From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Aug 04 2002 - 11:01:29 MDT
On Saturday 03 August 2002 11:26, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Christopher writes
>
> > RE: Coffee Spill Case...
> >
> > 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.
>
> I would say that you were citing the case as a specific example of
> a general trend that you were afraid was occurring, a surmise on
> your part doubtless backed by explanations of (how you think) the
> world works, and other good arguments. Maybe you weren't wrong.
>....
> Lee
>
> 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
I wasn't there either, but judging by the newspaper stories circulating at the
time, the award was partially justified, and partially punitive. But the
case *sounds* so silly, that people keep picking it up as an example of a bad
judgement. It doesn't seem to have been one.
Now the judgement I would pick is the burglar who fell through a school
skylight, and then sued the school for damages. And won. This happened in
San Francisco shortly before the MacDonald's coffee case. (I think.) That
decision never made any sense at all to me, but I believe that it stood. And
i don't think the guy was even convicted of a crime. (Maybe tresspass.)
After all, he never got around to breaking in, in any conventional sense.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:53 MST