• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamT said:
Seems to me it was a problem, serving a beverage hot enough to inflict third degree burns in a flimsy container passed into a vehicle.

I am curious what percentage of customers you think needs to be seriously injured before it becomes something they should concern themselves with?
Click to expand...

A lot higher than 7*10^-6% (or 0.000007 % in layman's terms)
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
A lot higher than 7*10^-6%
Click to expand...

A number? So, maybe a million third degree burns before they should turn the temperature down? Maybe just 100,000?
 
AdamT said:
A number? So, maybe a million third degree burns before they should turn the temperature down? Maybe just 100,000?
Click to expand...

They could, and probably should, have turned the temp down earlier. The point is though, 70 burns/year vs. at the time ~ 1 Billion coffee cups/year (the 700 number cited is a 10 year period). If it was a true problem with container, not operator error, the number would have been MUCH higher. What that number says isn't so much that it would be wise to turn the temp down on the coffee, but rather that the INDIVIDUAL is more at fault than the structural integrity of the holding device (cup in this case). She put the cup between her legs, removed the lid, spilled it, and was not able to remove her clothing quick enough to avoid burns.

I wonder how many people in the court system actually understand numbers, math, and statistics. It doesn't seem like that many.
 
Ikari said:
They could, and probably should, have turned the temp down earlier. The point is though, 70 burns/year vs. at the time ~ 1 Billion coffee cups/year (the 700 number cited is a 10 year period). If it was a true problem with container, not operator error, the number would have been MUCH higher. What that number says isn't so much that it would be wise to turn the temp down on the coffee, but rather that the INDIVIDUAL is more at fault than the structural integrity of the holding device (cup in this case). She put the cup between her legs, removed the lid, spilled it, and was not able to remove her clothing quick enough to avoid burns.

I wonder how many people in the court system actually understand numbers, math, and statistics. It doesn't seem like that many.
Click to expand...

I think the main point was that it was perfectly foreseeable that a significant number of people drinking their coffee in cars would have spills, so they shouldn't have had the temperature so hot that people would suffer third degree burns when the inevitable happened.

IMO this case, which has been used so often to run down our tort system, is actually a good example of how the tort system is effective. Big companies like McDs aren't going to address even serious safety issues if it's cheaper for them to ignore the problem. They were well aware of the problem and had already settled similar claims for as much as $500,000, but that wasn't enough to get their attention.
 
nonpareil said:
What is best is if you stop using fallacies and stick to facts. Where is the evidence that he molested his daughter? How do you know what the daughter feel? Some children want to know their parents despite a criminal past, who are you to say this girl wouldn't?

This thread is full of hypocrisy, on the one hand people are using the fact that there was no criminal trial to say that the owners didn't commit murder, then turn around and say the jury was wrong in convicting him of wrongful killing. Either the system works, or it doesn't, you don't get to say that it works when it suit your arguement then say it's not when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Read the posts again, because I never said he molested his daughter. Somebody disagreed with me when I said that "sometimes no father is better than a piece of **** father" and I was providing sample scenario.
 
AdamT said:
I think the main point was that it was perfectly foreseeable that a significant number of people drinking their coffee in cars would have spills, so they shouldn't have had the temperature so hot that people would suffer third degree burns when the inevitable happened.
Click to expand...

But is .000007 % a "significant" number? Not really. Do you even know what a significant number means or how to quantify it? Or is it just a word to throw out?

AdamT said:
IMO this case, which has been used so often to run down our tort system, is actually a good example of how the tort system is effective. Big companies like McDs aren't going to address even serious safety issues if it's cheaper for them to ignore the problem. They were well aware of the problem and had already settled similar claims for as much as $500,000, but that wasn't enough to get their attention.
Click to expand...

I take it as a demonstration of the dumbing down of our judicial system. People weren't asked to think, in fact lawyers don't want them to. They want to get them to react, so that they can set up the scenario to get them to react in predetermined ways. There's no incentive to think about the problem, to actually look at the numbers and ask if there is a problem. I wouldn't have exactly absolved McDonald's completely of wrong doing, they certainly should have lowered the temp of their coffee. But when 99.999993% of the people are NOT burning themselves, that should go well into saying that the individual holds majority responsibility in the case and judgment should properly reflect that. It's also the reason why lawyers don't like scientists to sit on juries. They're not fans of rational thinkers. They need emotional responders.
 
