00 PM

> Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
> Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
> level of information?

Anyone on an approach that isn't going well. You can argue that they
shouldn't be there, but that argument holds for every inadvertant ground
contact.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ash Wyllie

March 6th 07, 01:20 PM

Thomas Borchert opined

>Bear,

>> You see the surrounding of the Lake of Lucerne with small (private) and
>> big aerial passenger tramways. This obstacles are all defined in the
>> database of Flarm.
>>

>Yes, but...

>Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
>Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
>level of information?

An E-6 did in Italy about 15 years ago.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

Ross

March 6th 07, 05:36 PM

LWG wrote:
> The real problem is the standard of proof and admissibility in civil cases.
> In every jurisdiction I know of, in negligence cases an expert can provide
> an opinion if his opinion is based upon a reasonable degree of certainty
> *or* probability in his field. That means that if something is more likely
> than not, defined as 50.00...001% likely, an expert can express an opinion
> as to causation. Remember that the state must prove a criminal defendant
> guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and/or to a moral certainty. Some civil
> causes of action require clear and convincing evidence before a plaintiff
> prevails.
>
> I think there is a little more mass to the Lincoln Memorial on the back of a
> penny than to Lincoln's head. Thus an expert can express an opinion to a
> reasonable degree of mathematical certainty or probability that a flipped
> penny will land on heads. Now anyone who knows anything about flipping
> pennies knows that's nonsense -- one can't tell how a coin will land on the
> next flip -- but this guy can swear to it before a jury. Add a little grey
> hair to a good resume, and a plaintiff can walk away with a lot of money
> with nothing but fluff for evidence on causation.
>
> It's hard to blame the plaintiff. How can you really fault her for making a
> claim? She is only asking that a jury compensate her for someone else's
> fault. If she can't prove it, she loses the case. If her lawyer can't
> prove it, he loses money and time. We need to focus on the reason why so
> much silly, careless and irresponsible conduct results in big jury awards.
> I submit that in part, the reason is due to an unreasonably low standard of
> proof in civil cases.
>
> For the legal-minded, yes Daubert helped (albeit on a slightly different
> point), but doesn't apply to every forum and doesn't go far enough.
>
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Denny wrote:
>>
>>>I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
>>>claiming defective design...
>>>Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
>>>\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...
>
>
>

I also think it is due to juries selected to be emotional rather that
factual. Do not select the engineer, but the little old homemaker. (no
insult intended)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Chris

March 6th 07, 06:43 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>>> Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.
>>>
>>
>> At least they don't start wars and kill tens of thousands of people (and
>> thouands of Americans - for many, the others don't really seem to count)
>> based on blatant lies.
>>
>
> Only in your mind. I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack
> squarely on Clinton's shoulders. His inaction against the building
> terrorist threat emboldened them and allowed them to plan and execute
> their attack.

I blame all the previous administrations who at one time or other supported
and even created those we now call terrorists.

Dave J

March 6th 07, 07:10 PM

> I think a loser and loser's lawyer pays system would very effectively
> accomplish this goal.

And I think we are at an impasse. It would accomplish this goal, but
it would also harm many people with limited resources and valid cases.

-- dj

Roger[_4_]

March 7th 07, 12:25 AM

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:56:41 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
>knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by

But we are talking civil suites, not criminal. We are talking monetary
settlements, not jail time.

>attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
>not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

The attorneys work the system to make the most of it. Each side calls
in the so called experts to convince people who are intentionally
picked that will know nothing about the topic that the manufacturer
was at fault. If you know anything about the subject then the one
side will do their best to see you do not get on that jury. If you
are widely read, you may not end up being picked to serve on a jury or
if so it'll be rare.

It is purely a debating contest of presenting information whether
valid or not in such a manner as to convince the unknowing that some
one is at fault.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

March 7th 07, 12:41 AM

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:11 -0600, "Jim B"
> wrote:

>How ridiculous. Should the airplane have known that there was a building in
>it's path, recognized the wind speed, required bank angle, airspeed,
>altitude to avoid said building then alerted the pilot or kicked in the
>autopilot? Or should the airplane should have been built so it's occupants
>would survive any crash? WTF? How can the design of the airplane be at
>fault?
>
>You are right. They are the worst of the scum. They use the grief and
>vulnerability of the victims survivors to line their own pockets knowing
>that the manufacturers would rather settle than fight the case and suffer
>the publicity.
>
>Did anybody see the interview of the lawyer representing Anna Nicole Smith's
>mother and how he bilked Dow Corning on the breast implant deal? He made
>millions, Dow Corning went broke, then the FDA said that the implants were

The two lawyers made more off that case than DC grossed in a year and
DC is a large corporation. They managed to put together enough cases
that is was cheaper to just put several Billion (yes that is with a
B) into a pot and then declare chapter 11 to "keep from going broke"

There comes a point where there are enough simultaneous cases that it
becomes almost impossible to pursue them all let alone mount an
effective defense. Even huge corporations don't have that kind of
resources. It's not only expensive but can take literally thousands
of people to pursue. There were literally teams of people working on
quite a few *truckloads* of paper work. The amount of paperwork was
unbelievable.

As I recall there never was any research to support the claims made
against the company, but well presented "junk science" won out". The
ones who got rich were the main lawyers, not the claimants. Nor do I
believe the FDA said the implants were unsafe. They just removed them
from the market until more research could be done.

Many of us in the field of computers and medicine do not recognize the
term expert any more. If a true expert exists then there could not be
another true expert with opposing views. In many cases those
testifying will no longer allow some one to call them an expert.
"Knowledgeable in the field" is an acceptable alternative and does not
carry the connotations of expert to mislead the unknowing.

>indeed safe after all. Scum.
>Jim
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[email protected]

March 7th 07, 01:43 AM

On Mar 3, 8:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" > >
>

> All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Steve, good for you. From the time I first heard about the case
pending by the lady against McDonalds for the hot coffee, I'd always
said it was a legitimate claim, but lots of people said I was wrong.
I guess you, like me and her attorney, would have seen that the lady's
case was legitimate "on first viewing." Since she won it was, by
definition, legitimate. Just think how much time, expense and effort
would have been saved if Judge McNicoll had been on the case and
available "on first viewing" to let everyone know what the outcome
should have been!!

I just wish she'd had a "loser pays" rule to rely on since McDonalds
obviously ignored what was apparant "on first viewing."

Steven P. McNicoll

March 7th 07, 01:47 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 3, 8:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" > >
>>
>
>> All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.
>
> Steve, good for you. From the time I first heard about the case
> pending by the lady against McDonalds for the hot coffee, I'd always
> said it was a legitimate claim, but lots of people said I was wrong.
> I guess you, like me and her attorney, would have seen that the lady's
> case was legitimate "on first viewing." Since she won it was, by
> definition, legitimate. Just think how much time, expense and effort
> would have been saved if Judge McNicoll had been on the case and
> available "on first viewing" to let everyone know what the outcome
> should have been!!
>
> I just wish she'd had a "loser pays" rule to rely on since McDonalds
> obviously ignored what was apparant "on first viewing."
>

All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.

