Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"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.

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

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!

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!!!)

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.

'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.

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!!!)

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

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)

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