Whoa. Digging around in the archives are we? On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: >>1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements >>from time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower >>court judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee >>one for instance) are often overturned or reduced in the appeals >>process. > > Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not > frivolous. > > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not 3rd degree burns.[1] Secondly, the punitive award by the jury of 2.7 million, or 10 times the compensatory damages (and 1000 times the actual medical costs) are a bit large, and were indeed, reduced by the judge to a slightly more reasonable 3 times the compensatory damages, or 640K.[2] Finally, while the McD's case, upon further inspection, wasn't necessarily frivolous, it is indicative of larger judgements that are often filed against plaintiffs, and then reduced later. Don Armstrong 1: Assuming that you're not going swiming in the stuff, of course. 2: http://www.cooter-ulen.com/tort_liability.htm -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgppzULsHRR0W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
