Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter R." > wrote:
> On 12/5/2007 4:42:31 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
>> results.
>
> Bland to the taste, could use flavor.

Drink, don't sip. Also, try allowing a large gulp to linger in the mouth -
that'll bring out the flavor of the water.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 12/5/2007 4:42:31 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
>> results.
>
> Bland to the taste, could use flavor.

If you really just think you did that and that is all you can report your
really need to check your thermometer.

[Blueskies]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:04:47 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane
>>>>in
>>>>question did have boots."
>>>>
>>>>So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
>>>>pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?
>>>
>>> The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
>>> procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
>>> can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
>>> specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
>>> Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
>>> delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
>>> known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
>>> took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
>>> known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."
>>
>>Don't know, can't say. I do know some planes have boots et al and are still not certified for flight into *known* ice.
>>As soon as someone pireps 'ice' the plane cannot legally fly in..
>
> Yes, and those aircraft do not have TCDS entries et al covering flight
> into known icing. They have POH supplements covering their
> "Inadvertant icing exit equipment". But the Cessna Caravan type
> certainly has known ice certification.

Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/556b576d4887764e862572430067fcaf/$FILE/A37CE-12.pdf

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-12-05, Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>> How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
>>> manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
>>> suddenly to make her spill the coffee?
>>>
>>> Where does this end?
>>> --
>>
>> You forgot the car manufacturer who designed a vehicle with
>> brakes that allow sudden stops or turns which caused the
>> coffee to spill.
>
> Or the steel mill that made the steel that the car manufacturer used....
>
> It ends when no one but lawyers have deep enough pockets to rape.
>
The English system of "loser pays" would help.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:00:57 -0500, "Blueskies"
> wrote:


>Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...
>
>Just looked up the TCDS:
>"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
>protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
>the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/556b576d4887764e862572430067fcaf/$FILE/A37CE-12.pdf
>

Which, as I said a long time ago, is a different argument than the
original poster which said the TYPE is not certified for known icing.
I asked whether they meant the specific crash aircraft wasn't properly
equipped, or whether they really were trying to say the Caravan type
wasn't certified, and we went down the rathole of people asserting,
contrary to facts presented, that the type isn't certified. The type
is clearly certified, and aircraft within are permitted when equipped
per the supplement S2, "Known Icing Equipment".

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 4:00 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:

> Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...
>
> Just looked up the TCDS:
> "Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
> protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
> the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel...

No, they won't all have it. Some operators wouldn't often need or
use it: sightseeing and skydiving operators come to mind. There are
other airplanes the same way: you can have a 210 or many other
aircraft with or without it. De- or anti-ice equipment is expensive
and heavy and an operator wouldn't want it if he'll never need it. The
TCDS just provides the basis for certification into known ice if the
equipment is installed by either Cessna or according to whatever STC
other makers might have for it, and is maintained in an airworthy
condition.

Dan

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-02 14:49:26 -0800, said:

> On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions.
>> So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
>> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>
> So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
> the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
> through known ice is forbidden. What does FedEx do with their Caravans
> when the weather is less than CAVU? Ground them?

It takes more than boots and hot props to get certification for known
ice. Pilots have lost their certificates for assuming that a plane that
had boots was certified for known ice.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
>>> of the case.
>> THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
>> enlightening.
>>
>> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
>> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.
>
> How about you respond as the defendant to these.
>
> 6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
> by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
> including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
> the extent and nature of the hazard.
>
> 7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
> and 190 F. When
>
> 11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
> above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
> was not fit for human consumption.
>
> 12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
> decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
>
> 15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
> intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
> out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
> immediately while driving.

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just
asking for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79
year-old is without excuse.

I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge
of this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every
idiot who burns themselves with a match?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote
>
>> Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his place
>> and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
>> responsibility take over.
> I don't see any connection between the two. The drink the bartender is
> serving has no potential for damage, unless the user decides to drive drunk.
> The bartender does not know if he is gong to call a cab, ride with a friend,
> or walk after leaving.

I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.


> The coffee going out the door will burn everyone who spills a little on him.
> Every time, anyone. It, in itself is a hazard, not like the drink, who only
> becomes a hazard- dependent on what the person does after consuming it
> safely.

The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
anyone. The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do
something stupid like spill it on themselves.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
>> coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.
>
> I'm not sure that is right, Jay. No, I'm sure that is not right.
>
> I'm not saying I agree with the verdict or the amount awarded, but Mc D's
> does serve their coffee way too damn hot. It is reasonable to assume that
> some will be spilled, on occasion. Who doesn't spill a bit of coffee, on
> occasion. Anyone here that can say they have never spilled a drop of
> takeout coffee on them? I doubt it. It should not be so hot that it causes
> deep 3rd degree burns. When I am forced to stop there for coffee, I put ICE
> in it, so I can drink it!

You would have to have the coffee at 130 degrees or less to guarantee
that a large spill such as this woman had would not cause a 3rd degree
burn. And cooler than that to avoid a second degree burn. Coffee less
than 130 degrees is not good coffee and in a car you almost couldn't
drink it fast enough to get an entire cup gone before it was lukewarm.

Sorry, but I don't want my coffee to be cooler than my shower water. If
you can't handle coffee as it is meant to be served, then may I suggest
water, soda, juice, etc., and leave coffee to those of us capable of
handling its "hazards."

http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/newsletter/estime.htm


> That would be about as reasonable as a place serving hydrochloric acid to
> their customers, in flimsy cups with lids that can pop off, and when they do
> pop off, sometimes some of the acid will spill on you.

That is about the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.


> McD's has a coffee temperature policy that places them wide open for
> damages. That is for places that maintain the target temperatures. This
> one place was more than likely well above the target temperature.

And what do you consider to be the safe target temperature?


> You should not put coffee between your legs and take off the lid, no doubt.
> You should not pay for it with widespread 3rd degree burns, and skin grafts,
> though.

I disagree. What if the accident had been someone lighting a cigarette
while fueling their car with similar resulting 3rd degree burns? Would
you suggest that we ban gasoline given its flammability?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>
>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
>> between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
>> temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't plan to serve it at
>> that temperature.
>
> Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees. Few could drink it at
> 140.

Right. Most McDonalds are in towns or cities. I don't drive and drink
coffee when in high traffic and congested areas. Even where I live, in
a fairly rural area, most McDonalds are located such that I must drive
5-10 minutes before I'm in an area safe enough to drive my coffee while
driving. By then the coffee is easily sipped and soon after can be
gulped, and this is without adding cream or sugar which cool the coffee.
If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be barely above body
temperature 10 minutes later and that would not make me a happy camper.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Its impossible to say how well a "private school only" system will
turn out in the long run. It may do just fine on average but it may
work poorly during bad economic times when several schools in a city
suddenly go out of business for example. It is impossible to run
control experiments to determine which system is the best on average
over an extended period of time.
Besides, I was just pointing out that it is possible to privatize
education completely unlike things like a missile defence system that
cannot be privatized at all. Whether it is desirable is hard to tell
even though I would be inclined to say it is.

On Dec 3, 4:26 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> >> Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons
> >> paid for by taxpayer money
> >> that can be redeemed for education in private schools."
>
> >> And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."
>
> > Read his post in its entirety.
>
> I have. It's not out of context all all. That one sentence is the key. His
> "solution" relies on the schools putting pressure on the public schools.
> It's foundation, in some places is called "vouchers". It gives lower income
> people access to privat eschools, but is not a long-term solution to
> anything else.
>
> > You are focusing on one sentence
> > which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
> > programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
> > the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
> > completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.
>
> > That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.
>
> Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is not
> going to do away with the nanny state. It is only going to stall and create
> a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that will never disappear.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
> earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
> "held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
> coffee brewing and serving practice.

Where do you find that serving at 170 degrees is standard practice?

Also, consider for a moment that the serving temperature of coffee in a sit
down resturant could safely be hotter than coffee served at a take out
window. That would certainly be wise, without a doubt.

> Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just asking
> for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79 year-old
> is without excuse.

How many 79 year olds do you know that do not have much more mental age than
a 3 year old? I certainly know some.

I will not defend the fact that coffee between the legs is not wise, but
still, the punishment for making a bad decission such as that should not be
skin grafts.

> I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
> typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge of
> this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every idiot
> who burns themselves with a match?

I doubt that a match itself has ever caused a set of burns nearly as severe
as the case of the way too hot coffee.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
> everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.

Most people are still legal to drive if tey only consum 1 drink over a
period of 3o or 40 minutes. besides, the bartender does NOT know who is
going to drive, or do something where the imparement could cause harm.

> The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
> anyone.

But an alcohol imparement will not cause any harm, if the consumer does not
drive, or walk out into traffic. The seller has no way of knowing ther is
any bad consequence possible.

> The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do something stupid
> like spill it on themselves.

But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible for
any person that walks out with coffee that hot.

The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the ability
to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity. There is some
responsibility because of that fact.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

>> So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
>> results.
>
> DISCLAIMER: KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME. This experiment should only be
> performed by masochists and those with reckless disregard for their own
> safety. Also make sure your health insurance is paid up to date.

ROTFLMAO ! ! !

Thanks, I needed that!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be barely above body
> temperature 10 minutes later and that would not make me a happy camper.

They make little pull offs at every Mc D's so you could open your coffee
lid, and get it into your cup holder. Then you could start drinking it in
most any traffic.

If that does not do it, then you should get one of those little heating
elements that plug into your cigarette lighter to heat up your cup of
coffee.

Don't expect the rest of the world to give up their safety and needs to fit
your requirements.
--
Jim in NC

[skym]

Criticizing the system based on the McDonald's case is a fallacy. The
reason it got so much attention is because it was an abberant result,
at least as far as the jury verdict. The judge reduced the damages
substantialy, which shows one of the safeguards that the system has.
They are not perfect, but they usually work. There will always be a
bad result every once in awhile; e.g., O.J.'s criminal trial and any
number of others. Can you name any human system that doesn't screw up
once in awhile? You need to realize that there are literally tens of
thousand verdicts or court decisions each year. In almost every case
at least half the participants feel that the outcome was wrong. The
fact that there seems to be some disagreement among the members of
this newsgroup shows that the answer is not always clear, even here.
Anyone care to guess which entities file the most lawsuits? (I don't
mean "lawyers", either. Ha, ha.)
As an aside, i once heard it said that the justice system is simply a
means to an end. i.e., to resolve a dispute. Nothing more, nothing
less. I often tell people that in law school, the one word I never
heard discussed by any professor, in any class or in any lawbook was
the word "fair." This shocks many people, but after all, what is
"fair"? The legal system has no answer to that question any more than
does any religion or anything else.

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
>> earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
>> "held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
>> coffee brewing and serving practice.
>
> Where do you find that serving at 170 degrees is standard practice?

I posted a search string a couple of days ago that showed a slew of
references.


> Also, consider for a moment that the serving temperature of coffee in a sit
> down resturant could safely be hotter than coffee served at a take out
> window. That would certainly be wise, without a doubt.

I disagree. In a sit-down restaurant, I'll be drinking right away and
having the coffee slightly cooler isn't a problem. At a drive-thru I
may be 10 minutes away from the first sip. I want it hot when I get to
drink it.


>> Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just asking
>> for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79 year-old
>> is without excuse.
>
> How many 79 year olds do you know that do not have much more mental age than
> a 3 year old? I certainly know some.

Then the person in the car with them should not have bought the 79
year-old hot coffee if she wasn't competent to drink it.


> I will not defend the fact that coffee between the legs is not wise, but
> still, the punishment for making a bad decission such as that should not be
> skin grafts.

It wasn't punishment. No one forced this one her. She brought it on
herself. Look up what punishment means.


>> I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
>> typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge of
>> this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every idiot
>> who burns themselves with a match?
>
> I doubt that a match itself has ever caused a set of burns nearly as severe
> as the case of the way too hot coffee.

Some of the worst burns I know of came from fires started by matches,
especially when gasoline is involved. Probably only butane cigarette
lighters have caused more.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
>> everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.
>
> Most people are still legal to drive if tey only consum 1 drink over a
> period of 3o or 40 minutes. besides, the bartender does NOT know who is
> going to drive, or do something where the imparement could cause harm.

Legality doesn't matter. They are still IMPAIRED.

McDonald's does NOT know who is going to put coffee between their legs
and then spill it.


>> The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
>> anyone.
>
> But an alcohol imparement will not cause any harm, if the consumer does not
> drive, or walk out into traffic. The seller has no way of knowing ther is
> any bad consequence possible.

Hot coffee won't cause any harm if you don't spill it on yourself.


>> The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do something stupid
>> like spill it on themselves.
>
> But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible for
> any person that walks out with coffee that hot.

And it takes only one drink to impair someone's judgment and motor
skills enough to have a serious accident and kill someone.


> The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the ability
> to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity. There is some
> responsibility because of that fact.

As does the seller of alcoholic drinks. Think O-Douls. There is no
need to sell unsafe drinks that contain alcohol.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be barely above body
>> temperature 10 minutes later and that would not make me a happy camper.
>
> They make little pull offs at every Mc D's so you could open your coffee
> lid, and get it into your cup holder. Then you could start drinking it in
> most any traffic.
>
> If that does not do it, then you should get one of those little heating
> elements that plug into your cigarette lighter to heat up your cup of
> coffee.
>
> Don't expect the rest of the world to give up their safety and needs to fit
> your requirements.

Don't expect me to give up my requirements because a small minority of
the world is too stupid to prepare and drink coffee.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

skym wrote:
> Criticizing the system based on the McDonald's case is a fallacy. The
> reason it got so much attention is because it was an abberant result,
> at least as far as the jury verdict. The judge reduced the damages
> substantialy, which shows one of the safeguards that the system has.
> They are not perfect, but they usually work.

The point is that there never should have been an award to reduce as
McDonald's should not be held culpable for the stupidity of its
customers. The only way the system would have worked in this case would
be if the judge had thrown out the award and then jailed the lawyer for
wasting the court's time.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>>
>>> I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
>>> everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.
>>
>> Most people are still legal to drive if tey only consum 1 drink over
>> a period of 3o or 40 minutes. besides, the bartender does NOT know
>> who is going to drive, or do something where the imparement could
>> cause harm.
>
> Legality doesn't matter. They are still IMPAIRED.
>
> McDonald's does NOT know who is going to put coffee between their legs
> and then spill it.
> =


Who cares?

McDonalds are a blight upon the earth and everyone knows it. Thats why they
gave that woman the money, to give them a black eye.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:WkR5j.1031$2n4.27076
@news1.epix.net:

> skym wrote:
>> Criticizing the system based on the McDonald's case is a fallacy. The
>> reason it got so much attention is because it was an abberant result,
>> at least as far as the jury verdict. The judge reduced the damages
>> substantialy, which shows one of the safeguards that the system has.
>> They are not perfect, but they usually work.
>
> The point is that there never should have been an award to reduce as
> McDonald's should not be held culpable for the stupidity of its
> customers.


One could easily make the argument that you have to be an idiot to eat at
Mcdonalds in the first place. McDonalds obviously know this so therefore
they have a responsibility to look after their idiots


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>>
>>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing
>>> coffee is between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be
>>> served at that temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't
>>> plan to serve it at that temperature.
>>
>> Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees. Few could drink
>> it at 140.
>
> Right. Most McDonalds are in towns or cities. I don't drive and
> drink coffee when in high traffic and congested areas. Even where I
> live, in a fairly rural area, most McDonalds are located such that I
> must drive 5-10 minutes before I'm in an area safe enough to drive my
> coffee while driving. By then the coffee is easily sipped and soon
> after can be gulped, and this is without adding cream or sugar which
> cool the coffee. If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be
> barely above body temperature 10 minutes later and that would not
> make me a happy camper.
> Matt

Unfortunately most people aren't as responsible as you are Matt. McD's
research showed most people started drinking right away.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 6, 4:49 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
The only way the system would have worked in this case would
> be if the judge had thrown out the award and then jailed the lawyer for
> wasting the court's time.
>
> Matt

Since the jury ruled in the plaintiff's favor (as did the judge when
he still left $600,000+ in her favor), I assume you mean the
defendant's lawyer.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 6, 6:29 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> One could easily make the argument that you have to be an idiot to eat at
> Mcdonalds in the first place. McDonalds obviously know this so therefore
> they have a responsibility to look after their idiots
>
> Bertie

But don't you like Big Macs ?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 6, 6:29 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> One could easily make the argument that you have to be an idiot to
>> eat at Mcdonalds in the first place. McDonalds obviously know this so
>> therefore they have a responsibility to look after their idiots
>>
>> Bertie
>
> But don't you like Big Macs ?
>



Ewww. Elephant scabs smothered in special sauce? Let's not even talk about
what part of the elephant that came from .

Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-02 15:37:16 -0800, Peter Clark
> said:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:30:37 -0500, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "F. Baum" > wrote in message
>> ...
On
>>
>>> Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
>>>> (2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
>>>> driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
>>>> issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
>>>> people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
>>>> history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
>>>> current with aviation should know that.
>>>>
>>> Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
>>> opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
>>> Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
>>> the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
>>> (Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
>>> are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
>>> problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
>>> F Baum
>>
>> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions.
>> So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
>> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>
> The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) and
> FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
> Euipment" begs to differ.

I will have to check my copy of it if and when I ever manage to get
back to the office. That is, after we get the flood water out of the
house and the roads are clear. :-)

I could have sworn that it was not certified for known ice.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing
>>>> coffee is between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be
>>>> served at that temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't
>>>> plan to serve it at that temperature.
>>> Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees. Few could drink
>>> it at 140.
>> Right. Most McDonalds are in towns or cities. I don't drive and
>> drink coffee when in high traffic and congested areas. Even where I
>> live, in a fairly rural area, most McDonalds are located such that I
>> must drive 5-10 minutes before I'm in an area safe enough to drive my
>> coffee while driving. By then the coffee is easily sipped and soon
>> after can be gulped, and this is without adding cream or sugar which
>> cool the coffee. If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be
>> barely above body temperature 10 minutes later and that would not
>> make me a happy camper.
>> Matt
>
> Unfortunately most people aren't as responsible as you are Matt. McD's
> research showed most people started drinking right away.
>
>

I'm not surprised, but I still think that should not obligate McDonald's
to lower the temp of their coffee, unless they choose to do so for
marketing reasons and charge people an additional fee for the privilege!
:-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Dec 6, 4:49 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> The only way the system would have worked in this case would
>> be if the judge had thrown out the award and then jailed the lawyer for
>> wasting the court's time.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Since the jury ruled in the plaintiff's favor (as did the judge when
> he still left $600,000+ in her favor), I assume you mean the
> defendant's lawyer.

No, I meant the plaintiff's lawyer ... and you knew that.

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible
>> for
>> any person that walks out with coffee that hot.
>
> And it takes only one drink to impair someone's judgment and motor skills
> enough to have a serious accident and kill someone.
>
>
>> The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the
>> ability to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity.
>> There is some responsibility because of that fact.
>
> As does the seller of alcoholic drinks. Think O-Douls. There is no need
> to sell unsafe drinks that contain alcohol.

I have no idea why you have such a hard on about this subject, and for my
points, but your arguments have descended into the illogical and absurd.

You will have to play with yourself, from here on out. I'm done with you,
on this one.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:54:07 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-12-02 15:37:16 -0800, Peter Clark
> said:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:30:37 -0500, "Blueskies"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "F. Baum" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>On
>>>
>>>> Dec 2, 11:32 am, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's been an AD against the Caravan for more than a year
>>>>> (2006-06-06) that was recently superseded by 2007-10-15, perhaps
>>>>> driven by this accident. It seems that it doesn't matter that ADs are
>>>>> issued; they have to be modified or amended or superseded to make
>>>>> people sit up and take problems seriously. The Caravan has long had a
>>>>> history of poor ice performance and anyone flying one and staying
>>>>> current with aviation should know that.
>>>>>
>>>> Dan, thanks for posting something aviation related on this thread (As
>>>> opposed to Jay's OT BS). It has been a long time since I have flown a
>>>> Caravan so I am not going to try to be an expert here. Unfortunatly
>>>> the Caravan isnt the only Turboprop with poor icing performance
>>>> (Remember the ATR). There are several others that I have flown that
>>>> are downright scary in icing conditions. Maybe it is an inherent
>>>> problem in Turboprpops. Thanks for the link.
>>>> F Baum
>>>
>>> The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions.
>>> So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
>>> in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...
>>
>> The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) and
>> FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
>> Euipment" begs to differ.
>
>I will have to check my copy of it if and when I ever manage to get
>back to the office. That is, after we get the flood water out of the
>house and the roads are clear. :-)

Yea, looks like the whole Northwest is a mess.