[email protected]

March 7th 07, 01:55 AM

> All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
> legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.-

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 7th 07, 02:09 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.
>

You are incredibly naive. End of story.

[email protected]

March 7th 07, 02:12 AM

> > She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.
>
> You are incredibly naive. End of story.

Not a very good argument. I didn't expect you to admit defeat this
quickly.

What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
have been appropriate?

Steven P. McNicoll

March 7th 07, 02:19 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Not a very good argument. I didn't expect you to admit defeat this
> quickly.
>

What did I write that you misconstrued as an admission of defeat?

>
> What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
> have been appropriate?
>

I stated quite early in this thread that loser pays has no downside.

Jose

March 7th 07, 02:45 AM

> All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
> legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.

Well, actually I don't think that's true. Or, if you prefer, "I
disagree." Although I have not researched the case deeply, I have done
a bit more reading than the headlines about it.

My take is this (and I'm making the numbers up because I don't remember
what they really were).

Normally, hot coffee is served at 160 degrees. That's what one expects.
At 160 degrees, a spill is painful, but not extremely injurious. The
claimant expected 160 degree coffee, and took the risk of a 160 degree
injury.

However, McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees. They made more
money that way (presumably because more customers bought it, since on a
commute, the coffee gets cold) At 180 degrees, a spill is extremely
injurious. (My own experiments with pool temperatures convince me that
one degree is very noticable, at least in that range - it is not much of
a stretch IMHO that twenty degrees when near boiling would make a big
difference)

So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their
product at an unexpected temperature.

The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
it's not that simple.

On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.
A loser pays client might never have brought the case.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 7th 07, 02:56 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Well, actually I don't think that's true. Or, if you prefer, "I
> disagree." Although I have not researched the case deeply, I have done a
> bit more reading than the headlines about it.
>
> My take is this (and I'm making the numbers up because I don't remember
> what they really were).
>
> Normally, hot coffee is served at 160 degrees. That's what one expects.
> At 160 degrees, a spill is painful, but not extremely injurious. The
> claimant expected 160 degree coffee, and took the risk of a 160 degree
> injury.
>
> However, McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees. They made more
> money that way (presumably because more customers bought it, since on a
> commute, the coffee gets cold) At 180 degrees, a spill is extremely
> injurious. (My own experiments with pool temperatures convince me that
> one degree is very noticable, at least in that range - it is not much of a
> stretch IMHO that twenty degrees when near boiling would make a big
> difference)
>

McDonalds sought to satisfy their customers by serving coffee the way most
preferred it.

>
> So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
> risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
> at an unexpected temperature.
>
> The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
> it's not that simple.
>
> On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.

On close examination it still looks silly.

>
> A loser pays client might never have brought the case.
>

That's the beauty of loser pays.

Matt Whiting

March 7th 07, 02:58 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack
>
> What on earth does that have to do with the Iraq war?yone's?
>

About as much as your comment about starting wars.

Matt

Jose

March 7th 07, 03:03 AM

> McDonalds sought to satisfy their customers by serving coffee the way most
> preferred it.

.... and made money that way. Most prefer to drive 80 mph, but the speed
limit is 55. If it becomes UPS policy to drive 80 to beat the
competition, because that's what their customers want, then does "it's a
highway, you expect people to drive fast" gain traction at the site of
the crash?

> On close examination it still looks silly.

Not when I examine it.

> SPN*: That's because you are silly.

I think not.

> SPN*: Exactly.

* (just thought I'd save you some time. :)

McDonalds took a risk on behalf of some customers to please other
customers. They made money on this. They are therefore responsible for
the consequences.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 7th 07, 03:17 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> ... and made money that way. Most prefer to drive 80 mph, but the speed
> limit is 55. If it becomes UPS policy to drive 80 to beat the
> competition, because that's what their customers want, then does "it's a
> highway, you expect people to drive fast" gain traction at the site of the
> crash?
>

No. Care to attempt a proper analogy?

>
> McDonalds took a risk on behalf of some customers to please other
> customers. They made money on this. They are therefore responsible for
> the consequences.
>

The product was properly prepared, the container didn't fail, why is
McDonalds responsible for the actions of a customer?

Should GM be held responsible if someone drives a Chevy off a cliff?

Jose

March 7th 07, 03:28 AM

> Care to attempt a proper analogy?

Care to state what you believe is wrong with the one I made? No analogy
is perfect, nor is it proof, but this one is adequate to illustrate the
point.

> The product was properly prepared...

The contention is that the product was =not= properly prepared. I think
I agree.

> Should GM be held responsible if someone drives a Chevy off a cliff?

Maybe. If the case is that somebody rents a Chevette from Avis, and
when he drives it off the lot, he zooms out into traffic, crashing into
six cars before finally coming to a stop, upside down and on fire, and
further investigation shows that Avis replaced the Chevette's engine
with a 400 HP muscle car motor and a hair trigger accelerator because
their customers "liked to go fast", it could reasonably be argued that
the response of the rented vehicle did not match the expectations of a
reasonable person.

"It's a car. Press on the accelerator, it goes. Duh"

Well, no. It's "too hot".

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

skym

March 7th 07, 06:40 AM

> What did I write that you misconstrued as an admission of defeat?

Merely that you switched from a response based on reason to onethat
was only an ad hominum attack. Not typical for you, from what I've
seen on these bbs. In my occupation ("trial lawyer") that type of
response is characteristic of the other guy/gal's deficit of logic,
hence he/she has yielded (perhaps unintentionally) the logical point.
It is a sign of a defeated wit.

Let me ask you this; perhaps it is more enlightening: How do you
define the word "legitimate" in your original response?

> > What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
> > have been appropriate?
>
> I stated quite early in this thread that loser pays has no downside.

OK. I had not noticed that comment was from you earlier, and asked
only as an afterthought. I have no strong philosophical dispute with
"loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.
Making them responsible for their own litigation expenses, win or
lose, helps keep the cost and efficiency more managable than it
otherwise would be. How would you like to litigate what you believe
to be legitimate tax case against Uncle Sam, knowing that they can
bury you financially if the particular judge you get thinks you're
wrong? Which brings us to the other problem with loser pays:
Not all cases are black and white, In fact, extremely few are. Both
sides frequently have good positions, based in good faith, on an
honest difference of opinion or knowledge of the facts. The "loser"
may have been 49.999% right. Is it correct to make them pay the other
side's legal costs for pursuing a claim or defense that is based on a
good faith belief, where the winner will only be decided by how a
majority of some particular 12 people may decide? Again, should
Parker-Hannifin or McDonalds have paid the plaintiffs' attorney fees
and expenses because they put up a good faith defense to claims that
they (and I gather, a majority of the writers on these bbs) believe
were not meritorious claims? Now there would be a motivation for the
defendants to rollover and pay the so-called "legal extortion"!

BDS

March 7th 07, 10:52 AM

"Jose" > wrote

> So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
> risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their
> product at an unexpected temperature.

Maybe - was this her first time having coffee at McDonalds?

Would anyone change their behavior if there was a warning on the cup that
said that the coffee was hot enough to cause a serious burn? - I doubt it
based on the kinds of accidents that happen every day when the hazard is
well known (chain saws, lawn mowers, chippers, etc., etc).

BDS

Jose

March 7th 07, 01:37 PM

> Maybe - was this her first time having coffee at McDonalds?

I don't know. And I don't know whether this particular time the
temperature was hotter than most other times at that same McDonalds.
This is not evident on first viewing, certainly not evident in the
newspapers.

> Would anyone change their behavior if there was a warning on the cup that
> said that the coffee was hot enough to cause a serious burn? - I doubt it
> based on the kinds of accidents that happen every day when the hazard is
> well known (chain saws, lawn mowers, chippers, etc., etc).

Warnings of obvious things ("coffee is hot, be careful") would probably
not change behavior. Warnings of some subtleties ("This coffee is much
hotter than usual so it will stay warm through your commute. Thus, you
can be much more severely injured than you expect if you spill it. Be
careful.) would I believe change behavior.

However, it may cause people to not buy the coffee in the first place.
That's not what McDonalds would want. Typically, those who are forced
to put warnings on things want them to be as dull-sounding as possible,
so that they are disregarded, and don't affect the bottom line.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Clark

March 7th 07, 09:58 PM

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:56:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
>> risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
>> at an unexpected temperature.
>>
>> The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
>> it's not that simple.
>>
>> On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.
>
>On close examination it still looks silly.

Under any rational examination it looks silly. The woman took the top
of the coffee cup to dump in cream and sugar whilst attempting to
drive a motor vehicle over a speedbump, burns herself, and then sues
McD's? And wins? The primary problem in this society is that nobody
takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more. Do
something stupid and hurt yourself, oh well, sucks to be you.

It's just as stupid as the other case I'd read about back in school
where a burglar, suing whilst serving his sentence in the burglary
case, was in open court and admitted that he was trespassing on a
woman's roof with the sole intention of breaking and entering the
house to steal goods, slipped on a loose shingle, sued her for failing
to maintain the property and got $1mil from the insurance company via
a jury verdict. "It's just insurance money" I guess. Too bad he
wasn't supposed to be there, hurt himself, and makes life miserable
for everyone else by increasing our insurance premiums in the process.

Jose

March 7th 07, 10:14 PM

> The primary problem in this society is that nobody
> takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more.

While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
=far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
being =far= too hot.

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ross

March 7th 07, 10:26 PM

Jose wrote:
>> The primary problem in this society is that nobody
>> takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more.
>
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
> cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
> normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
> stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
> =far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
> that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
> her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
> that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
> difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
> being =far= too hot.
>
> Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
> describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
> blame for serving too hot?
>
> Jose

Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

peter

March 7th 07, 10:29 PM

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:56:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >> So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
> >> risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
> >> at an unexpected temperature.
> >>
> >> The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
> >> it's not that simple.
> >>
> >> On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.
> >
> >On close examination it still looks silly.
>
> Under any rational examination it looks silly. The woman took the top
> of the coffee cup to dump in cream and sugar whilst attempting to
> drive a motor vehicle over a speedbump, burns herself, and then sues
> McD's? And wins?

You might want to check the actual facts of the case. 1) She wasn't
the driver of the vehicle. 2) The car was stopped at the time when
she removed the top of the cup. 3) No speedbump was involved. And,
most significantly, the coffee temperature was substantially hotter
than typical at similar establishments (or from home coffee makers)
and there had been numerous other incidents involving substantial
injury.

Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
reasonable to me.
See:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Matt Whiting

March 7th 07, 10:38 PM

Ross wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>>> The primary problem in this society is that nobody
>>> takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more.
>>
>>
>> While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
>> cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
>> normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
>> stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
>> =far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of
>> argument that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of
>> burning her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I
>> would say that she is not totally responsible for the additional
>> damage. The difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came
>> from the water being =far= too hot.
>>
>> Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
>> describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
>> blame for serving too hot?
>>
>> Jose
>
> Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

It was until an idiot put a cup between her legs and then spilled it all
over herself. Now it is only supposed to be luke warm so that it is
cold before you can get out of the Mickey D's parking lot.

Matt

James Robinson

March 7th 07, 10:42 PM

Jose > wrote:

> Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
> normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
> stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
> =far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
> that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
> her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
> that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
> difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
> being =far= too hot.
>
> Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
> describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
> blame for serving too hot?

So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?

As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in Manchester,
England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before going to
trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.

Peter Clark

March 7th 07, 10:44 PM

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:14:26 -0500, Jose >
wrote:

>Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
>describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
>blame for serving too hot?

Not in my mind. Exercising a reasonable standard of care would mean
the person receiving the beverage in question, which is expected to be
hot, would determine that the liquid is outside of the expected
temperature envelope ('Hm, this cup is awfully warm, feels warmer than
normal, bet the coffee is ultra hot." " Wow, look at the steam coming
out of there! better let it cool off a bit before I attempt to drink
it") and change their actions accordingly. It's not like the item is
hidden and unavailable for easy inspection. They just handed it to
you. So, I believe that if they don't adjust accordingly then they
assume all the risks brought on by their inactions and the
consequences thereof.

Peter Clark

March 7th 07, 10:45 PM

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:26:55 -0600, Ross > wrote:

>Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

Well, people do drink ice coffee too, but I digress.

What I don't understand is people buying ice coffee in the dead of
winter. Saw someone walking around the ramp at BED yesterday (40+
gusts, 20+ standing winds, 6 deg F temps) with an ice coffee......

Guess it would eventually turn into an ice block if they didn't either
finish it quick or get inside a heated aircraft.

Morgans[_2_]

March 7th 07, 10:49 PM

"Ross" > wrote

> Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

I had always noticed that Mc D's coffee was much hotter than any other
coffee; so much so that I could not drink it for 15 minutes or more, unless
I added an ice cube.

Still, even if it is much hotter than normal, there is no excuse for suing
because you were an idiot.
--
Jim in NC

Matt Whiting

March 7th 07, 10:52 PM

James Robinson wrote:
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
>> normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
>> stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
>> =far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
>> that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
>> her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
>> that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
>> difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
>> being =far= too hot.
>>
>> Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
>> describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
>> blame for serving too hot?
>
> So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
> water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?
>
> As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in Manchester,
> England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before going to
> trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.

