psychopat Wrote:Uhmm... did you even read the whole thing?
It presents both sides, including a refutation of what her lawyers presented at the hearing. She comes out looking like an idiot, but she didn't make anywhere close to the 3 mil that was claimed in this thread. I put the copypasta there because it contains more information and it corrects some of the erroneous information that was already said in the thread...
It's taken from a site that documents all sorts of stupid lawsuits that abuse american tort law, bearing her name because she's the most famous one.
I wasn't defending her in any way, shape or form :-P
I am sorry if I seem argumentative and belligerent in this thread, but my parents and employers thought I'd make a great lawyer; it's $hit like THIS which ultimatley caused me to pursue another line of work.
I read your copypasta more carefully. I do not see how any of it substantially refutes what I said.
The fact that she ended up with less is still no reason that she should have been awarded ANYTHING. I don't care how hot the coffee is, putting coffe that you KNOW is hot in your crotch is stupid and if it spills, it is YOUR stupidity at fault. It's not 20% fault, it's 100% fault, just as if I am carelessly waving a butcher knife in the kitchen, it is my fault for cutting myself, not the knife company's fault for making the knife "too sharp." In response to the allegations that the coffee was too hot, this copypasta fails to mention that surveys taken of McDonald's customers brought in those customers' desire that the coffee BE this hot. In other words, McDonald's was giving its customers what they wanted. I find it somewhat difficult to believe tthat Liebeck had her first cup of McDonald's coffee and was ignorant to the fact that it was hot; and that she was incapable of going to any other number of places which would have given her much less hot coffee.
The fact that a 2.9 million award was even put forth is testament to the fact that American lawyers work hard to exclude educated intelligent people from juries. The ignorant and stupid are easier prey to lawyers' assertions that juries have to do what is "the law," (that is, what the lawyer says "the law" is,) rather than do what the jury sees as its own moral and legal interpretation. Lawyers are bullpomegranate artists who twist the facts in ludicrous ways to get themselves $$$. In truth, any jury can throw out everything a lawyer says and refuse to award in a trial such as this. Lawyers are a self-made profession. The constitution entitles an American to a trial by jury of his peers, whereas the lawyers have made it virtually impossible to go to court without them. The jury of peers is who should be deciding the merits of the case, not a bullpomegranate artist who stands to gain $$$ and is therefore completely biased.
It is not the 2.9 million which enrages people, it's the fact that such cases happen on a regular basis, maybe not on this scope, but they happen.