Ikari said:
Juries make bad decisions because lawyers monkey with the make up of a jury of peers to get a jury which is more sympathetic to their case.
Click to expand...

...which is precisely why OJ wasn't found guilty!
 
Ikari said:
But is .000007 % a "significant" number? Not really. Do you even know what a significant number means or how to quantify it? Or is it just a word to throw out?
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit subjective, but I don't think it necessarily makes sense to look at it from a probability standpoint. You've got 700 people who didn't have to be seriously injured; all the company had to do was turn down the temperature of its coffee makers. Let's take another example: say that Acme Co. learns that 10 out of 1 million jars of spaghetti sauce have been dosed with anthrax, but there's no way for them to know which ones. Is it unreasonable to expect them to recall the jars?

I take it as a demonstration of the dumbing down of our judicial system. People weren't asked to think, in fact lawyers don't want them to. They want to get them to react, so that they can set up the scenario to get them to react in predetermined ways. There's no incentive to think about the problem, to actually look at the numbers and ask if there is a problem. I wouldn't have exactly absolved McDonald's completely of wrong doing, they certainly should have lowered the temp of their coffee. But when 99.999993% of the people are NOT burning themselves, that should go well into saying that the individual holds majority responsibility in the case and judgment should properly reflect that. It's also the reason why lawyers don't like scientists to sit on juries. They're not fans of rational thinkers. They need emotional responders.
Click to expand...

I think it's just the opposite. I think the lawyers had to make a pretty sophisticated case that the plaintiff should be awarded a substantial sum above and beyond her actual injuries in order to get the company's attention and to spur them to make a common sense change that they would not otherwise make. McDonalds had made the decision that it was better for their bottom line to seriously burn 70 of its customers per year than it was to lower its coffee temperature a few degrees.

As a libertarian I would expect you to support these kinds of decisions, because the alternative is government regulation.
 
AdamT said:
I think it's a bit subjective, but I don't think it necessarily makes sense to look at it from a probability standpoint. You've got 700 people who didn't have to be seriously injured; all the company had to do was turn down the temperature of its coffee makers. Let's take another example: say that Acme Co. learns that 10 out of 1 million jars of spaghetti sauce have been dosed with anthrax, but there's no way for them to know which ones. Is it unreasonable to expect them to recall the jars?
Click to expand...

If they are at fault for the arsenic being there, which wouldn't really reflect a .001% contamination rate. I would suspect they would recall them given that death isn't good for repeat business. Less you're the tobacco industry, in which case you just have to addict more people than are dying.

AdamT said:
I think it's just the opposite. I think the lawyers had to make a pretty sophisticated case that the plaintiff should be awarded a substantial sum above and beyond her actual injuries in order to get the company's attention and to spur them to make a common sense change that they would not otherwise make. McDonalds had made the decision that it was better for their bottom line to seriously burn 70 of its customers per year than it was to lower its coffee temperature a few degrees.

As a libertarian I would expect you to support these kinds of decisions, because the alternative is government regulation.
Click to expand...

There was nothing "sophisticated" about it; it's the exact opposite. It's simplistic. 700 cries the man, 700 burned and for what! McDonald's says those 700=0, well does 700=0 to you? Do we allow this corporation to get away with trivializing 700 people!

Not so sophisticated in my book. Your last statement is also incorrect, as while there are many pressures to be put on business by consumer and most proper "regulation" is handled in this way; it only works if it is rational. If it's irrational, you've defeated the purpose. The size of the award in the McDonald's case was irrational.
 
Ikari said:
If they are at fault for the arsenic being there, which wouldn't really reflect a .001% contamination rate. I would suspect they would recall them given that death isn't good for repeat business. Less you're the tobacco industry, in which case you just have to addict more people than are dying.



There was nothing "sophisticated" about it; it's the exact opposite. It's simplistic. 700 cries the man, 700 burned and for what! McDonald's says those 700=0, well does 700=0 to you? Do we allow this corporation to get away with trivializing 700 people!

Not so sophisticated in my book. Your last statement is also incorrect, as while there are many pressures to be put on business by consumer and most proper "regulation" is handled in this way; it only works if it is rational. If it's irrational, you've defeated the purpose. The size of the award in the McDonald's case was irrational.
Click to expand...

