[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
  [Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: [IP] Another whopper of a lawsuit

Joanne [mailto:email @ redacted] wrote:

> Even if the coffee was only 165 degrees, why would she put it between
> her
> legs? And why are juries rewarding stupidity???

If the coffee had been 165, she would have been uncomfortable with the
spill, but burns probably would not have been any worse than first degree.
It isn't so much that the jury rewarded stupidity, but that McDonalds was
negligent in serving coffee that hot. I did not hear that she deliberately
tried to hold the cup between her legs, but that she accidentally dropped it
when she received it from the window.

But what juries award is another matter entirely.  The one jury I served on
in California was allowed to award punitive damages *only* if we found
negligence.  Since we did not, we could only award a sufficient amount to
cover the repair of the damage.  Had we found the defendant to be negligent,
then there was no limit to the punitive damages we could have awarded.

Before we start ranting about the system, remember that the guidelines are
passed by legislatures in the form of laws, and most legislators are . . .

Jim Handsfield
email @ redacted

The opinions expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those
of my wife who runs our house and makes more important decisions than I do.
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: