"They ignored the industry standard. The accepted temperature was either 150 or 160"
- - I don't believe that's the DRIVE THRU industry standard. If memory serves, that's the restaurant standard.

"You are assuming this woman McD's sells extra hot coffee."
- - Yes, she had been there before, and had even spilled coffee on herself before. THAT'S MY BIGGEST ARGUMENT.

"Perhaps she was under the reasonable assumption that McD's would be like most every other restaurant and the coffee she poured in her lap was going to be 20 - 30 degrees cooler."
- - Not a reasonable assumption, per above.

"The plaintiff's lawyer had a McD's official admit on the stand that their coffee at 180+ degrees was not fit for human consumption."
- - Actually, what he "admitted" was that no one was expected to drink it at that temperature. That's the whole thing with the drive thru, you don't drink your coffee right away, or at least you shouldn't.

"This is huge when the product isn't fit for what it is designed for"
- - Which is how the attorney's paraphrased it for the jury in closing arguments. Deceptively and dishonestly.

"The other place they screwed up was in how they argued their case. They essentially said what Elwood has been sayingwhich clearly didnt' go over so well with our jury."
- - Sure, jury looked at BIG CORP v. Little Old Lady...

"If I were arguing their case I would have called on my vast pre-law school McD's coffee pouring experience and pointed out that she unreasonably misused the coffee cup."
- - Too bad you weren't the one.

"If she had used the cup correctly she wouldn't have dumped it."
- - 'nuf said...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

This is getting redundant. Time for a new hypo based upon the same facts.

If spilling the coffee had not burned her, but only distracted her enough by soaking her lap and legs that she caused an automobile accident, who would have liable for the harm suffered in the accident? McDonalds or Stella? Anyone else?

Please assume away the insurance aspect of the case as differences between no-fault and other insurance policies across the country will prevent us from having a national discussion.

Shame on you for asking such hypotheticals! I'm working on a take-home exam right now.

Who's responsible for the accident? The other driver of course. They were a lance-hating, group-ride on aerobar riding, PC using, TSR wearing, SUV driving poser, who was too busy looking up out of his window to see if the $4000 tri bike he has ridden twice is still on the roof rack.

Now back to the laws of Israel for me.

---

==================================
but I can deal with the angels, cause it ain’t me they’re here to claim. it’s a good night for blowing ‘em off til some other day

"If spilling the coffee had not burned her, but only distracted her enough by soaking her lap and legs that she caused an automobile accident, who would have liable for the harm suffered in the accident? McDonalds or Stella? Anyone else?"

That's easy, Stella.

When you get behind the wheel, you assume responsibility for whatever happens. If you sneeze, spill coffee or just get distracted because a bee flew in, you're responsible for any damage your vehicle causes.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Sorry to get in this so late, but...

1) as a former coffee company owner, coffee is ideally brewed at 195 deg. This is too hot for Wal-Mart sweatpants to protect you from.
2) Even maintained at 180 degs, after Dopey adds 5oz of cream (yuck) it now comes down significantly, to the point that Dopey complains that the coffee isn't hot enough.
3) 700 reported coffee burns out of 50 million cups/week is pretty light, considering the declining average IQ of the general public.
4) Since when does "McDonalds is arrogant" equal "McDonalds is guilty"? Only in the minds of the easily confused stump-tooth inbreds that end up on most civil juries.

-bobo

---

"What's good for me ain't necessarily good for the weak-minded."

"
4) Since when does "McDonalds is arrogant" equal "McDonalds is guilty"? Only in the minds of the easily confused stump-tooth inbreds that end up on most civil juries. "


I couldn't agree with you more. I say we get rid of the right to a jury of our peers as fast as we can. It would be a wonderful move toward a more socialist government. Especially if it is done hand in hand with tort reform.

---

==================================
but I can deal with the angels, cause it ain’t me they’re here to claim. it’s a good night for blowing ‘em off til some other day

"Only in the minds of the easily confused stump-tooth inbreds that end up on most civil juries."

Yes, imagine the horror of having your fate in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Typically the juror profile is.
a) unemployed
b) megalomaniacs out to correct all the worlds ills
c) bored idiots who think it might be interesting and obviously don't know what they're in for.

Flame away. Someone who tried to do their civic duty by not wriggling out of jury duty will doubtless step forward to protest. In anticipation of which:
I fart in your general direction...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"I couldn't agree with you more. I say we get rid of the right to a jury of our peers as fast as we can. It would be a wonderful move toward a more socialist government. Especially if it is done hand in hand with tort reform."

Under this dripping sarcasm you're saying: The current system works OK for you.

That's because you've never been sued by a complete shithead lawyer and sold down the river by a chickenshit insurance company. The system doesn't work, because jurors and judges overstep by giving stupid old ladies $3 mil.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"That's because you've never been sued by a complete shithead lawyer and sold down the river by a chickenshit insurance company. The system doesn't work, because jurors and judges overstep by giving stupid old ladies $3 mil."

Have you ever been in a lawsuit in which you won? Did you immediately deride as idiots the judge, jurors and attorneys involved?

Reading between the lines a little bit, were you in a lawsuit and "lost?" But since it appears that insurance was involved, did YOU actually right a check? (Don't say you paid increased premiums because if a judgment was paid it was likely more than you have ever paid in premiums.) I leave aside for the moment that you were no doubt completely innocent of any liability regardless of any decision the jurors, who would not have known you from Adam, might have made in the matter.

You might actually sit on a jury once just for the experience of it. Particularly a civil jury. I think you might be surprised at what actually occurs during deliberations. My experience is that jurors try very hard to comply with the instructions. Again, we will leave aside for the moment how the instructions are created.

I would like to see evidence for -that- claim, fact is, in most of the western world ridiculous damages are -not- awarded and there is no indication of more corporate wrongdoing than in the states. Actually if anything, subjectively I believe it is less in other parts of the world.

Among many things, most countries do not allow lawyers to take case based on commission, which takes away something like 99% of the motivation for ridiculous damage awards in the first place. Which in turn leads to most cases not going to the courts , but instead being regulated by the insurance companies, which in turn can provide coverage at a reasonable cost. My private third party damage insurance covers up to 5M CHF (roughly 4M$) for 50$/year (this is separate from car insurance) just as an example.

Simon

"Have you ever been in a lawsuit in which you won?"
- - Yep, small claims, no jury. Guy hit my parked car in front of witnesses (one was a cop) and then tried to not pay for the damages. Judge awarded me ~$350 less than actual damages, and I'll never know why.

"Reading between the lines a little bit, were you in a lawsuit and 'lost?' "
- - Yep, drunk crossed a double yellow and hit me head on. His passenger sued me for contributing to her injuries (I guess by having the audacity to not drive off a cliff to avoid the accident). She said her injuries would prevent her from having any more children (she was 56). Am I bitter? Noooooo....

"But since it appears that insurance was involved, did YOU actually right a check? (Don't say you paid increased premiums because if a judgment was paid it was likely more than you have ever paid in premiums.)"
- - They paid her $1750, and the increase in my premiums over then next five years was WAY more than than.

"I leave aside for the moment that you were no doubt completely innocent of any liability regardless of any decision"
- - He was drunk, I was sober. He was speeding, I was not. My side of a double yellow. Old law in CA used to forbid you from suing the driver of a car in which you were riding. Similar stupid law allowed the fact that I was in his way (even though he had no legal right to be there) to be considered a contributing factor.

"the jurors, who would not have known you from Adam, might have made in the matter."
- - No trial, the insurance co. decided it was cheaper to settle and then fuck me.

"My experience is that jurors try very hard to comply with the instructions. Again, we will leave aside for the moment how the instructions are created."
- - How the instructions are created is the biggest part of the problem. Second to that is jurors trying to follow lame instructions instead of just saying "This is bullshit."

It's like the OJ jurors who said they believed he was guilty but had to find him not guilty because of the judges instructions. That's just wrong any way you "slice" it. (deliberate knife reference)

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Yep I am of the opinion these guys have gone a little too far. but talking out my butt here..probably some attorney got wind of all of this and liability and law suits must have come up in the conversation and voila!!! not ya have to wear your helmet everywhere !!! what will they think of next!!! golllleeeeeeeee

---

------------------------------------------------

Trying to find ways to pass the time.

"there is no indication of more corporate wrongdoing than in the states."

The issue is prompting proper behavior. I believe that there are criminal penalties for corporate wrong doing in other parts of the world that do not exist in the U.S. (although screwing with the accounting is starting to get people in trouble.)

You have a point with contingency fee agreements. But only up to a point. The beneficial purpose of allowing contingency fees is to provide access to the court system to those who would not ordinarily be able to afford it by providing an economic incentive to attorneys to take a risk. An example of both problems in one case. There was a fairly recent case involving a truck that had a design defect, something to do with how the gas tank was attached, or in this case not attached. The predicatble and known, result occured severely burning 2 kids and their mother. (I think) The individuals did not have the ability to force the manufacturer to pay their predicatbly horrendous medical bills. (med costs are a seperate issue which should be fodder for the OT mavens here)

Ener the contingency fee attorney. The company could have put out the money to resolve the matter. The company could have corrected the known defect with the truck. It chose not to do either. It lost big. So big that the case became an example of punitives gone wrong. We can debate the merits as we all did with Stella and McDonalds, but the larger issue is, I think, more interesting and that is: How does society balance the issues? For every Tom Demerly who gets whacked by a customer who rides into traffice we have a 10 year old who breaks his nose, jaw and collar bone because the bike mechanic did not put the handle bars on correctly. As a system, how do we resolve the problem?

" Yep, small claims, no jury."
Did you try to have the guy pay you without going to court? What was your alternative to court? I think courts are necessary to resolve issues short of six-guns at high noon. There will always be aberrations. It is, however, a self-correcting system in that it works to correct the aberrations in a variety of ways. Your example is just one. Keep in mind that it addresses 100% of the issues submitted. Nothing else I can think of comes close.

"Second to that is jurors trying to follow lame instructions instead of just saying "This is bullshit."

Try serving on a jury. You might find it more practical than you are giving credit.

"It's like the OJ jurors who said they believed he was guilty but had to find him not guilty because of the judges instructions."

Again, bad cases make for bad law. In the OJ case, there are a number of arguments that can be made to explain it. Occam's Razor says that the jury found that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. Remember that the tv spectators received an edited version of what was presented in court. I suggest that spectators got what the editors wanted to show. The rules of evidence do indeed keep relevant evidence out of the proceeding. Again we come to the need to balance the rights of the victims with the rights of the accursed. (also a worthy OT discussion)

Another argument is that the jury did what you suggested. They looked at the instructions and said "bullshit" we are not finding this black man guilty. Disregarding the instructions to do so. This is called jury nullification and you will never hear anyone tell you that as a juror, you can do what you want. Think of it as a check to balance the power of the prosecutor.

"Did you try to have the guy pay you without going to court? What was your alternative to court?"
- - The guy was a dick, and drunk to boot. He made nice at the time, so the cop (off duty) wouldn't haul him in on DUI. Next morning I call him up to remind him that he hit my car and he says "Yeah, allegedly!!" and then laughs and hangs up.

"I think courts are necessary to resolve issues short of six-guns at high noon."
- - That was actually my first choice, but the guy's address was bogus. I had to lien his car just to find out where he lived.

"Try serving on a jury. You might find it more practical than you are giving credit."
- - I don't care. Wrong is wrong.

"Again, bad cases make for bad law. In the OJ case, there are a number of arguments that can be made to explain it. Occam's Razor says that the jury found that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof."
- - Actually Occam's Razor says that OJ did it. No reasonable alternative was ever offered. Same with Scott Peterson.

"Another argument is that the jury did what you suggested. They looked at the instructions and said "bullshit" we are not finding this black man guilty."
- - That's pretty close. More like "We the sisters on the jury refuse to find the brother guilty for killing his white ho wife.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...