(08-23-2018 11:33 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 01:39 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I use "business leaders" in place of conservatives because there is absolutely nothing conservative about trying to limit juries.

The English system of law developed the citizen jury as a check on the power of the monarch and the nobles (ie. large landholders).

We adopted the jury as a check on the power of the state government and Federal government as well as a check on the power of the wealthy.

Trying to undermine the power of the jury is in no way a conservative value. Interestingly in Libertarian thought, the jury is the substitute for many powers of the government.

When the day came that juries started awarding "damages" in the millions because some old bag spilled coffee in her lap, THAT was when juries needed to be limited.

When society crossed the line and decided to "stick it" to corporations and business because "they can afford it" is when juries needed to be limited.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-mo...ttlements/

Maybe if people wouldn't file (and win) frivolous lawsuits, we wouldn't need tort reform.

Amazes me people still buy into the coffee bull****.

Facts of the case were simple.
1. McDonalds set the temperature of the coffee higher than the manufacturer's recommendation because the McDonald's position was people want to buy crazy hot coffee and not drink it UNTIL they get to work or home.
2. Despite their assertion nobody wanted to drink McDonald's coffee while driving, their own market research revealed virtually all coffee customers did in fact drink it while driving.
3. McDonalds had numerous employees injured including some needing skin grafts from the ridiculously hot coffee and didn't give a ****.
4. Despite knowing and not caring that many people had been previously SERIOUSLY injured they rejected the plaintiff's request to pay her medical bills which had included skin grafts.
5. After the jury got the full range of evidence they logically concluded that McDonalds was well aware that they had injured numerous people and said eff em.

Facts or an opinion of what a "fact" really is?

The ideal temperature to brew coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees, just below boiling, so YES, coffee is HOT. If the manufacturer's recommendation was in that range, even if McDonalds brewed slightly above that, it would only be a few degrees. Since the coffee wasn't boiling, that would leave 6 degrees on the high end. HARDLY negligent.

The idea that people can be reckless and irresponsible then turn around and "sue" is ridiculous. If that lady couldn't figure out that coffee is hot, how is that McDonald's fault?

But that's just ONE example, idiotic juries award outrageous awards ever year. Juries have the duty to assign financial awards for pain & suffering, perhaps some punitive damages as well, it is NOT their place to "show em".

So you are an eastern logic post-modernist that thinks facts vary by person and place rather than a western logic adherent believing facts are fixed and knowable?

Facts are things that can be established and verified and the fact is McDonalds knew that they had injured several customers and quite a few employees serving coffee at a temperature that would cause third degree burns. You almost certainly could go dump the coffee from your home maker on you and not require skin grafts.

Maybe you'd rather the government just step in regulate this.