jack0177057
08-12-2009, 08:50 AM
I see both sides of the McD's.
The McDonald's case seem ridiculous until you learn the background and the purpose of the verdict. The case was used to punish McDonald's, not just for this once instance, but for a history of greed and neglect. It just happened that this one plaintiff got the windfall because the other plaintiffs settled for much less.
McDonalds had coffee machines that were substantially hotter than any other fast food restaurant and people were getting serious burns, specially kids (because they spill everything) and old people (because their hands tremble). When the infamous case went to trial, there had already been many settled lawsuits and claims by hospitalized burn victims, but McDonalds had done a simple cost analysis -- it was cheaper to pay the burn victims a few thousand dollars a piece, than to replace all the coffee machines at every restaurant... All this was mentioned to the jury during trial, and the jury was outraged.
So, how do you punish McDonalds and throw a monkey wrench into its callous "cost analysis" way of doing business? What amount of money would cause the chain restaurant to take notice and become more conscientious of customer safety? The sum that the jury decided to impose on McDonald's as its "punishment" was the amount of profits that McDonalds makes in ONE DAY! Imagine sending a lot of people to the hospital burn unit (when it was preventable) during the course of several years and your only punishment for doing this is losing one day's pay!
The case wasn't really about compensation for spilled coffee. Rather, it was about punishing irresponsible corporation greed that places profits ahead of customer safety. But, the tort-reform people quickly hijacked it and turned into their poster child.
I think if I guy gets out of line, the dancer absolutely should strike back. I bet it was more than a slap on the butt to get a shoe to the head, too.
A case like this will be decided by a jury and the make-up of the jury will be the determining factor... If the jury is composed of ignorant people that believe that a dancer puts herself in a position where she will be sexually assaulted and can't complain about it, there will be a big verdicts against the dancer and the club. If the jury is composed of more sophisticated people who see dancing as legitimate entertainment which does not justify unwanted attacks by customers, then the customer might lose... Jury "selection" will probably decide the case, even before it is argued to them.
This is probably not as bad as it sounds for the dancer, though... Many states have exempt property laws, which protects your home (and its contents) and one car from judgments. Unless she has rental property, business property or several cars, etc., she will probably not lose anything. As far as avoiding a ridiculous judgment following her around for the rest of her life, she can simply file for bankruptcy to get it discharged.
The McDonald's case seem ridiculous until you learn the background and the purpose of the verdict. The case was used to punish McDonald's, not just for this once instance, but for a history of greed and neglect. It just happened that this one plaintiff got the windfall because the other plaintiffs settled for much less.
McDonalds had coffee machines that were substantially hotter than any other fast food restaurant and people were getting serious burns, specially kids (because they spill everything) and old people (because their hands tremble). When the infamous case went to trial, there had already been many settled lawsuits and claims by hospitalized burn victims, but McDonalds had done a simple cost analysis -- it was cheaper to pay the burn victims a few thousand dollars a piece, than to replace all the coffee machines at every restaurant... All this was mentioned to the jury during trial, and the jury was outraged.
So, how do you punish McDonalds and throw a monkey wrench into its callous "cost analysis" way of doing business? What amount of money would cause the chain restaurant to take notice and become more conscientious of customer safety? The sum that the jury decided to impose on McDonald's as its "punishment" was the amount of profits that McDonalds makes in ONE DAY! Imagine sending a lot of people to the hospital burn unit (when it was preventable) during the course of several years and your only punishment for doing this is losing one day's pay!
The case wasn't really about compensation for spilled coffee. Rather, it was about punishing irresponsible corporation greed that places profits ahead of customer safety. But, the tort-reform people quickly hijacked it and turned into their poster child.
I think if I guy gets out of line, the dancer absolutely should strike back. I bet it was more than a slap on the butt to get a shoe to the head, too.
A case like this will be decided by a jury and the make-up of the jury will be the determining factor... If the jury is composed of ignorant people that believe that a dancer puts herself in a position where she will be sexually assaulted and can't complain about it, there will be a big verdicts against the dancer and the club. If the jury is composed of more sophisticated people who see dancing as legitimate entertainment which does not justify unwanted attacks by customers, then the customer might lose... Jury "selection" will probably decide the case, even before it is argued to them.
This is probably not as bad as it sounds for the dancer, though... Many states have exempt property laws, which protects your home (and its contents) and one car from judgments. Unless she has rental property, business property or several cars, etc., she will probably not lose anything. As far as avoiding a ridiculous judgment following her around for the rest of her life, she can simply file for bankruptcy to get it discharged.