From: Camp, Christopher (CCamp@omm.com)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 15:41:20 MDT
RE: Coffee Spill Case - I don't intend to focus on whether or not she
deserved the money that she got but rather on how we come to our decisions
and what weight we give to our beliefs. When the coffee verdict first came
out I ardently sided with McDonald's. All relevant information came via
major newspapers (USA Today, LA Times, etc...), the major television news
outlets (CNN, local and national news), friends and family. All available
fact and opinion pointed to the stupidity of jurors, the audacity of Granny
Liebeck, the grifting of McDonalds and the total failure of our justice
system.
In retrospect I feel I was overconfident in my decision. I would often cite
this case as evidence of the problems with our world - now I feel that it is
more likely the case that I was citing my own ignorance. In the decade or
so since the verdict was handed down I have found some more inforamtion on
the case that has changed my view. I am not going to fall prey to the
dogmatic belief that got me in trouble before. I am simply not sure of what
happened in this case - I was not at the trial, I was not in the car at the
time of the spill, I was not in the doctors office during the Liebeck
examination nor am I trained to judge the severity of burns - in sum I am in
a poor position to come to an absolute conclusion. Which one of us here is
in a good position to come to any absolute conclusion beyond "cogito ergo
sum"? My personal history has taught me that my ability to distinguish truth
from falsity is quite far from 100%. Human history has given us reason to
apply this logic at an aggregate level. When we are oversure we become
attached to individual ideas and systems of thought that we may not always
wish to be tied to. Here are some google results on the coffee case...
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
http://www.cooter-ulen.com/tort_liability.htm#McDonald's%20Coffee%20Case
http://www.corleyganem.com/summation.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lorrey [mailto:mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:09 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: murderers (was: Re: MicroSoft as Slave Master?)
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 11:40 pm, Damien
> Broderick wrote:
> > BTW, I like your idea that citizens should be able
> to challenge
> > rejection
> > from jury service.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.
> When picking out
> juries, we are more concerned with the defendant's
> right to a jury of
> their peers. There is no right to serve on a jury
> just because one
> wants to. In the case where the defendant doesn't
> want a particular
> juror, we err on the side of dismissing the juror.
If a defendant wants a jury of his or her peers, they
(the jurors) should all be exactly what s/he pretends
to be if s/he is pleading innocent and claiming to be
an upstanding law abiding citizen: well groomed,
gainfully employed, educated, intelligent, involved
citizens who understand what the law is and means.
If I am that sort of person, neither side should have
any excuse or ability to reject me unless they can
show that I am prejudicial to the case.
This is EXACTLY what a jury of one's peers is.
If this were how it were done, OJ would never have
gotten off, and granny wouldn't have gotten $6 million
for spilling mcdonalds coffee in her own lap.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:48 MST