When you have some actual data that shows that today, something is different and the vast majority of welfare payments are not going to those on the programs, but is instead being consumed by bureaucrats, let us know. But as usual, I suspect that won't be forthcoming, will it. Profanity will.
Not a big issue in the States where anyone can start a lawsuit for just about any trivial reason with very little downside risk except for the filing costs
If the US brought in a system like in Canada, where the loser pays, it would reduce some of the really stupid lawsuits It it also required judges to review a case BEFORE it went to jury, that would also eliminate many flawed cases that rely on jury ignorance or sympathy instead of good law.
When you have some actual data that shows that today, something is different and the vast majority of welfare payments are not going to those on the programs, but is instead being consumed by bureaucrats, let us know. But as usual, I suspect that won't be forthcoming, will it. Profanity will.
More strawman crap. Are you so unable to argue rationally that you constantly need to create strawman arguments ?
Here's some graphical data of the increase of welfare Note how it has increased far more quickly than the population How the ratio of recipients to producers has changed for the worse under Obama
I'll leave it to you to take responsibility to educate yourself further (One can only hope that you will try to get away from your culture of ignorance)
So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?
So?
McD had committed no action for which they should "accept responsibility".
Throwing out the jury system is not the solution. Throwing out the ability of the lawyers to ensure that nobody with a brain ever sits on a jury is the solution.
I'd like to see a system where the suit _must_ go to trial once brought. The current system is profitable for the plaintiffs because on an individual basis it is cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if the case is winnable.
McDonald=92s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio- mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald=92s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years =97 the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald=92s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald=92s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald=92s employees;
McDonald=92s admitted at trial that its coffee is =93not fit for consumption=94 when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck=92s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald=92s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
Moreover, the Shriner=92s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above
130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald=92s behavior =93callous.=94
Pretty damning. The part where McD admitted that the coffee was not fit for consumption as served because it was so hot, is particularly interesting. As is that their coffee was 30 - 40 deg hotter than similar establishments in the area, and that was by their own survey.
I've been on juries, gone through the selection process. People get tossed for a wide variety of reasons. And the resulting jury appeared in every way as educated as the starting pool.
# # They certainly did. The basic facts: # # McDonald?s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its # coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit; # # Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the # worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
Yes but normal sane people do not go around putting cups of hot coffee between their legs in a car There is no reason for Macdonals to be responsible for THAT STUPID ACTION (Except in the minds of children - who are not responsible)
# # The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio- # mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this # risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on # burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the # specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
And who defined the Chairman of the Dept of Mech Eng. at the U of Texas as an arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable harm ?
# #McDonald?s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns # from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years ? the risk was # brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to # no avail;
And ?
Repeating yourself like a parrot just makes you a parrot
Their manual is in accordance with the ANSI standard for coffee brewing and with the standards of the Specialty Coffee Association of America. The simple fact is that certain kinds of food are hot enough to harm you.
The jury heard ALL the evidence. Including McDonalds own survey that showed it's competitors were serving coffee that is 30 -40 deg cooler. And McD own admission at trial that the coffee, as served was unfit for human consumption. The jury decided. You and McD lost. Live with it.
Yet, you refuse to show a shred of evidence or information to support your side of the debate. You, instead, choose call me names like an adolescent child. You have nothing to offer but ignorance and ad hominem dribble. Congratulations, you win.
Moron, others have posted the specifications for brewed coffee. I suppose you would believe them if I posted them? You didn't understand the first time so there's little hope you would the tenth.
Winnning anything from a complete moron isn't very fulfilling.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.