Good to see that some parts of the world still have a little common
sense left.

Matt

Jim Logajan

March 7th 07, 10:56 PM

"peter" > wrote:
> Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
> jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
> reasonable to me.
> See:
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Thanks for the informative link.

Always suspect the media's reporting of facts.

Matt Whiting

March 7th 07, 11:27 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "peter" > wrote:
>> Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
>> jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
>> reasonable to me.
>> See:
>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>
> Thanks for the informative link.
>
> Always suspect the media's reporting of facts.

I've read that before and it ddidn't change my opinion one iota. Coffee
should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated accordingly. Holding
a cup between your legs is simply stupid.

Matt

Peter Clark

March 7th 07, 11:35 PM

On 7 Mar 2007 14:29:40 -0800, "peter" > wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:56:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
>> >> risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
>> >> at an unexpected temperature.
>> >>
>> >> The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
>> >> it's not that simple.
>> >>
>> >> On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.
>> >
>> >On close examination it still looks silly.
>>
>> Under any rational examination it looks silly. The woman took the top
>> of the coffee cup to dump in cream and sugar whilst attempting to
>> drive a motor vehicle over a speedbump, burns herself, and then sues
>> McD's? And wins?
>
>You might want to check the actual facts of the case. 1) She wasn't
>the driver of the vehicle. 2) The car was stopped at the time when
>she removed the top of the cup. 3) No speedbump was involved. And,
>most significantly, the coffee temperature was substantially hotter
>than typical at similar establishments (or from home coffee makers)
>and there had been numerous other incidents involving substantial
>injury.
>
>Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
>jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
>reasonable to me.
>See:
>http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

OK, I stand corrected on a couple of details in that particular case,
thanks, but it still doesn't stop people from having a responsibility
to ensure something is within reasonable limits before engaging in an
activity, in this case seems to me that an abnormally hot cup would
have been the first indication that something might not be right
before even getting to the point of taking the lid off.

Jose

March 7th 07, 11:41 PM

> So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
> water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?

I don't do coffee or tea, so I don't know how hot either is supposed to
be. But with your supposition, that tea is supposed to be served at
boiling temperature, then yes, it would be her fault.

If tea is supposed to be served boiling, and coffee is supposed to be
served "very warm", then tea would be handled differently from coffee by
a reasonable person.

> As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in Manchester,
> England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before going to
> trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.

The key is how hot. In that light, I don't know whether the judge's
ruling makes sense or not. I presume he reviewed the facts of the case.
If the only fact he reviewed is "coffee is hot", then he erred.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 7th 07, 11:42 PM

> Still, even if it is much hotter than normal, there is no excuse for suing
> because you were an idiot.

Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of mild
pain", then McD has some culpability.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 7th 07, 11:43 PM

> Coffee should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated accordingly.

.... and airplanes should be assumed to be filled with tons of jet fuels
and treated accordingly. Really - that's a pretty dumb statement.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 7th 07, 11:49 PM

> in this case seems to me that an abnormally hot cup would
> have been the first indication that something might not be right
> before even getting to the point of taking the lid off.

It was served in styrofoam. The cup may well =not= have been abnormally
hot to the touch.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Chris

March 8th 07, 12:43 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> James Robinson wrote:
>> Jose > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a normal
>>> temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her stupidity that
>>> would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is =far= hotter
>>> than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument that it was
>>> just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning her somewhat,
>>> it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say that she is
>>> not totally responsible for the additional damage. The difference
>>> between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water being =far=
>>> too hot.
>>>
>>> Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
>>> describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
>>> blame for serving too hot?
>>
>> So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
>> water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?
>>
>> As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in
>> Manchester, England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before
>> going to trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.
>
> Good to see that some parts of the world still have a little common sense
> left.

And the judge ordered that the claimants paid McDonalds costs too as well as
their own.

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 12:45 AM

Chris wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>> Jose > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a normal
>>>> temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her stupidity that
>>>> would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is =far= hotter
>>>> than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument that it was
>>>> just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning her somewhat,
>>>> it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say that she is
>>>> not totally responsible for the additional damage. The difference
>>>> between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water being =far=
>>>> too hot.
>>>>
>>>> Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
>>>> describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
>>>> blame for serving too hot?
>>> So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
>>> water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?
>>>
>>> As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in
>>> Manchester, England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before
>>> going to trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.
>> Good to see that some parts of the world still have a little common sense
>> left.
>
> And the judge ordered that the claimants paid McDonalds costs too as well as
> their own.

That is truly impressive. If only that were the case here...

Matt

Chris

March 8th 07, 12:46 AM

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..

>
> So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
> water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?

Getting tea made with boiling water would be a first for me in the US. It
just never happens, nor does getting it in a pot either. I just cannot stand
the teabag being dunked in the cup. You just dont get a proper cup of tea
that way.

Chris

March 8th 07, 12:49 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "peter" > wrote:
>>> Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
>>> jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
>>> reasonable to me.
>>> See:
>>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>>
>> Thanks for the informative link. Always suspect the media's reporting of
>> facts.
>
> I've read that before and it ddidn't change my opinion one iota. Coffee
> should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated accordingly. Holding a
> cup between your legs is simply stupid.

a cup between the legs is stupid but coffee at 212 is also stupid. Apart
from too hot to drink it spoils the taste when it has cooled down.

Stefan

March 8th 07, 12:52 AM

Matt Whiting schrieb:

>> And the judge ordered that the claimants paid McDonalds costs too as
>> well as their own.

> That is truly impressive. If only that were the case here...

Not impressive at all. That's the "loser pays" system. The judge *must*
decide like this. But the winner can't claim an arbitrary sum, they just
get paid their attorney's bill, which is carefully examined whether it
seems exaggerated. It's that way in pretty much the whole world...
nearly the whole world, there's one exception, of course.

Stefan

March 8th 07, 12:57 AM

Chris schrieb:

> a cup between the legs is stupid but coffee at 212 is also stupid. Apart
> from too hot to drink it spoils the taste when it has cooled down.

It spoils the taste when it is *made* that hot. Coffee gets bitter when
the water is above something like 80°C. But then, is there any taste in
MD's coffee in the first place which could be spoiled?

Chris

March 8th 07, 01:16 AM

"skym" > wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no strong philosophical dispute with
> "loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
> litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
> i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
> well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
> cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
> and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.

It all depends on the way this is managed. Litigators have very little
reason to manage costs if each side pays their own way. This is just
another way of trying to shake someone down.
Why should a winning defendant is a case have to pay his legal fees when
they have had a case against them tossed out.

One of the jobs of the lawyer is to ensure their client does not get to
court, with court being a last resort. Here in the UK the judge will assess
all aspects of each parties conduct in his determination of costs. If he
thinks a party has unreasonably held out settling he may not award all their
costs in their favour, but only make a partial award.
Likewise if a corporation with loads of resources acts in such a way as to
try and exhaust a claimants resources to pressurise then into dropping their
case, the judge will intervene too.

Libel is a good example. A few years ago a popular soap TV star claimed he
was libelled by a newspaper. Right up to the hearing the newspaper offered a
settlement of £200,000 plus his costs to avoid the case going before a judge
and jury.

As it was the TV star refused the offer, the jury said he had been libelled
and awarded him £50,000 damages. They did not know what had been offered
previously by the paper.

As a result of that, the TV star had to pay his own costs and the trial
costs of the newspaper which came to about £200,000. So he was well out of
pocket for chancing his arm.

so whilst we have a general principle that loser pays all the costs, if a
settlement was offered before the trial which was better than the trial
outcome then the winner who turned down the offer cops the costs for the
waste of time.

Hence the lawyers job is best done when he prevents his clients as far as
possible going to court.

The public here anyway are fed up with the compensation culture with people
looking to blame everybody but themselves and are not particularly tolerant
of this type of behaviour. Hence it is normally better to settle than go
before a jury.

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 01:28 AM

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>>> And the judge ordered that the claimants paid McDonalds costs too as
>>> well as their own.
>
>> That is truly impressive. If only that were the case here...
>
> Not impressive at all. That's the "loser pays" system. The judge *must*
> decide like this. But the winner can't claim an arbitrary sum, they just
> get paid their attorney's bill, which is carefully examined whether it
> seems exaggerated. It's that way in pretty much the whole world...
> nearly the whole world, there's one exception, of course.

Actually, that is even more impressive! The positive behavior has been
institutionalized!!

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 01:29 AM

Chris wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> "peter" > wrote:
>>>> Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
>>>> jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
>>>> reasonable to me.
>>>> See:
>>>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>>> Thanks for the informative link. Always suspect the media's reporting of
>>> facts.
>> I've read that before and it ddidn't change my opinion one iota. Coffee
>> should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated accordingly. Holding a
>> cup between your legs is simply stupid.
>
> a cup between the legs is stupid but coffee at 212 is also stupid. Apart
> from too hot to drink it spoils the taste when it has cooled down.

I didn't say it should be at 212, I said it should be assumed that it
could be that hot and treated accordingly. It is the same as treating
all guns as though they are loaded, whether they are or not. It just
makes sense.

Matt

Jim Logajan

March 8th 07, 01:57 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I didn't say it should be at 212, I said it should be assumed that it
> could be that hot and treated accordingly. It is the same as treating
> all guns as though they are loaded, whether they are or not. It just
> makes sense.

Some assumptions are reasonable. Some are not. Some analogies are
reasonable. Some are not.

Your assumptions and analogies are not reasonable.

A gun is intended to kill and, unless you are suicidal, you should not be
putting one in your mouth. Coffee is intended to be put in the mouth.

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 11:55 AM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> I didn't say it should be at 212, I said it should be assumed that it
>> could be that hot and treated accordingly. It is the same as treating
>> all guns as though they are loaded, whether they are or not. It just
>> makes sense.
>
> Some assumptions are reasonable. Some are not. Some analogies are
> reasonable. Some are not.
>
> Your assumptions and analogies are not reasonable.
>
> A gun is intended to kill and, unless you are suicidal, you should not be
> putting one in your mouth. Coffee is intended to be put in the mouth.

It is a very good analogy and you simply can't follow it. You should
assume the worst case when dealing with things that can harm you,
whether than be hot coffee, a gun or a car. I always look both ways at
intersections even when I have the green light. Sure, the other drivers
are supposed to stop at the red, but what happens when a drunk comes
through? I know people that don't even look the other way as they
figure that they have the green light so all is well. Since coffee is
made in machines that boil water in most commercial establishments, one
should assume that the water may be as hot as boiling in the worst case.

Matt

Jose

March 8th 07, 02:15 PM

> You should assume the worst case when dealing with things that can harm you, whether than be hot coffee, a gun or a car.

The standard is a reasonable person, not a paranoid person. Should I
treat a baby bottle as if it were filled with poison (because it =could=
be?)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder

March 8th 07, 03:11 PM

Jose wrote:

>
> If tea is supposed to be served boiling, and coffee is supposed to be
> served "very warm", then tea would be handled differently from coffee
> by a reasonable person.
>

Jose, have you ever heard or seen an advertisment for "Very Warm Coffee"? I
haven't. On the other hand I see signs for "Hot Coffee" all over the place.

Gig 601XL Builder

March 8th 07, 03:13 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Coffee should be assumed to be as hot as 212F and treated
>> accordingly.
>
> ... and airplanes should be assumed to be filled with tons of jet
> fuels and treated accordingly. Really - that's a pretty dumb
> statement.
> Jose

Well if they have tanks that are capable of holding tons of jet fuel they
most certainly should be treated that way. Just like all firearms should be
treated like they are loaded.

Jose

March 8th 07, 03:42 PM

> Jose, have you ever heard or seen an advertisment for "Very Warm Coffee"? I
> haven't. On the other hand I see signs for "Hot Coffee" all over the place.

Fine, that's just a matter of degree. I've never seen an advertisemnt
for "scalding hot" coffee either. There are degrees of temperature.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 8th 07, 03:44 PM

> Well if they have tanks that are capable of holding tons of jet fuel they
> most certainly should be treated that way. Just like all firearms should be
> treated like they are loaded.

A Cessna 172 can hold tons of jet fuel. Ok, maybe it can't get off the
ground, but if it's beefed up and has a big engine, who knows? And
besides, how can you tell on a radar screen? So, all spam cans need to
be treated by ATC as terrorist weapons and kept thirty miles from the
capital.

Make sense?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dylan Smith

March 8th 07, 04:24 PM

On 2007-03-07, Jose > wrote:
> Warnings of obvious things ("coffee is hot, be careful") would probably
> not change behavior.

Indeed, they don't. Buy a clothes iron, and often it will come with a
warning saying "Don't try and iron clothes you are wearing". Yet I've
run into otherwise intelligent people who have burned themselves doing
just that!

My favorite warning label is on a set of fairy lights. "For indoor or
outdoor use only", it says :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith

March 8th 07, 04:26 PM

On 2007-03-08, Chris > wrote:
> The public here anyway are fed up with the compensation culture with people
> looking to blame everybody but themselves and are not particularly tolerant
> of this type of behaviour.

If that was so, why is this sort of litigation increasing? I think
people are fed up with the compensation culture -- up until the very
moment they too can play the contingency lawyer risk-free lotto.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Gig 601XL Builder

March 8th 07, 04:37 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Jose, have you ever heard or seen an advertisment for "Very Warm
>> Coffee"? I haven't. On the other hand I see signs for "Hot Coffee"
>> all over the place.
>
> Fine, that's just a matter of degree. I've never seen an advertisemnt
> for "scalding hot" coffee either. There are degrees of temperature.
>
> Jose

I'll assume for a moment that you are a reasonable person. Mainly because
that is the standard you have to work with in the legal system.

If you were sitting in my office and I handed you a cup of steaming coffee
would you assume that if you turned the cup upside down in your lap that
there was a very good chance you might get burned?

Stefan

March 8th 07, 04:42 PM

Dylan Smith schrieb:
> My favorite warning label is on a set of fairy lights. "For indoor or
> outdoor use only", it says :-)

Some glider Pilots in Germany elect each year the "outlanding champ"
(freely translated from German). The logo for the "competition" is this:
http://www.segelflug.de/images/2004/5gruenewiese2004.gif

Somebody suggested to enhance the logo just in case an American would
participate: http://www.segelflug.de/images/2004/6gruenewiese2004.gif

Of course this was a joke, but it nevertheless shows what Europeans think.

Jose

March 8th 07, 05:17 PM

> If you were sitting in my office and I handed you a cup of steaming coffee
> would you assume that if you turned the cup upside down in your lap that
> there was a very good chance you might get burned?

Yes. But I would not assume that the burns would be so severe that I
would be in the hospital six months later.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

John Galban

March 8th 07, 09:12 PM

On Mar 7, 6:57 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> A gun is intended to kill and, unless you are suicidal, you should not be
> putting one in your mouth. Coffee is intended to be put in the mouth.

Pizza is intended to be put in the mouth. When the waiter delivers
a piping hot pizza to your table, do you immediately cram a piece into
your mouth? Don't you reasonably expect that something normally
served at a high temperature requires some care?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Steve Foley

March 8th 07, 09:17 PM

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> When the waiter delivers
> a piping hot pizza to your table, do you immediately cram a piece into
> your mouth?

Usually. My wife still yells as the tears stream down my cheeks.

BDS[_2_]

March 8th 07, 09:43 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote

> Usually. My wife still yells as the tears stream down my cheeks.

That made me laugh as I immediately thought about how many times I've done
the same thing. But, rather than sue I just usually drink more beer.

BDS

Jim Logajan

March 8th 07, 10:02 PM

"BDS" > wrote:
> "Steve Foley" > wrote
>
>> Usually. My wife still yells as the tears stream down my cheeks.
>
> That made me laugh as I immediately thought about how many times I've
> done the same thing. But, rather than sue I just usually drink more
> beer.

Agreed - more beer is the proper solution in this instance.

However, if they put anchovies on the pizza then a lawsuit is clearly
justified.

Matt Barrow

March 8th 07, 10:46 PM

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>From: Dylan Smith >
>
>>My favorite warning label is on a set of fairy lights. "For indoor or
>>outdoor use only", it says :-)
>
> My cat has hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and needs to take
> Diltiazem once a day. We get the prescription filled at the local
> pharmacy. The label has his name on it and identifies him as a
> "cat". On the side of the vial is a sticker "Use caution when driving
> or operating heavy machinery".
>
> Needless to say, I keep a close eye on him when he's driving
> the bulldozer.

But do you make sure he's always on a leash?

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 11:13 PM

Jose wrote:
>> You should assume the worst case when dealing with things that can
>> harm you, whether than be hot coffee, a gun or a car.
>
> The standard is a reasonable person, not a paranoid person. Should I
> treat a baby bottle as if it were filled with poison (because it =could=
> be?)

I would never give my kids a bottle if I hadn't filled it myself or knew
who had filled it. Exercising reasonable caution and common sense isn't
even close to being paranoid. I can tell that you don't know the
difference.

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 11:13 PM

BDS wrote:
> "Steve Foley" > wrote
>
>> Usually. My wife still yells as the tears stream down my cheeks.
>
> That made me laugh as I immediately thought about how many times I've done
> the same thing. But, rather than sue I just usually drink more beer.

Just think of all the money you have forgone!

Matt

Matt Whiting

March 8th 07, 11:15 PM

Stefan wrote:
> Dylan Smith schrieb:
>> My favorite warning label is on a set of fairy lights. "For indoor or
>> outdoor use only", it says :-)
>
> Some glider Pilots in Germany elect each year the "outlanding champ"
> (freely translated from German). The logo for the "competition" is this:
> http://www.segelflug.de/images/2004/5gruenewiese2004.gif
>
> Somebody suggested to enhance the logo just in case an American would
> participate: http://www.segelflug.de/images/2004/6gruenewiese2004.gif
>
> Of course this was a joke, but it nevertheless shows what Europeans think.

The sad part is that this isn't much of a joke any longer. This is
pretty much reality in the states. I have bought power tools that came
with two full pages of warnings in the instructions! Most of which a 5
year-old with half a brain would already know.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

March 9th 07, 11:31 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Care to state what you believe is wrong with the one I made? No analogy
> is perfect, nor is it proof, but this one is adequate to illustrate the
> point.
>

A proper analogy compares similar situations. Your analogy compares
dissimilar situations.

>
> The contention is that the product was =not= properly prepared. I think I
> agree.
>

Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180 degrees.
The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed between 195-205
degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed immediately. If it's not
consumed immediately, the coffee should be maintained at 180-185 degrees.
Other major national coffee vendors such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts,
Burger King, and Wendys serve their coffee at similar or higher temperatures
than McDonalds. Household coffee makers reach similar temperatures. My
own coffee maker produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an
hour after brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a
meat thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.

I think I disagree with the contention.

>
> Maybe. If the case is that somebody rents a Chevette from Avis, and when
> he drives it off the lot, he zooms out into traffic, crashing into six
> cars before finally coming to a stop, upside down and on fire, and further
> investigation shows that Avis replaced the Chevette's engine with a 400 HP
> muscle car motor and a hair trigger accelerator because their customers
> "liked to go fast", it could reasonably be argued that the response of the
> rented vehicle did not match the expectations of a reasonable person.
>
> "It's a car. Press on the accelerator, it goes. Duh"
>

Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any product
failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard was exceeded

>
> Well, no. It's "too hot".
>

Says who?

Jose

March 9th 07, 03:07 PM

> A proper analogy compares similar situations. Your analogy compares
> dissimilar situations.

This is not a useful statement.

A proper analogy compares similar but =non-identical= situations. To
the extent that situations are not identical, they are dissimilar. What
part of the dissimilarity invalidates the analogy?

> Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180 degrees.
> The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed between 195-205
> degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed immediately. If it's not
> consumed immediately, the coffee should be maintained at 180-185 degrees.
> Other major national coffee vendors such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts,
> Burger King, and Wendys serve their coffee at similar or higher temperatures
> than McDonalds. Household coffee makers reach similar temperatures. My
> own coffee maker produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an
> hour after brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a
> meat thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.
>
> I think I disagree with the contention.

I don't do coffee, so I'll take your word for it. The court's
contention (IIRC) is that coffee is typically =served= at 140 degrees.
What is the temperature of your coffee when you begin to drink it? What
about when you are at the bottom of the cup?

> Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any product
> failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard was exceeded

My car case did not involve a product failure either - it was a failure
of the driver to properly drive a properly modified car. It looked like
a chevette, but it was a properly made muscle car, which demands more
attention than a chevette driver might initially give it.

As to the exceeding of "reasonable standards", as above, we disagree on
whether the standards were reasonable.

If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180 degree
water, someone's going to hear about it.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Noel

March 9th 07, 04:18 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180 degree
> water, someone's going to hear about it.

And that someone will likely (and should) ignore your complaint if you didn't
bother to check the water temp BEFORE stepping in.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

Matt Whiting

March 9th 07, 04:22 PM

Jose wrote:

> If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180 degree
> water, someone's going to hear about it.

Hopefully your mother will hear about it so she can slap you for being
so stupid as to step into water before you've tested the temperature.

Matt

Jim Logajan

March 9th 07, 05:43 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>
>> If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180
>> degree water, someone's going to hear about it.
>
> Hopefully your mother will hear about it so she can slap you for being
> so stupid as to step into water before you've tested the temperature.

I've stayed at a lot of hotels and I can categorically state that after
you've set and tested the temperature to a comfortable level and then
stepped into the shower the temperature is likely to change. And change
again. And yet again.

Hopefully your mother will hear about your ignorance of typical hotel
plumbing so she can slap you for posting such ignorance on the Internet.

In the future don't post such nonsense about hotel plumbing - please!

Jim Logajan

March 9th 07, 06:41 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180
> degrees. The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed
> between 195-205 degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed
> immediately.

As you can see in the chart in the next link, second and third degree
burns will almost immediately result if coffee is ingested in that
temperature range:

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html

(Meat measured at those temperatures is considered "well done".)

> If it's not consumed immediately, the coffee should be
> maintained at 180-185 degrees. Other major national coffee vendors
> such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, and Wendys serve their
> coffee at similar or higher temperatures than McDonalds. Household
> coffee makers reach similar temperatures.

No, that is not correct. Typical temperatures from household coffee
makers appears to range from 140 to 165 degrees F. "Coffee from a drip
coffee maker is usually 160 to 165 degrees Farenheit and after milk or
cream is added it is consumed at 145 degrees Farenheit." (Quoted from
http://www.surferchef.com/ ) The temperature asserted at the trial for
typical temperatures were in the 140 F range.

And as you can see from the graph in the previous link, anything above
140 F risks burning the mouth.

> My own coffee maker
> produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an hour after
> brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a meat
> thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.
>
> I think I disagree with the contention.

Look, the jury noted the facts, including multiple other injuries and
complaints regarding the temperature of McDonalds' coffee and concluded
that it was above that which they considered a reasonable expectation.
To continue to argue their decision is to essentially contend that
either _you_ are a proper example of a "reasonable person" and _they_
are not or that you are in possession of facts that they were not.

> Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any
> product failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard
> was exceeded

They lost the case. They violated their end of a contract, which is
selling a drinkable and reasonably safe cup of coffee.

Jose

March 9th 07, 06:53 PM

> Hopefully your mother will hear about it so she can slap you for being so stupid as to step into water before you've tested the temperature.

The act of testing the temperature (sticking your arm in) will produce
burns if the water is that hot.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

BDS[_2_]

March 9th 07, 07:01 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> Look, the jury noted the facts, including multiple other injuries and
> complaints regarding the temperature of McDonalds' coffee and concluded
> that it was above that which they considered a reasonable expectation.
> To continue to argue their decision is to essentially contend that
> either _you_ are a proper example of a "reasonable person" and _they_
> are not or that you are in possession of facts that they were not.

A jury can be wrong - consider the OJ case, or on the other side of the
coin, any number of prison inmates who are innocent of the crime they were
convicted of.

With that in mind, another possibility is that the jury felt bad for the
injured woman and decided to give her some of a large corporation's money,
figuring that the large corporation would hardly be affected. They made an
emotional decision rather than one based on fact, and it happens all the
time in personal injury cases (much to the delight of the plaintiffs'
lawyers).

BDS

Chris

March 9th 07, 08:16 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>
>>
>> If tea is supposed to be served boiling, and coffee is supposed to be
>> served "very warm", then tea would be handled differently from coffee
>> by a reasonable person.

Tea is not served boiling, it is made with boiling water. Thats why the
proper way to make tea is with a teapot rather than a teabag in a cup of
boiling water. That is asking for trouble

Stefan

March 9th 07, 08:42 PM

Jose schrieb:

> The act of testing the temperature (sticking your arm in) will produce
> burns if the water is that hot.

If the shower is that hot, you can *see* it.

Gee, it seems you know as much about real life as MX knows about
aviation. Time to shut down your life sim and to take a short look at
the world outside.

Stefan

Jim Logajan

March 10th 07, 01:56 AM

"BDS" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
>> Look, the jury noted the facts, including multiple other injuries and
>> complaints regarding the temperature of McDonalds' coffee and
>> concluded that it was above that which they considered a reasonable
>> expectation. To continue to argue their decision is to essentially
>> contend that either _you_ are a proper example of a "reasonable
>> person" and _they_ are not or that you are in possession of facts
>> that they were not.
>
> A jury can be wrong - consider the OJ case, or on the other side of
> the coin, any number of prison inmates who are innocent of the crime
> they were convicted of.

All true. But in this case the jury did find the woman was 20% responsible.
There are those who believe the woman was 100% responsible and those of us,
upon considering the published information, would have said she was less
than 100% responsible.

> With that in mind, another possibility is that the jury felt bad for
> the injured woman and decided to give her some of a large
> corporation's money, figuring that the large corporation would hardly
> be affected. They made an emotional decision rather than one based on
> fact, and it happens all the time in personal injury cases (much to
> the delight of the plaintiffs' lawyers).

The only problem I see with that possibility is that in looking at what has
been published and I was on the jury, then I would probably have said the
woman was no more than 50% responsible for her own injuries. I would have
come to that conclusion even had the entity serving the coffee been a sole
proprietor working out of a small corner shop (we have a lot of those up
here in the Pacific northwest!) In other words, I do not believe my own
opinion is influenced in the way you suggest. But I've been wrong before!
:-)

Steven P. McNicoll

March 14th 07, 09:56 AM

"skym" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Merely that you switched from a response based on reason to onethat
> was only an ad hominum attack. Not typical for you, from what I've
> seen on these bbs. In my occupation ("trial lawyer") that type of
> response is characteristic of the other guy/gal's deficit of logic,
> hence he/she has yielded (perhaps unintentionally) the logical point.
> It is a sign of a defeated wit.
>

An ad hominum attack? Did you mean ad hominem? Care to explain your
reasoning? If you are truly a trial lawyer you know very well illegitimate
cases sometimes win in court.

>
> Let me ask you this; perhaps it is more enlightening: How do you
> define the word "legitimate" in your original response?
>

I took Jose's use of it to mean "valid", I followed suit in my response to
his message.

>
> OK. I had not noticed that comment was from you earlier, and asked
> only as an afterthought. I have no strong philosophical dispute with
> "loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
> litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
> i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
> well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
> cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
> and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.
> Making them responsible for their own litigation expenses, win or
> lose, helps keep the cost and efficiency more managable than it
> otherwise would be.
>

As it stands now the losing side pays the costs of both sides, even when
they're right.

>
> How would you like to litigate what you believe
> to be legitimate tax case against Uncle Sam, knowing that they can
> bury you financially if the particular judge you get thinks you're
> wrong? Which brings us to the other problem with loser pays:
> Not all cases are black and white, In fact, extremely few are. Both
> sides frequently have good positions, based in good faith, on an
> honest difference of opinion or knowledge of the facts. The "loser"
> may have been 49.999% right. Is it correct to make them pay the other
> side's legal costs for pursuing a claim or defense that is based on a
> good faith belief, where the winner will only be decided by how a
> majority of some particular 12 people may decide? Again, should
> Parker-Hannifin or McDonalds have paid the plaintiffs' attorney fees
> and expenses because they put up a good faith defense to claims that
> they (and I gather, a majority of the writers on these bbs) believe
> were not meritorious claims? Now there would be a motivation for the
> defendants to rollover and pay the so-called "legal extortion"!
>

I don't see a problem there. If the loser is 49.999% right they should pay
50.001 of the winner's legal costs.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 14th 07, 10:17 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
> cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
> normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her stupidity
> that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is =far= hotter
> than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument that it was
> just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning her somewhat, it
> caused an injury which required amputation, I would say that she is not
> totally responsible for the additional damage. The difference between
> somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water being =far= too hot.
>

McDonalds served it's coffee at 180 degrees. That IS a normal temperature
for coffee. The National Coffee Association advises that coffee be brewed
between 195-205 degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed
immediately. If not consumed immediately, the coffee should be maintained
at 180-185 degrees. Other major national coffee vendors such as Starbucks,
Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, and Wendy's serve their coffee at similar or
higher temperatures than McDonalds.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 14th 07, 10:21 AM

"peter" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> You might want to check the actual facts of the case. 1) She wasn't
> the driver of the vehicle. 2) The car was stopped at the time when
> she removed the top of the cup. 3) No speedbump was involved. And,
> most significantly, the coffee temperature was substantially hotter
> than typical at similar establishments (or from home coffee makers)
> and there had been numerous other incidents involving substantial
> injury.
>

It's a fact that her coffee was substantially hotter than typical at similar
establishments or from home coffee makers? What similar establishments?
Which home coffee makers?

Steven P. McNicoll

March 14th 07, 10:23 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
> unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of mild
> pain", then McD has some culpability.
>

How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all hotter
than usual"?

Steven P. McNicoll

March 14th 07, 10:30 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The standard is a reasonable person, not a paranoid person. Should I
> treat a baby bottle as if it were filled with poison (because it =could=
> be?)
>

Another bad analogy. A reasonable person does not expect a baby bottle to
be filled with poison. A reasonable person expects coffee to be served at
180 degrees or higher.

Jim Logajan

March 14th 07, 05:14 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
>> unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of
>> mild pain", then McD has some culpability.
>>
>
> How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all
> hotter than usual"?

Changing that variable doesn't appear to affect culpability in this case.
Here's why I think that:

It appears that if you sell a product that any reasonable seller would know
(or learned) causes great bodily harm in common circumstances (such as
easily spilled drinks) and did nothing to improve the product's safety,
then it appears that the U.S. legal system says you (the seller) share some
culpability. In other words, it appears the courts apply a "reasonable
person" standard to both sides of a dispute. They seem to have found that
it was not reasonable for McD to continue to follow the "National Coffee
Association" advice in light of hundreds of other previous complaints. By
the time of this incident McD should have known there was a safety issue
and could correct the problem by lowering the serving temperature. That's
the way I read the decision.

Getting back to aviation: there does not appear to be any evidence that a
failure of the SR22 caused the crash in question.

Matt Whiting

March 14th 07, 08:56 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
>> unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of mild
>> pain", then McD has some culpability.
>>
>
> How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all hotter
> than usual"?
>
>

And what is usual?

Matt

Bob Noel

March 14th 07, 09:07 PM

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all
> > hotter
> > than usual"?
>
> And what is usual?

How long does it take to establish something as "usual"?

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

Steven P. McNicoll

March 15th 07, 10:26 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Fine, that's just a matter of degree. I've never seen an advertisemnt for
> "scalding hot" coffee either. There are degrees of temperature.
>

That would be superfluous, as "hot coffee" is properly served at
temperatures which can scald.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 15th 07, 04:00 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Yes. But I would not assume that the burns would be so severe that I
> would be in the hospital six months later.
>

Why not?

Jose

March 21st 07, 02:46 PM

> How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all hotter
> than usual"?

IMHO, nearly none. Close enough to none to warrant tossing the case
out. But in that case...

1: Either coffee would normally served at a temperature which would
cause extensive third degree burns if spilled, and people would normally
(and justifiably) treat it with much more respect than they do presently, or

2: Coffee would be served at McDonalds at the cooler temperature that
most people are in fact accustomed to, and the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff would not have been sufficient or unexpected enough for her to
bring suit in the first place.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 21st 07, 02:46 PM

> A reasonable person expects coffee to be served at
> 180 degrees or higher.

That is where we disagree with each other, where you disagree with the
jury, and where it appears you disagree with many (most?) posters here.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger[_4_]

March 22nd 07, 12:16 PM

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:46:52 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> A reasonable person expects coffee to be served at
>> 180 degrees or higher.
>
>That is where we disagree with each other, where you disagree with the
>jury, and where it appears you disagree with many (most?) posters here.
I agree with him.

When I purchase coffee I expect it to be *hot*. Hot enough that I can
carry it to the care, get under way and not have to worry about the
stuff being cold before it's half gone. I also expect to find it hot
enough that I have to treat it cautiously until if comes down to
drinking temperature.

Yes, I also disagree with the Jury. I would not have found in favor
of some one who did not know how to handle coffee.

OTOH I quite drinking coffee over 6 years ago.
the stuff isn't good for you.

>
>Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com