>I could have sworn that it was not certified for known ice.

Yours might not be properly equipped for known icing (it aparantly is
a factory/aftermarket option), but the type is. There are references
to FIKI in the TCDS.

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
>>> But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible
>>> for
>>> any person that walks out with coffee that hot.
>> And it takes only one drink to impair someone's judgment and motor skills
>> enough to have a serious accident and kill someone.
>>
>>
>>> The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the
>>> ability to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity.
>>> There is some responsibility because of that fact.
>> As does the seller of alcoholic drinks. Think O-Douls. There is no need
>> to sell unsafe drinks that contain alcohol.
>
> I have no idea why you have such a hard on about this subject, and for my
> points, but your arguments have descended into the illogical and absurd.

It was hard to keep up with you in regard to lack of logic, especially
given my education and experience, but I was trying! :-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Morgans wrote:
>>>> But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is
>>>> possible for
>>>> any person that walks out with coffee that hot.
>>> And it takes only one drink to impair someone's judgment and motor
>>> skills enough to have a serious accident and kill someone.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the
>>>> ability to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity.
>>>> There is some responsibility because of that fact.
>>> As does the seller of alcoholic drinks. Think O-Douls. There is no
>>> need to sell unsafe drinks that contain alcohol.
>>
>> I have no idea why you have such a hard on about this subject, and
>> for my
>> points, but your arguments have descended into the illogical and
>> absurd.
>
> It was hard to keep up with you in regard to lack of logic, especially
> given my education and experience, but I was trying! :-)
>
> Matt
>

You're always trying.

Bertie

[Margy Natalie]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:30:56 -0500, Margy Natalie >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's not the schools its the parents.
>
>
> Umm...the parents that came though public schools?
>
>
>
>>>I've seen parents come in to find
>>>out why the TEACHER made a mistake and Johnny got a B.
>>
>>My wife's a dedicated teacher. I hear it every day. 8^(
>
>
> And the teachers that have been telling parents, for years now, to "Shut
> up...we're the experts" hasan't had an effect?
>
> I remember when they gave teachers the same tests they were giving their
> students, the teachers failed...miserablly.
>
> I have, though, been to my kids school to ask the teacher why a science
> question was a single sentence 115 worlds long, and why a friend of our,
> with an MS degree from Princeton, could not figure out the problem.
>
> That's just ONE instance.
Those are good parent questions, and they should be asked. The ones
that are not good are the ones that question poor grades even if the kid
didn't come to school, didn't do the make up work, didn't do homework
and flunked the test. Then the teacher gets in trouble because the kid
failed.
>
> Dedication is nice, but that's about all - it will not give students even an
> ounce of knowledge or ability to comprehend the world.
>
>
>

[Margy Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:28:03 GMT, kontiki >
>
>>The reason there is a "slant" to a public education is that the
>>vast majority of teachers graduate from public schools, then
>>go to a college or university then go right into teaching. That
>>is inbreeding... pretty much the same way with politicians...
>>most have never had an actual real job in their life.
>
>
> My wife didn't do it that way.
>
> She worked for a Fortune 50 corporation, then ran the office for her
> parent's 180+ employee asbestos and lead abatement company, then
> decided to teach elementary school. She took her first teaching job
> @ 37.
>
> Her elementary school coworkers include a couple who worked for an oil
> company in Saudi Arabia for 20 years (first taught in their 50's), an
> ex advertising sales executive (42, as a first year teacher), and a
> former Comair pilot.
Yeah, in our local school system a number of our teachers are retired
military. It's affordable to be a teacher if you are pulling a pension :-).

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:58:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And your point?
>>>
>>
>>Bad parents have unteachable kids. The criminals I mentioned...
>
>
> I know a kid whose dad spent years in the state pen and was later killed by
> a SWAT team. He graduated third in his class of over 400.
>
>
>>Parents who care, and are involved, have successful kids. The
>>successful immigrants...
>>
>>I'll bet the same thing would have happened to you that would have
>>happened to me if we brought home an "F". Today, it's not like that.
>
>
> Many times an "F" is deserved. As many times the teacher would have also
> gotten an "F". When they gave math teachers the same math tests, the average
> grade was 60%, with 70% being a failing grade. It's nearly the rule, rather
> than the exception.
>
> Given the absolute irrationality and indoctrination coming from schools,
> would more attentive parents make that much of a dent? Would it make the
> psychosis coming from schools go away?
>
> No matter how attentive parents are, "whole word reading", for example,
> isn't going to make kids good readers. Would it make schools less likely to
> spread Global Warming bull****?
>
>
>
Ah, you have reached the real issue. Fad teaching to meet demands of
"make these kids do xyz, better, faster, earlier, etc." Whole word
reading is valid, as is phonics, as is whole language. Of course the
problem is many people (parents, politicians, etc.) won't believe there
isn't a "good way" to teach reading. Not all kids can learn to read
using whole word, but some kids can only learn using whole word, same
with phonics, same with whole language. But, IMHO as long as they learn
to read well enough to pass the written for the private ticket, I don't
care how they did it.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>Then grab your butt.
>>>
>>>(I'll not wait for more of Morgan's adolesant alibis.)
>>
>>You should really learn how to post, because most of what your post
>>attributed to Jay were my words.
>>
>>You don't have to worry about me responding to you on the subject of
>>education.
>>
>>Your views are not worth my consideration, as they are so biased, and
>>worthless.
>>
>>You should really consider going back to school at your private school, so
>>you could learn to spell adolescent, too.
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>
>
> I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
> phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
> Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
> olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
> pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
> porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
> istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
> slpeling was ipmorantt!
>
>
Thanks, I needed that. I once had a student (special ed) who could not
read (sound out words) at all. We'd gone through all sorts of methods
with him, but the weird thing was I had him 'read' a story, out loud
and he managed to sound out about 20% of the words, but when a student
who was out of the room came in and I asked him to fill her in on what
she had missed he recited the entire section with 95% word for word
accuracy. He couldn't read, but he was smart.

[Margy Natalie]

wrote:
> Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
> number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
> income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
> that can be redeemed for education in private schools. All this
> assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
> schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
> going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
> education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
> that the government is no longer funding public schools.

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

Margy
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-06 15:27:04 -0800, Peter Clark
> said:

>>> The Cessna Model 208 and 208B Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) and
>>> FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)Supplement S1 "Known Icing
>>> Euipment" begs to differ.
>>
>> I will have to check my copy of it if and when I ever manage to get
>> back to the office. That is, after we get the flood water out of the
>> house and the roads are clear. :-)
>
> Yea, looks like the whole Northwest is a mess.

Well, we at least have one lane open into town, now. Great. I need
garden hose, wading boots, another floor squeegee, and my pressure
washer repaired. I also need a new pair of pants. We also need to talk
to some carpet people, I suppose. The cedar paneling in my office is
shot, too. And -- I still have Christmas shopping to do. Probably do
that online. We also have a contractor coming tomorrow with his Bobcat
to clear the remaining silt off the driveway and start excavating the
lawn.

>
>> I could have sworn that it was not certified for known ice.
>
> Yours might not be properly equipped for known icing (it aparantly is
> a factory/aftermarket option), but the type is. There are references
> to FIKI in the TCDS.

I wish I actually had a Caravan. I was seriously considering one a few
years ago.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-03 16:43:07 -0800, "Blueskies" > said:

> The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
> for flight into known ice, although the plane in
> question did have boots."

Well, as Peter Clark has pointed out, I could have been wrong about
whether that particular plane was certified for flight into known ice.
However, even if a third party modified the plane for flight into known
ice, how is it Cessna's fault?



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Maxwell]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then grab your butt.
>>>>
>>>>(I'll not wait for more of Morgan's adolesant alibis.)
>>>
>>>You should really learn how to post, because most of what your post
>>>attributed to Jay were my words.
>>>
>>>You don't have to worry about me responding to you on the subject of
>>>education.
>>>
>>>Your views are not worth my consideration, as they are so biased, and
>>>worthless.
>>>
>>>You should really consider going back to school at your private school,
>>>so you could learn to spell adolescent, too.
>>>--
>>>Jim in NC
>>
>>
>> I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
>> phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
>> Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
>> olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
>> pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
>> porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
>> istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
>> slpeling was ipmorantt!
>>
>>
> Thanks, I needed that. I once had a student (special ed) who could not
> read (sound out words) at all. We'd gone through all sorts of methods
> with him, but the weird thing was I had him 'read' a story, out loud and
> he managed to sound out about 20% of the words, but when a student who was
> out of the room came in and I asked him to fill her in on what she had
> missed he recited the entire section with 95% word for word accuracy. He
> couldn't read, but he was smart.

Gald I cluod hlep, its one of my featviors. I tnhik it hpels eixapln why
porof rneiadg oens on wrok can seem dliufcfict at teims.

[John T]

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

Isn't that just exposing the imposed mediocrity of public vice private
education? :)

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Company H]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200712051736018930-

>Pilots have lost their certificates for assuming that a plane that had
>boots was certified for known ice.

I imagine that pilots have lost a lot more than that. Seems to me if you
fly under IFR without an
IFR-equipped aircraft, you can't sue the manufacturer for not having
IFR-rated products. Similarly, if I slide my jeep off an icy road, I'll
never win a lawsuit against the manufacturer for not providing snow tires.

'Course, aircraft manufacturers are involved so the plaintiff will probably
win. *cynicism*

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Company H" > wrote in
:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:200712051736018930-
>
>>Pilots have lost their certificates for assuming that a plane that had
>>boots was certified for known ice.
>
> I imagine that pilots have lost a lot more than that. Seems to me if
> you fly under IFR without an
> IFR-equipped aircraft, you can't sue the manufacturer for not having
> IFR-rated products.


Of course you can.. You might not win, but if it doesn't say "unsuitable
for instrument flight" right on the lid, then again..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Dec 6, 4:21 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:

> No, I meant the plaintiff's lawyer ... and you knew that.

Yeah, I did. ;)

Although why would the party who was found to have been correct have
to pay the one who was found to have been wrong? Especially since the
plaintiff only wanted $20,000 before trial to just help with her
medical bills, and McD told her to go pound sand?

However, do you think there should be a "loser pays" rule, also? This
is a favorite of the "anti-frivolous litigation" crowd. Of course,
since the plaintiff won, that would mean that McD would have also had
to pay her lawyer's fees; as would Parker Hannifin had to do in its
case.

[Maxwell]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m
>>
>> Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year
>> and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than $7,000.
>> If the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather than fund the
>> public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000 per student. Are
>> you going to vote for that tax increase?
>
> Isn't that just exposing the imposed mediocrity of public vice private
> education? :)
>

If you consider most schools run about 30 to 35 hours a week. Wouldn't that
would be about $100, $300 and $500 a semester hour? Better double check my
math, I went to public schools. But a $100 an hour doesn't sound cheap to
me.

[John T]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message

>
> If you consider most schools run about 30 to 35 hours a week.
> Wouldn't that would be about $100, $300 and $500 a semester hour?
> Better double check my math, I went to public schools. But a $100 an
> hour doesn't sound cheap to me.

I guess it's all about priorities. Most of us here spend more than that
$100/hr for our pleasure trips via airplane.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Maxwell]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> If you consider most schools run about 30 to 35 hours a week.
>> Wouldn't that would be about $100, $300 and $500 a semester hour?
>> Better double check my math, I went to public schools. But a $100 an
>> hour doesn't sound cheap to me.
>
> I guess it's all about priorities. Most of us here spend more than that
> $100/hr for our pleasure trips via airplane.
>

Well John, my point was that per semester hour the cost was almost
comparable to a state university. But let's look at it your way as well.

If a child goes to school 6 hours day, 5 days a week, 36 weeks a year - they
can put 25 students in a class room and "fly" it for $162 hr.

Depending on how you spin it from there, at 6 hours a day 22 days a month -
the class room would yield a little better than $17,500 a month. Now
granted, you have to maintain the classroom and teacher all year long. But
at $160,000 a year, you should be able to afford a little downtime.

But again, I was publicly educated, so don't hold me to all this.

[John T]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message

>
> Well John, my point was that per semester hour the cost was almost
> comparable to a state university. But let's look at it your way as
> well.

"My way" is skeptical of public education (despite [because of?] my being a
product of it).

> Depending on how you spin it from there, at 6 hours a day 22 days a
> month - the class room would yield a little better than $17,500 a
> month. Now granted, you have to maintain the classroom and teacher
> all year long. But at $160,000 a year, you should be able to afford a
> little downtime.

OK. My original point was to highlight the delta between public and private
education expenditure per student. Most folks seem to consider private
education better than public. Perhaps the price reflects that and "you get
what you pay for".

Still, I'm not convinced the current public school system simply needs more
money to do its job. I like the idea of competition among schools. I also
like the idea of those folks using the system paying for the system. I'm not
thrilled with the idea that (in my county, anyway) nearly 70% of my property
taxes go to pay for a school system I no longer use.

Oh well. I guess I should just suck it up and buy the line that better
schools improve my property value, right? (Which of course means I pay more
taxes in a vicious cycle.)

Regardless, the major problem with public education as I see it (from having
just put my son through 12+ years of public schooling) is lack of
involvement by the parents.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous
>>> claims by people burned in a ten year period just before this
>>> incident, including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior
>>> knowledge of the extent and nature of the hazard.
>>
>> A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such
>> cases nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.
>
> Objection, that states facts not in evidence and McD's is the only
> plaintiff in trial here today.

Non-sequitur.

Play "Perry Mason" someplace else.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Dec 6, 4:21 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>> No, I meant the plaintiff's lawyer ... and you knew that.
>
> Yeah, I did. ;)
>
> Although why would the party who was found to have been correct have
> to pay the one who was found to have been wrong? Especially since the
> plaintiff only wanted $20,000 before trial to just help with her
> medical bills, and McD told her to go pound sand?

Having been found to be correct isn't the same as being correct.


> However, do you think there should be a "loser pays" rule, also? This
> is a favorite of the "anti-frivolous litigation" crowd. Of course,
> since the plaintiff won, that would mean that McD would have also had
> to pay her lawyer's fees; as would Parker Hannifin had to do in its
> case.

I'm generally in favor of that, but we also need some judicial reform to
go along with it. We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets. I also
believe that the burden should be in the individual who buys a product
or service and not on the product maker or service provider. I'm
talking normal cases here and not where a manufacturer as acted
fraudulently, etc.

Matt

[skym]

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

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

I also
> believe that the burden should be in the individual who buys a product
> or service and not on the product maker or service provider. I'm
> talking normal cases here and not where a manufacturer as acted
> fraudulently, etc.

Under the law and as instructed to every jury, the burden of proof is
on the plaintiff to prove every element of the case, except in very
special cases,(such as the IRS) including the case we're talking
about. Even where the deft has allegedly acted fraudulently, the
burden is on the plaintiff (and in a fraud case, it is very
difficult). So it isn't the cakewalk some people think it is.
>
So, everything you said you want is, in fact, what we presently have.
If there are any other lawyers out there who can comment on this,
please speak up!

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
skym > wrote:

> On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> ... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
> > for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.
>
> The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
> liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
> radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
> instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

how many times does someone without assets get sued?

'nuff said.

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

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> skym > wrote:

> > On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> > >> ... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
> > > for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.
> >
> > The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
> > liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
> > radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
> > instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

> how many times does someone without assets get sued?

> 'nuff said.

You're kidding, right?

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[skym]

> 'nuff said.
>


Well, not exactly "nuff said."

First, entities with money (or insurance) get sued if they are at
fault and have money, not just because they have money. Again, show
me any law that says that a person with money is liable because of
that fact and that fault is not required. Naturally, there are few
civil actions against persons without money because no matter how
extreme or deliberate their wrongdoing or how serious the damage to
the plaintiff, nothing is to be gained by suing them, The civil
justice system is meant to compensate an injured person. If the
defendant doesn't have the means to compensate the plaintiff, why
should they be sued? Do you advocate just suing for the hell of it?
You should be ashamed; it would waste the resources of government;
waste taxpayers' money; consume the time of jurors; and divert the
otherwise productive time of witnesses and other people.

Secondly, many people without money get sued. Your government does
it allthe time. Many people without money get sued by collection
agencies frequently. In the most recent legal paper in my town (and
most of the time), there were more of those types of cases than all
the others. I think most of those suits are a waste of time for the
reasons explained above, but as for "nuff said," you are wrong in your
fallacious premise that people without money don't get sued.

If you want an example of a legislative attempt to impose financial
responsibility for injuring others, consider the requirement in most,
if not all, states requiring mandatory liability insurance for car
owners and drivers. They recognize that some steps should be taken to
require pepole to be responsible (i.e. though insurance) to compensate
those they injure. In my state, if a person injures another, and
didn't have insurance or the means to pay the damage, they can lose
their license and be prevented from registering a vehicle until they
pay the damage.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > > The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
> > > liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
> > > radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
> > > instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.
>
> > how many times does someone without assets get sued?
>
> > 'nuff said.
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> What would be the point in suing someone without assets unless you
> like personally supporting a lawyer?

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

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

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:26:30 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> > > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>> > > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>> > > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>> >
>> > Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!
>> >
>> > Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.
>>
>> Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?
>
>Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was *too*
>effing hot.

There were some extenuating circumstances and a sympathetic jury.
Yes, they used to serve the coffee too hot to drink immediately if it
were freshly made, but most of their customers knew that. It was
served in foam cups so you couldn't feel just how hot until your lips
touched it. it was just right for taking with you...to a point.
The elderly woman was holding the cup between her legs when it
spilled. She then sat in it as she *probably* didn't have the strength
to raise high enough to get out of it. Originally they only wanted
Mickey D's to pay the medical bills, but in our society that would
have been admitting they were responsible and the lawyers said no.
That would have opened a whole new can of worms. So from there on out
it just escalated. Go before a jury and show you were turned down for
medical bills and play your cards right....

Now I wondered what kind of nut would hold hot coffee between their
legs. On the way from my daughter's place in Boulder to Denver
International some years back I found out. <sigh> I had to take a
jacket off and the only place for my "fresh, hot coffee" was between
my knees, or on the floor between my feet which I couldn't reach due
to all the heavy clothing.

Sure enough, just as the jacket slipped off the one arm the coffee
went over. I did a very rapid imitation of a suspension bridge.
Fortunately we also had paper towels and were able to clean the coffee
out of the leather seat. Spread out like that the coffee cooled in
seconds. However I did have that "fresh brewed" aroma all the way
from Denver, to Cleveland, to Midland MI. No, I did not get any burns
due to good reflexes and being in good shape.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:42:36 -0800, "Tom Conner" >
wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
>> > > > your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
>> > > > against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
>> > >
>> > > Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
>HOT!
>> > >
>> > > Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.
>> >
>> > Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?
>>
>> Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
>*too*
>> effing hot.
>>
>
>I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
>it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
>re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.

Closer to the latter than former. They used foam cups which give you
no real feel for how hot the stuff is until it touches you lips of
tongue.

Roger (K8RI)
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:13:54 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Jose wrote:



> If so,
>> and you were served that drink in a Styrofoam cup, expecting it to be at
>> its proper temperature, and through some user error spilled it on your

Which should have caused the case to be thrown out of court as there
is no such thing as a Styrofoam cup.


>I like the personal responsibility approach myself. I test the coffee
>before I commit to my lips.

Me too.

>Perhaps education is the answer. Perhaps if we were better prepared to
>take on life......perhaps if........... :-)))

Shirley you jest? <:-))


>>
>> Or consider shooting a rifle with cartridges that make it kick back with
>> such force that it breaks your shoulder. Now, rifles are =supposed= to
>> kick back, anybody who shoots knows this. But these particular
>> cartridges (the same type you've used before) generates enough force
>> that the rifle breaks your shoulder and the bullet goes into the next
>> county, hitting an accordion player.
>
>This may very well be allowed under law. In almost every state, I
>believe an argument can be made successfully for shooting an accordion
>player :-))

Can I add bagpipes?

>
>
>You expected =some= kickback, but
>> not =that= much. You could have braced yourself better, but thought
>> that these cartridges were just like the others that came in the same box.

Being better braced is likely to cause more damage.


>>
>> In both cases we're dealing with expectations which influence one's
>> actions. Sometimes the difference between reasonable expectations and
>> what is actually delivered are sufficient to be actionable. However, in
>> all cases it is easy to ridicule.

Which reminds me of an incident wayyy back in my younger days. There
were three, sometimes four of us who would go out to do some target
practice at the local dump. Usually this was done with a wide
assortment of handguns. I had a Colt Python and a S & W heavy frame
357. (I've forgotten the model number). One of the guys who had gone
to high school with us came along. He wanted to try the 357 but was
afraid of the recoil and noise, so I loaded up the Python with some
hollow base wad cutters in 38 Spl and let him shoot those . Now said
shooter was under the impression he was shooting 357's and every one
there was doing their best to add to that impression.

After 4 or 5 shots he was doing well and had relaxed. Actually he was
doing about as good as the rest of us. Of course every one there,
except him had different expectations of that last round coming up.
He was expecting more of the same and every one else was expecting I
had put one of *my* regular loads in there. Well shucks, when it comes
to disappointing one or three, I'd much rather disappoint one and
please three.

Relaxed as he was he put that last round right through the center of
the target, BUT the recoil left that Python at an angle good for Duck
hunting. Fortunately that was the last round in the gun as said
shooter was more than a little unhappy although it was more likely due
to all the laughter than the recoil. So, here I had met the
expectations of three at the expense of one.
>
The Python was so heavy there was no danger of hurting him, but the
recoil and noise sure did surprise him.

BTW of all the guns I had back then I only had one that hurt to shoot.
It was a tiny little 5 shot 38 Spl. One cylinder load and my wrist
would be hurting. +P loads were torture.

The hardest kicking was a 350 Mag given to one of the guys when he got
out of "The Service". One shot and I couldn't see a thing. It dumped
my hat right down over my eyes.

Roger

>This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no way
>to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no lapse
>in personal responsibility. In the cartridge we have a reasonable
>expectation denied. The real difference is the lack of ability to test.
>One could make the argument that firing the rifle and not getting the
>expected response wasn't negligence since no test was available. The
>only option would have been to not fire the rifle at all.





>>
>>>> The JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge.
>>>> [...] THAT is where the problem is.
>>>
>>> I think we can all agree with that.
>>
>> You think? It's much more entertaining to make fun of lawyers.
>>
>> Jose

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >, wrote:

> > > > The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
> > > > liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
> > > > radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
> > > > instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.
> >
> > > how many times does someone without assets get sued?
> >
> > > 'nuff said.
> >
> > You're kidding, right?
> >
> > What would be the point in suing someone without assets unless you
> > like personally supporting a lawyer?

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

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, what you are saying here is that
>> the outcome of this trial can be directly laid at the feet of an
>> ill-advised reply by a single individual and a jury's interpretation of
>> this reply.
>
>That was the lesson of this case. Regardless of how silly you think
>someone's demands are you should always appear to have some sympathy.
>
>> So the ACTUAL verdict wasn't based on any reasonable conception of
>> justice at all but rather the jury's reaction to the MacDonald's reply?
>
>Juries can do what they want. I think the combo of seeing the pictures
>of the woman's deformity bothered the jury and then to see how callus
>McD's was in responding to her made the jury mad. The verdict came
>from anger in my opinion.
>
>> Interesting!! So the lawyer's success in litigating this case was not in
>> proving to the jury that this woman had suffered legitimate severe
>> damage that had truly hurt her and on THAT basis asking the jury to find
>> against MacDonald's, but rather it would seem the lawyers used her
>> damage simply as a tool to force the jury to compare the coldness of the
>> MacDonald's replies, thus building a case against MacDonalds in the
>> minds of the jury based on the attitude of the company rather than the
>> damage to the woman.
>> Interesting!
>> You just gotta love the "justice system" :-))

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

>
>Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
>predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
>to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
>of jury trials.

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

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

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

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


Roger (K8RI)
>
>-Robert

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > ok, I was being, ahem, obsure. It seemed that skym believes
> > that the legal system determines fault and deep pockets is secondary.
> > However, I think we can agree that lawyers only go after those with
> > assets, making it obvious that they aren't interested in determining
> > fault but rather getting money.
>
> You mean being a lawyer is a business and lawyers don't truely believe
> all their clients are innocent?

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

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

[Matt Whiting]

skym wrote:
> On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> ... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
>> for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.
>
> The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
> liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
> radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
> instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

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

Matt

[[email protected]]

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

>> Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a
>> year and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than
>> $7,000. If the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather
>> than fund the public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000
>> per student. Are you going to vote for that tax increase?
>
> I am not sure that the cost of private schools will remain as high if
> all public schools were gradually converted into private schools. We
> would also not be paying taxes to support public schools in the new
> system. Eventually we would probably end up with the same taxes even
> if the average standard of education went up (as we would hope) in the
> new system. There would also be more efficiency and less or no money
> spent on the beauracracy needed to run public schools. In the end it
> may or may not work more reliably than the current system, I just
> don't know.
>
Look at Ohio for a real-world example of where vouchers and
general-poplation private schooling *doesn't*, and is unlikely to work as
you think possible. If you can show one state where general-population
private schools *do* work as you think they might, then there is room for
discussion.

Neil

[Angelo Campanella[_2_]]

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

And I have coined a corollary:

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

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

Ang. C.

[skym]

On Dec 8, 11:04 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
>
>
>
> That's the difference between the Civil and Legal court system. OTOH
> the Legal part seems to be heavily swayed in that direction as well.
> At least they are supposed to be prove guilt, which is not necessary
> in a civil action.
>
> Those statements make no sense. There is no "legal court system" that is separate from the "civil system." In fact there is no "civil system". Within the "legal system" there are civil cases, which include the myriad of disputes between private parties, although it also includes disputes involving governments; and there are criminal actions. Perhaps you meant "criminal" instead of "legal."