Well, again, I don't think it's irrational to expect a company to make a minor modification to save 70 of its customers per year from suffering third degree burns.

It's funny how in this thread you are running down a jury as a collection of gulluble sops, while simultaneously arguing in another thread that a jury that ignored the law was a fundamental building block of our society.
 
AdamT said:
Well, again, I don't think it's irrational to expect a company to make a minor modification to save 70 of its customers per year from suffering third degree burns.
Click to expand...
It's not unreasonable, I in fact claimed they should have. I also said that had I been on the jury I wouldn't have completely absolved McDonald's. But the percentages at play here show that it's not solely McDonald's fault; there is a lot of user error that went into it. Thus the plaintiff shares a good portion of the blame. That would have been the rational decision.

AdamT said:
It's funny how in this thread you are running down a jury as a collection of gulluble sops, while simultaneously arguing in another thread that a jury that ignored the law was a fundamental building block of our society.
Click to expand...

I believe it's the same thread. And both are true to a degree. Jury nullification is very important and was readily accepted and used in our past. It's a necessary check on the power of governments. However, our jury system has been corrupted by lawyers and designing men set against the rational and thinking jury and pressing more for emotional reactionary juries. The individuals who make the jury up can be instructed differently, we could not allow scheming lawyers to sway our judicial system through preferential picking of jurors. We could, rather, enforce the fact that the jury is an important piece of the judicial branch, that they must remain logical and without emotion to weigh both case and law and decide best for justice.
 
AFAIK nothing has changed in the jury system. It works more or less the way it's supposed to work. Not perfect, but nothing ever is.

You may know this already, but the jury in the McDonalds case found the plaintiff 20% at fault.
 
AdamT said:
You may know this already, but the jury in the McDonalds case found the plaintiff 20% at fault.
Click to expand...

That infamous McDonald's lawsuit is actually a sound decision. If people would just read the case and try to understand the law they would see how reasonable it is. Instead, they rely on media caricatures of the PI suits and blow everything out of proportion. Tort law is one of the few aspects of out legal system that is fair and just, and it is that way because of a thousand years of common law. "Tort reform" is a joke; tort law is fine the way it is. It's when people start to fool with it through legislation damage award caps that the problems start.
 
AdamT said:
AFAIK nothing has changed in the jury system. It works more or less the way it's supposed to work. Not perfect, but nothing ever is.

You may know this already, but the jury in the McDonalds case found the plaintiff 20% at fault.
Click to expand...

Then McDonald's should have paid 80% of her bills/lost wages, nothing more. Though even then, that's higher that what the truth is. I would say McDonald's was at most 40% at fault.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
AFAIK nothing has changed in the jury system.
Click to expand...

How they are instructed has most certainly changed. How they are designed has changed as well. The data basing, information gathering, and engineering of juries has become a near art form in our current system.
 
How did the jury compute the burglar's potential earnings? Do good burglars make more money than crappy one's? One thing for sure, this P.O.S. burglar ain't gonna steal another dime. I hope the gun lobbies and organizations come to these people's rescue and pays their fine. I'll donate.

A good burglar is a dead burglar. Break into my house and see what I got for ya!

 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Then McDonald's should have paid 80% of her bills/lost wages, nothing more. Though even then, that's higher that what the truth is. I would say McDonald's was at most 40% at fault.
Click to expand...

You say that based on what? Reading a news article about the case? How many degrees removed from the facts of the case are you?

The fact is that nobody is better equipped to decide these things than the jury who hears the case. Certainly not somebody who is unfamiliar with the facts.

A libertarian should be embracing tort law, not opposing it. Torts are the very definition of personal accountability. It's only when the government comes in and starts to monkey with a thousand years of common law that things become problematic and ultimately unjust.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Is it chocolate? Oh, I hope it's chocolate!

*breaks into Captain's house looking for chocolate*
Click to expand...

You don't have to break in Ikari. You're invited.

"Come on a my house, my house, a come on. I give you candy."

 
Guy Incognito said:
You say that based on what? Reading a news article about the case? How many degrees removed from the facts of the case are you?

The fact is that nobody is better equipped to decide these things than the jury who hears the case. Certainly not somebody who is unfamiliar with the facts.

A libertarian should be embracing tort law, not opposing it. Torts are the very definition of personal accountability. It's only when the government comes in and starts to monkey with a thousand years of common law that things become problematic and ultimately unjust.
Click to expand...

I never said to abolish tort or reform tort. I said it would be best to keep it reasonable and logical. How to you excuse gross payments well beyond the monetary value of damage inflicted? The courts, BTW, are part of government. It's not like government is absent here. If I cause 1000 dollars of damages to you, how can you justify a 100 million dollar settlement? Is that within "libertarian" philosophy and mindset? I could see maybe 10000 if it was grossly negligent on my part; but McDonald's wasn't grossly negligent. It just wasn't a large enough value to trigger market response. Now you can say you can artificially make it a large enough value via civil lawsuit; but when is "large enough" large enough?

We've lost reason within the court system, and that is not a good thing. No matter which way you slice it.
 
Centrist77 said:
perhaps he would of came out swinging his knives while waiting on the cops and killed somebody
perhaps he had a gun and was planing on coming out shooting or would have shot through the door himself
perhaps if would have escaped and next time killed two children after rapping their mother

but we'll never know because he got himself shot

the perhaps game is fun isnt it? IT HILARIOUS that people think it only works ONE way. :shrug:

there was NO murder thats why no one was convicted of it
Click to expand...


Three men armed with guns, against one man hiding in a shed. Yeah. Hilarious.
 
Ikari said:
The courts, BTW, are part of government. It's not like government is absent here.
Click to expand...

There is government but there is no coercion. Did you forget what libertarians stand for? A tort is either a voluntary action or a negligent action by the tortfeasor, either way it an obligation they incurred without coercion. It's not like we're talking about taxes or some sort of government theft. This is one person making a victim of another person, and the victim getting redress. The government is only there as a referee. The courts should be the libertarian's preferred branch of government.

Ikari said:
If I cause 1000 dollars of damages to you, how can you justify a 100 million dollar settlement?
Click to expand...

Straw man. McDonalds caused exactly as much damages as the award she got. Also false, it was a 600k settlement.

Ikari said:
I could see maybe 10000 if it was grossly negligent on my part; but McDonald's wasn't grossly negligent.
Click to expand...

The punitive damages in Leibeck were reduced by the judge to a more reasonable amount than the original jury award. Get your facts straight before you get on your high horse.

Ikari said:
It just wasn't a large enough value to trigger market response. Now you can say you can artificially make it a large enough value via civil lawsuit; but when is "large enough" large enough?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The lawsuit got McDonald's to change their coffee lids from those flimsy white things to those heavy-duty ones with big warnings that you see today. That is a market response if ever I saw one.

Ikari said:
We've lost reason within the court system, and that is not a good thing. No matter which way you slice it.
Click to expand...

No, we haven't. The system is fine, it has been for a thousand years. Stop tampering with it. The people who are being unreasonable are quixotic tort reformers like yourself, tilting at windmills, attacking an issue that you don't really understand.
 
Last edited:
Gipper said:
The LAW sided with the owners. I don't know why people keep saying otherwise.

The JURORS sided, at least in part, with the victim's family. It's the fallacy of civil court. In criminal court, you're innocent until proven guilty. In civil court, you're liable until proven not liable. It's set on a percentage, which is entirely too subjective, and based on the whims of emotions. It's why Democrat lawyers make such great civil litigators. They are masters of telling a giant sob story to find those with money liable and responsible for anything and everything. Gore and Edwards got disgustingly rich off this crap in "tort court" and class-actions. Kerry would have too, if he didn't marry a woman worth 300 mil, only to divorce her for another worth 700 mil.

If civil cases were tried in a method similar to criminal cases, these owners wouldn't have owed a red penny. That would have been a victory for the side of law-abiding citizens and a warning to drugged-out pieces of trash.
Click to expand...

Jury nullification. The grand jury refused to indict three upstanding citizens of the community because they found their lives more worthwhile than the life of a drug-addicted thief. It's as simple as that. Under any law of the land... Texas excluded, since one can now murder just about anyone that they think is going to damage their property... what those three men did was First Degree Murder. They are just lucky that they come from a relatively small city with grand jurors who think they get to decide who does and does not deserve justice.

Think O.J. Simpson. The jury valued O.J.'s life more than they did the lives of his victims. It's just that simple.
 
tortfeasor

Dude, that just sounds....well...nasty. How did that get passed the curse filter?

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom