I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying that it is beside the point when they knew that on average 70 people were getting seriously injured every year as a result of their too-high coffee temperature. That's the point that you are ignoring.
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.