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


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

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

The average juror is easily mislead by junk
> science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
> a so called expert to sway the jury.
>
>Yep, either way.
>
> >Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
> >aviation related cases to see that.
>
You've named one case. And that was the crriminal case. A jury
nailed him in the case tried in the terrible "civil court system." So
are you now cricizing the "legal court system" (i.e., criminal case)
that you above held in such high regard?



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

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

[skym]

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

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

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

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

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

[skym]

On Dec 8, 8:27 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:

> However, I think we can agree that lawyers only go after those with
> assets, making it obvious that they aren't interested in determining
> fault but rather getting money.


Of course we're interested in proving fault. That's how we make
money! ;)

[Matt Whiting]

skym wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:50 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>> Tell me you aren't really this naive? If this had been a local mom and
>> pop coffee shop that had no liability insurance, do you really think a
>> jury would have made this award? Do you even think the lawyer would
>> have even taken the case? These cases and awards are DIRECTLY related
>> to the wealth of the defendant. This isn't by statue, I agree, but it
>> is de facto.
>> Matt
>
> They would have rendered the compensatory award. Certainly not the
> punitive award, since mom and pop probably didn't have over 700 scald
> cases in the prior years, or have conducted research and had prior
> knowledge that the coffee was not fit for human consumption. In fact,
> I'll bet that if mom and pop knew those things, they would have
> lowered the temp. It's the fact that McD knew it and did nothing that
> contributed to this result. The amount of punitive damages can be
> based on worth and income, but not underlying liability for punitive
> damages.
>
> Don't know if an attorney would have taken the case. If mom and pop
> had few assets, they could not pay the damage that the plaintiff
> incurred, So why sue them? Would you, or would you enjoy putting
> people into bankruptcy?

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

I rest my case.


Matt

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> [...] A private school system has the benefit of being
> more efficient and in the long run would definitely produce much
> better schools per dollar spent.
>
Care to support that assertion with some facts?

The point of my previous comment is that, here in Ohio, the private
schools that have sprung up as a result of adopting the vouchers approach
are neither efficient nor do they provide a quality education. In many
cases, they are worse than the worst public schools. OTOH, we have *many*
private schools that do provide high quality education at significant
cost. We also have many public school systems that provide education
comparable to the best private schools. Not surprisingly, they are in the
wealthier communities. So, as far as I can tell, while you might not get
what you pay for, you certainly won't get what you don't pay for.

--
Neil

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
>>predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
>>to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
>>of jury trials.
>
> A large, local company was sued for billions in the breast implant
> issue. The lawyers pushing the case made more than the entire
> corporation gross per year. In the end it was far easier and much
> cheaper to just give them a couple Billion dollars than to fight junk
> science with true science. The average juror is easily mislead by junk
> science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
> a so called expert to sway the jury.

Does it really matter in a rigged court system?

Gallileo's Revenge Junk Science in the Courtroom by Peter W Huber
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/gallileo.htm

[gatt[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
>> Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year
>> and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than $7,000. If
>> the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather than fund the
>> public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000 per student. Are
>> you going to vote for that tax increase?
>
> I am not sure that the cost of private schools will remain as high if
> all public schools were gradually converted into private schools. We
> would also not be paying taxes to support public schools in the new
> system.

My fear is that, instead, kids would be going to schools sponsored by
Starbuck's or McDonald's, and they'd learn all about how tasty coffee or
french fries are. The kids at the school down the road from us can't sell
bottled water for fundraisers because of a noncompetition clause in the
school's contract with Pepsi.

Maybe Wal-Mart could sponsor a school so the kids could learn all about lead
poisoning.

-c

[[email protected]]

On Dec 9, 2:07 pm, Angelo Campanella >
wrote:
> And I have coined a corollary:
>
> "These days, justics is considered served when the law is satisfied."
>
> I mentioned this to a lawyer; he was not happy about it, but did not
> refute me.

I don't know why he would be unhappy about it. It is actually a
pretty accurate description of what it's all about.

[[email protected]]

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

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

[John Boyle]

C J Campbell wrote:
> The parents of Bryan Jones, a 34 year old Microsoft engineer who was one
> of nine skydivers killed in the crash of a Cessna Caravan, are suing
> Cessna. The Caravan was returning from Star, Idaho, to Shelton,
> Washington. The parents are alleging that the Cessna Caravan was
> defective and should not have been flying in icy weather. The airplane
> is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in
> question did have boots.
>
> So, Cessna is being blamed because a pilot may have operated the plane
> in direct contradiction to the aircraft flight manual and warnings in
> Cessna's operating instructions.
To Mr. Campbell: Is Cessna going out of business because of this lawsuit?

[John Boyle]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Lets have real school choice nationwide. Let parents have the money
>> they are paying in taxes so they can send their kids to private
>> schools if they want. That's step number one. Get rid of teacher's
>> lobbies like the NEA... if they are all so dedicated to education why
>> do they need to be spending so much money lobbying congress?
>> Wouldn't that money be better spent in the actual education process?
>> Or how about just higher salaries for the good teachers?
>
> We have school choice here in Iowa City, to a degree. We may enroll
> our kids in any school in the district, so long as we can figure out a
> way to deliver them each morning. (Well, this year they curtailed
> that practice between the high schools, because one side of town is
> growing way faster than the other.)
>
> This works okay, to a degree -- but one result is all the bad kids
> (AKA: The ones without caring parents) end up in the same schools.
> All the good parents move their kids OUT of the bad schools.
>
> This, of course, leads to other problems. High teacher turnover/
> burnout becomes a real problem. You would think more resources would
> be poured into the bad schools, but because the student count drops,
> they actually get LESS money, unless extraordinary efforts are made.
>
> Because of the totally screwed up employer/employee relations between
> administators and teachers, there is little hope of a solution coming
> from that quarter. The teacher's union stands in the way of
> innovation -- union contracts don't permit too much in the way of
> experimentation with staffing -- and the administrators are just as
> bad or worse.
>
> "Administrator" is just a fancy name for "bureaucrat" -- and by their
> nature bureacrats do not want anything to change, unless it means more
> money and less work. These bureacrats, therefore, appointed by our
> elected school boards and supposedly safeguarding the People's money
> by working in their best interest, end up working in collusion with
> the teachers unions to make sure that nothing actually changes. In
> the end these two forces -- seemingly in conflict -- tend to work
> together to ensure that no solutions are forthcoming.
>
> Throwing private schools into the mix of "school choice" -- without
> fixing the underlying conflicting interests in this employee-employer
> relationship -- would be a disaster, IMHO. And that's just not going
> to happen in today's political climate.
>
> Which, of course, brings us back to where we started -- and are
> stuck.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
To Jay Honeck: I ask you the same question I asked MR. Campbell, is
Cessna going out of business because of this lawsuit?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
John Boyle > wrote:

> To Jay Honeck: I ask you the same question I asked MR. Campbell, is
> Cessna going out of business because of this lawsuit?

what is your point?

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