Page 68 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 1109

Thread: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

  1. #671
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    and then you'll get some retard suing for false advertizing because the coffee isn't "hot" and some jury of idiots will award them $$$$$$$
    If you knew anyone with special needs you might choose your words a little more carefully. Not that I've come to expect anything less than utter immaturity from you.

    PROTIP: If you're going to deride people with intellectual disabilities, you might want to learn how to spell "advertising" correctly.

  2. #672
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    If you knew anyone with special needs you might choose your words a little more carefully. Not that I've come to expect anything less than utter immaturity from you.

    PROTIP: If you're going to deride people with intellectual disabilities, you might want to learn how to spell "advertising" correctly.
    a single tear rolls down my cheek.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  3. #673
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    Do you understand what I am saying now? When Texas passed (was it Texas? I think so) the loser pays law; I spoke out against it. I think it is absurd and damaging to the system.
    Can you elaborate? Is it strictly that if you lose in any case you may be found financially liable by the court, or is it just plaintiffs in frivolous suits? Obviously it would be a bad idea to send a bill to a legitimate loser of a case just on the basis that they did not get a favorable judgment for any number of reasons. However, making frivolous cases (and lawyers) liable for ambulance-chaser cases would be good. It'd decrease the bogus litigation we get running through our system every day. It would also force more burden of proof on "victims" to make sure that their inconvenience is genuine and, at least mostly, the fault of the other party.

  4. #674
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Would you extend this opinion to murderers? Such as the defendants in this particular case?
    Again these men are not murderers. If what these men did was murder then they would have been tried and convicted. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality. Those poor shop owners did not meet that definition of that legal technicality. The fact they have an open and shut case that they shot the burglar but did not have a trial and did not even attempt to plea bargain proves that what these shop owners did was not murder.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #675
    Professor
    Mathematician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,147

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And as I said (you were so smarmy against others when they didn't read things you wrote, maybe you should keep that in mind), lowering the temp of the coffee is fine. Taking them to court over the temp of the coffee is fine. But when you go to award a plaintiff, you should keep in mind the proper probabilities since there is information in those. Was it truly a problem is McDonald's cups? No. If they had a real problem, it wouldn't be a .000007% report rate. People in the end must understand a bit of math and statistics, these are important things when trying to quantify a system. You seem like you are most willing to skip over that and completely ignore it. It's unfortunate that one would advocate purposefully the denial of information in such a manner. It is a symptom of what I believe to be the big problem particularly in our judicial system. No one is thinking.

    We should be nominally concerned for traffic safety, but also because of the probabilities involved; I wouldn't freak out about it. It's relatively safe, even though cars kill more people in the US than terrorists.
    This goes back to one of my arguments about requiring some top notch math skills to be on a jury. Regardless of whether it's a criminal or civil trial, many things (including the verdict) are based on probability. Calculus may not be necessary, but a sound understanding of probability is crucial.
    "With me everything turns into mathematics."
    "It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
    "It is truth very certain that, when it is not in one's power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is more probable." -- Rene Descartes

  6. #676
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    a single tear rolls down my cheek.
    It's a start. Now maybe work on your spelling.

  7. #677
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    It's a start. Now maybe work on your spelling.
    another guy incognito post chock full of relevent and useful information. thanks pal.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  8. #678
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Again these men are not murderers. If what these men did was murder then they would have been tried and convicted. You seem to forget that murder is nothing more than a legal technicality. Those poor shop owners did not meet that definition of that legal technicality. The fact they have an open and shut case that they shot the burglar but did not have a trial and did not even attempt to plea bargain proves that what these shop owners did was not murder.
    You're being disingenuous. What they did does meet the legal definition of murder. I've pointed out specifically why that is, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise using the facts we have available and the statutes at issue. I've asked you to do this several times now, and you've failed entirely each and every time. I've pointed out repeatedly that relying on the grand jury decision is dubious at best, and you have yet to address that point. So, either argue the facts and the law, or stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

  9. #679
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, I'm NOT ignoring it. Are you reading what I write, or are you just cherry picking and then making up the rest? I have said, please read because this is getting annoying, the people is cause enough for concern. That it was grounds to bring lawsuit against McDonald's and that it is fine to take them to court because of it. The woman did have valid reason to go to court. I even previously state (near to when we got on this tangent) that I would not have absolved McDonald's completely of wrong doing. There would be no market response since the probability of this happening was in the noise, you can use the courts to force the response. That's not a bad thing. I need you to pay attention, to read, and to think because some of you more emotional type seem to believe I'm saying something I'm not.

    The absolute value is fine, it too has information and was pertinent to the court case as it demonstrated that McDonald's has known that at least on rare occasion their coffee was so hot that it could cause significant damage. I'm not ignoring that number. My contention was the initial award because that was completely out of line with the rest of the case. The judge had to in a sense "fix" it. That number was an emotional response, not a rational decision. A jury must above all be rational. And it is in this last and final stage in which that probability is really going to come into play. It does have information, and it does have information that is related to LIABILITY. And that's what these courts try to decide, yes? So it's not beside the point. Some people are spouting problem with flimsy lid or whatever. Is it a problem? Is it McDonald's fault? This is where that ratio is really becoming important because it can demonstrate fault. But what that ratio said is that there was no structural problem with the cup/lid and that the vast majority of people are able to consume McDonald's coffee unharmed. There were limited reports of people burning themselves, it's in the noise. So rationally, do you believe that McDonald's should have moved, that it should have had some form of market response to the noise? No, it's not reasonable to assume that. Therefore, while McDonald's does bear fault because they did now that on RARE occasion people burned themselves, it is unreasonable given the occurrence of that related to the amount of coffee sold that they would on their own change that behavior. Furthermore it demonstrates that the burn rate is dominated by operator, not equipment.

    See how both come in? See how I'm using both, not ignoring one? This is assimilation of data into a logical and reasonable argument process. This is what needs to go on. People need to think.

    I'm not ignoring those 70 a year. I'm saying that because of the injuries sustained, that there are multiple cases of this happening; there is more than enough reason to bring this case to court. I do not advocate legislating away a person's ability to access the courts, nor limits on awards from juries; I believe the woman had ever right and reason to bring this to court, that McDonald's seriously f'ed up on this one. I even agree that McDonald's shares fault. Now I think because of the probabilities as stake here, it should have been clear that they hold the minority fault; but whatever. But we need to keep juries rational, instruct them well, tell them to think. My contention is that we are losing rational thought in the process, and the original McDonald's award is proof positive of that. Damages were 10,500. McDonald's rationally should have had to share a fraction of that. What we got instead was emotional response by the jury to the tune of what was it like 2 million or something? It can't be excused. You can't get that value from 10,500.

    Do you understand what I am saying now? When Texas passed (was it Texas? I think so) the loser pays law; I spoke out against it. I think it is absurd and damaging to the system. I like the system, I like the jury standard. I want to maintain the system at the high standard it deserves. But it requires rational, logical, emotionless thought. That is essential to weigh fact and fiction and to quantify a case; even more so in criminal case when jury needs to weigh crime and law together. What makes me mad is that I do believe that lawyers currently monkey with the system to produce the exact opposite. It may be the procedure is the same as always, but I think the intent has most certainly changed on the behalf of lawyers. If I were to advocate anything, it would be in this dynamic to limit how much lawyers can engineer juries.
    Yes, I still understand what you are saying, but what I think you are still missing is the purpose of punitive damages, which made up the bulk of the jury's award. Punitive damages are awarded to reform or deter's the defendant's conduct, where actual damages would not suffice to accomplish that goal. It is clear that McDonalds had no intention of changing its policy prior to the punitive damage award. A spokesman for McDonalds testified that they had done a cost benefit analysis and had determined that it was cheaper for them to seriously burn 70 of their customers a year than it was for them to make a common sense change to their coffee brewing policy. The company also lied about their reason for maintaining the policy. They claimed that they kept the coffee so hot because most of their customers didn't drink it until they reached their destinations, and they wanted it to still be hot when they arrived. But McDonald's own research showed that most of their customers actually drank the coffee in route. I don't know why you keep bringing up the lid, because it was not an issue in the case. The case was about the temperature of the coffee, which was established by a uniform policy throughout the company.

    So once again, I don't think the jury's decision was irrational. McDonalds knew that the temperature they prescribed for their coffee could and WOULD cause approximately 70 people per year to suffer serious burns. In reality I'm sure the number is much higher, but that is the number who actually complained to McDonalds. It was apparent that McDonalds would not change it's policy if it only had to compensate the burn victims with relatively modest settlements, even though some were as high as $500,000. McDonalds made an economic decision to endanger its customers, and the jury made the decision to change McDonald's economic equation.
    Last edited by AdamT; 08-31-11 at 03:29 PM.

  10. #680
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    You're being disingenuous. What they did does meet the legal definition of murder. I've pointed out specifically why that is, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise using the facts we have available and the statutes at issue. I've asked you to do this several times now, and you've failed entirely each and every time. I've pointed out repeatedly that relying on the grand jury decision is dubious at best, and you have yet to address that point. So, either argue the facts and the law, or stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
    fortunately, the court disagreed with you. slice it anyway you like, can't escape that FACT. you just have your panties in a wad because you disagree with their decision. deal with it.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Page 68 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •