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.

For what it's worth , from the Speedonthewater.com story, " According to Allweiss, the defense "made it known" that they were interested in settling the case after last Friday's trial session in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. concluded. Allweiss said that he and his co-counsel "made a demand, and they met the demand."

Seems to me it was the defense that dictated the settlement. At least that is what I got out of the story anyway ..... No negotiation, they simply met the demand....

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.

Here is the trailer to the documentary, well worth the time to watch the entire video...


http://youtu.be/bBKRjxeQnT4

and you think that's a fair analogy?

Going off memory wasn't there also an issue with that particular coffee machine as well? I thought the machine was keeping the coffee a X degrees higher than it should have. This store was made aware of the problem and didn't fix it.

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".

I'll wait for the movie to come out.

"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.

Thank you for explaining that better than I did. Oxycodone does not make me a better explainer. Note to self - stop getting oral surgery.

Nothing I like more than to see the high and mighty" I know everything" attitude of on-line jerk off's and keyboard cowboys. If anyone has a different opinion they must be stupid. Real treasures that probably spent their school years giving up their lunch money and now that they have a job and have a lap top they are the only ones with brains.