So the lawers win again.
01-22-2015, 07:39 AM
#41
Registered
I get that the legal definition is more complex than the simple street meaning of demand.
In the end there is one thing we can all agree on, this was a lose lose situation for all parties.
Condolences to the family and I hope this case prompts some safety changes and doesn't hurt racing.
In the end there is one thing we can all agree on, this was a lose lose situation for all parties.
Condolences to the family and I hope this case prompts some safety changes and doesn't hurt racing.
Last edited by stimleck; 01-22-2015 at 08:54 PM.
01-22-2015, 02:12 PM
#42
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SE FL
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also recall something about the temp of the coffee as well... if there was any perceived liability it was probably foregone... but my sense was that she deserved at least her medical, which I also seem to remember was all she originally asked for. (been a while and my memory is always questionable...)
There are plenty of other truly wtf cases to point at. We need lots of reforms in this country.
There are plenty of other truly wtf cases to point at. We need lots of reforms in this country.
http://youtu.be/bBKRjxeQnT4
01-22-2015, 02:31 PM
#43
01-22-2015, 02:34 PM
#44
The gist of Mickey D was this: cup manufacturer had a temperature limit their cups would withstand before collapse. Coffee machine manufacturer had sold all Mickey Ds coffee machines that exceeded that temperature. Mickey D had apparently known for years about the problem, and over the protests of the cup manufacturer and the machine manufacturer, refused to buy the .78 cent part (plus 10 minute install) to change all their machines across the country. Much like the Ford Pinto logic, it was cheaper to pay claims then fix the problem.
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
I was on the "no chit coffee is hot" bandwagon until I saw a documentary on what happened. Eye opening to say the least.
Think about pouring boiling water on your "frank and beans".
01-22-2015, 06:02 PM
#46
Registered
"Demand" is a legal term of art. Plaintiff's make "demands" -- Defendant's make "offers". Basically the Plaintiff's counsel threw out a number, likely a lot less than what they were originally asking for (the demand), and looking at the case presented, Defense Counsel "met it"- meaning they went back and talked with their folks, maybe the Demand was a "split the difference thing" and Defense agreed. Don't read a lot into Plaintiff's counsel's saber-rattling. If you were demanding $40million day one, and demanding $2million at trial and it settles, they "met your demand".
I tell all my clients that good settlements are found in an area in the middle where both sides were unwilling to go before. Trial is a fluid thing, changes with every word said and every piece of evidence shown, but it's never about the truth, it's about what the jury believes is the truth in that short time they get to hear the facts. Juries go home after, and this case is just cocktail conversation. Parties have to live with the consequences. No winners here, either way. It's finished and done, and that's the highlight.
I tell all my clients that good settlements are found in an area in the middle where both sides were unwilling to go before. Trial is a fluid thing, changes with every word said and every piece of evidence shown, but it's never about the truth, it's about what the jury believes is the truth in that short time they get to hear the facts. Juries go home after, and this case is just cocktail conversation. Parties have to live with the consequences. No winners here, either way. It's finished and done, and that's the highlight.
01-22-2015, 08:59 PM
#48
Registered
Well, you may and may not have a brain (as a figure of speech) - that remains to be seen. However, your OPINION that the settlement was dictated by the plaintiffs demonstrates that you don't understand how law - and negotiations in general - work. Settlements are negotiated by both parties. Normally, the only exception to this is when one side has no factual or legal defenses upon which to rely. At that point, the party that the facts and law favor can dictate a settlement. As for "laying into you" I meant that I would have gone on to give a much longer explanation as to why the statement was ridiculous. As for you telling me to get a life, perhaps you are correct and correcting stupid things said on the internet isn't worth my time.
01-22-2015, 10:28 PM
#49
Typed a long response, and deleted it. I normally don't get animated about dumb things said on here, but I am writing it off to the oral surgery and medication. I actually do more civil defense than plaintiff's work, yet let someone on the internet talking about something they don't understand get to me. Sorry. Haven't taken any medication today, but probably should have. Anyway, enjoy the snow in Canada and please don't take anybody's lunch money.
01-22-2015, 11:27 PM
#50
Registered
iTrader: (3)
Im no one other than having manned med boats a few times. So my 2 cents is worth less than a tarnished peso, anyways, I cant help but wonder if the settlement included some "standards" as opposed to simply a monetary amount. No matter how good your rescue team and their standards are there is always room to raise the bar.Some can say the plaintiff won because they got paid, some can say the defense won because JC wasn't publicly nailed to the cross. But if the end result was standards being raised the racers won.
