Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
The thing that bothers me when I encounter reports of cases like these is the notion that, while a corporation like McDonalds can easily afford to pay out millions in damages, a mom-and-pop eatery cannot. Similarly, McDonalds has the organizational power to ensure that its products are proof against the unpredictable behaviour of its patrons, a mom-and-pop eatery does not. If the rulings in these cases represent simple precedents the result can only be to create an environment in which mom-and-pop eateries cannot operate and which definitely favours the McDonaldses of the world. However, the facts of the matter seem to suggest that these are not simple precedents but that some cognizance is taken of the relative power of the parties involved. (In my experience the remarkable thing about legal systems, however flawed they are, is how often they are perfectly sane and rational.) Contrary to popular belief, what is legally sauce for mom-and-pop eateries is not sauce for McDonalds; and if this means one law for the former and another for the latter, that is all to the good. One law for the lion and ox, said William Blake, is tyranny. It is certainly tyranny if mom-and-pop eateries were treated like McDonalds. But it would be tyranny too if McDonalds were treated like a mom-and-pop eatery, out of the old failure to see the difference between human beings (like Mom and Pop) and corporations. Keith has never tired of saying that corporations have more human rights than human beings do, and I hope he never does unless we are so fortunate that it ceases to be true. In this sense, the sort of tort reform that is proposed seems to approach a real problem from precisely the wrong end. There is a definite advantage in litigation if, as it seems to be, it is an alternative to regulation. It is better to rap McDonalds over their knuckles, sending out a message to those selling coffee to be careful (in proportion, of course, to who they are), than to require the abovementioned eateries to file reports about men who come around with clip-boards and thermometers, on top of everything else they have to do to survive. I would like to see a society in which all people take greater responsibility for themselves. To me this is a spiritual thing, linked to my own adulthood, moral agency, and consummateness as a human being. Though there are those for whom the ability to cast off responsibility is a luxury to be relished greatly, I cannot understand them: that is a slave's attitude. But if I wish that people take up responsibility readily it is necessary that taking up such responsibility be a reasonable thing to do. That means a world that is technologically understandable and a population that is educated in the range of technologies they need to use. Herein lies one more sense of the word appropriate in appropriate technology. For instance, the systemics of the Western living environment require that motor vehicles be operated by people who neither understand nor have the inclination to learn about the basics of the Otto cycle. Instead of making cars idiot-proof (and consequently technologically opaque) we should be making cars unnecessary (and moreover technologically open), so that those who do operate them may reasonably be expected to know a thing or two about them, enough that they may take responsibility with confidence. This seems to me a precondition for the sort of society of local producer-consumers, in which both power and risk is widely distributed, that a sustainable economic system would require. -Dawie - Original Message From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, 1 October, 2007 3:12:30 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch Bob Molloy wrote: Hi All, S,funny, I asked a question on hydropower last week and immediately had four very helpful answers. I followed that up with a query on a subject which has long puzzled me and got clobbered. Granted, it was political dynamite but we're all grown up here, right? Right? Anyho, just for the Weaver Bird and those feeling similarly aggrieved, here is an olive branch Subject: Stella Awards According to the Stella Awards website, Here are the Stella's for the past year: 7TH PLACE: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 Fabricated, a HOAX 6TH PLACE: Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus Fabricated, a HOAX 5TH PLACE: Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, Fabricated, a HOAX 4TH PLACE: Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place i Fabricated, a HOAX 3RD PLACE: Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Fabricated, a HOAX 2ND PLACE: Kara Walton, of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner o Fabricated, a HOAX 1ST PLACE: (fanfare on 50 kazoos) This year's runaway
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
should be making cars unnecessary (and moreover technologically open), so that those who do operate them may reasonably be expected to know a thing or two about them, enough that they may take responsibility with confidence. Not just cars. Things aren't fixable anymore, not for the last 30 years or so. It's usually cheaper to replace them than to repair them, and if they can be repaired, it'll just be the faulty parts that are replaced, not fixed. This trend seems to have accompanied the rise of the silicon chip in manufacturing, and been accompanied by the disappearance of people with the ability to fix things, or even the necessary outlook, the idea that things might be fixable. No more fettlers. Often broken gear could be fixed, but it doesn't happen. Again, very expensive in eco-costs. This seems to me a precondition for the sort of society of local producer-consumers, in which both power and risk is widely distributed, that a sustainable economic system would require. Indeed. Anyway, would a mom-and-pop eatery actually be able to produce 190-degree coffee? I sure can't, my coffee-maker makes it about 150 I think. That it was a drive-thru McDonalds rather underlines your point, or several of them. Drive away, customer, get lost, with any luck we'll never see you again so why should we care, but a mom-and-pop eatery probably deals with locals and regulars more than anyone else, and such a case as Stella Liebeck's is most unlikely to arise in the first place. All best Keith -Dawie - Original Message From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, 1 October, 2007 3:12:30 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch Bob Molloy wrote: Hi All, S,funny, I asked a question on hydropower last week and immediately had four very helpful answers. I followed that up with a query on a subject which has long puzzled me and got clobbered. Granted, it was political dynamite but we're all grown up here, right? Right? Anyho, just for the Weaver Bird and those feeling similarly aggrieved, here is an olive branch Subject: Stella Awards According to the Stella Awards website, Here are the Stella's for the past year: 7TH PLACE: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 Fabricated, a HOAX 6TH PLACE: Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus Fabricated, a HOAX 5TH PLACE: Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, Fabricated, a HOAX 4TH PLACE: Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place i Fabricated, a HOAX 3RD PLACE: Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Fabricated, a HOAX 2ND PLACE: Kara Walton, of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner o Fabricated, a HOAX 1ST PLACE: (fanfare on 50 kazoos) This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner Always the first place, and a complete fabrication, hoax, and urban legend. I heard this one first back in '77, except then it was a 'custom van' and the driver went to the fridge for a beer. Check your facts please. http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
Bob Molloy wrote: Hi All, S,funny, I asked a question on hydropower last week and immediately had four very helpful answers. I followed that up with a query on a subject which has long puzzled me and got clobbered. Granted, it was political dynamite but we're all grown up here, right? Right? Anyho, just for the Weaver Bird and those feeling similarly aggrieved, here is an olive branch Subject: Stella Awards According to the Stella Awards website, Here are the Stella's for the past year: 7TH PLACE: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 Fabricated, a HOAX 6TH PLACE: Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus Fabricated, a HOAX 5TH PLACE: Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, Fabricated, a HOAX 4TH PLACE: Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place i Fabricated, a HOAX 3RD PLACE: Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Fabricated, a HOAX 2ND PLACE: Kara Walton, of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner o Fabricated, a HOAX 1ST PLACE: (fanfare on 50 kazoos) This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner Always the first place, and a complete fabrication, hoax, and urban legend. I heard this one first back in '77, except then it was a 'custom van' and the driver went to the fridge for a beer. Check your facts please. http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Olive branch
Hi All, S,funny, I asked a question on hydropower last week and immediately had four very helpful answers. I followed that up with a query on a subject which has long puzzled me and got clobbered. Granted, it was political dynamite but we're all grown up here, right? Right? Anyho, just for the Weaver Bird and those feeling similarly aggrieved, here is an olive branch Subject: Stella Awards Proof of entitlement mentality It's time again for the annual Stella Awards! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico where she purchased the coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy. Here are the Stella's for the past year: 7TH PLACE: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son. 6TH PLACE: Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps. Go ahead, grab your head scratcher. 5TH PLACE: Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish. Keep scratching. There are more... 4TH PLACE: Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun. Gr ... Scratch, scratch. 3RD PLACE: Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her 113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tail bone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions? Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are only two more Stella's to go... 2ND PLACE: Kara Walton, of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000oh, yeah, plus dental expenses. Go figure. 1ST PLACE: (fanfare on 50 kazoos) This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU foot ball game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not stating in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her - are you sitting down - $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago subsequently changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home. Are we, as a society, getting dumber or is it just too much TV?? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
Are we, as a society, getting dumber or is it just too much TV?? Too much TV, including you Bob, apparently. Your Stella Awards are a vicious bit of pro-corporate anti-human spin. http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp Urban Legends Reference Pages: Stella Awards Stella Awards Claim: Six outrageous-but-real lawsuits showcase the need for tort reform. Status: False. This below is in the list archives, the facts about the Stella Liebeck case, please read and take note. Best Keith http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785 Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Legal Myths: The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case In 1994 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive- through McDonald's in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks. This infamous case has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and in an instant, the media and legal community were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million, or Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million painted the picture of a runaway jury, an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers' legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a legal myth or a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers. The Facts A detailed look at the facts of this case reveal that in light of McDonalds' actions, the awards were justified: By its own corporate standards, McDonald's sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. Likewise, a scientist testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees. During trial, McDonald's admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's received at least 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks. In addition, many of these claims were settled for up to $500,000. Witnesses for McDonald's testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company's required temperature. McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not. As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years. Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald's about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald's countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer. McDonald's had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck's attorney offered to settle for $300,000. In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000. McDonald's refused all attempts to settle the case. The Findings The jury found that Ms. Liebeck suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck for spilling the coffee. Based on its finding that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily. Since the purposes of awarding punitive damages are to punish the person or company doing the wrongful act and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future, the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person. Punitive damages are supposed to be large enough to send a message to the wrongdoer; limited punitive awards when applied to wealthy
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
Legal Myths: The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case Thanks, Keith, for sharing this information. I have known about the McDonald's coffee case for a long time, but have never bothered to research the details. I agree that the procorporate, antihuman attitude of much of the United States today is appalling. That's why I don't participate in much of mainstream US society. I prefer to keep my transactions at a local, individual level. However, having read the facts of the McDonald's case that you offer, I have to admit that this seems like a clear case of consumers' rights trampling legitimate corporate rights. There is no way that anyone can convince me that a person is only 20% responsible for pouring steaming hot coffee on themselves in their own car. People do not need to be warned that hot coffee will burn you or that a Winnebago might go off the road if you leave the driver's seat at 70 mph. It is perfectly reasonable to assume a minimum level of intelligence of one's customers. The fact that previous burn cases had been settled for up to $500,000 proves nothing about McDonald's negligence. It speaks more to our insurance industry's penchant for settling rather than fighting a solid case. I've seen this personally through friends and family several times. The cases were cut and dried in favor of the defendant, but the insurance companies decided that it would be cheaper to settle than try the case, disregarding the black smudge this places on the defendants' reputations. Additionally, several of the other cases mentioned in Bob's post point out a problem with the US system that is unrelated to the corporate--human discussion. Three of the cases did not involve corporations: the man with the broken hand, the burglar stuck in the garage and the dog bit. In fact, the second-highest award went to the burglar. I guess I'm glad I don't have a garage door opener (or a garage door or garage for that matter). These cases make it clear it is not even safe to mind your own business because someone will come along and sue you anyway. While I don't support many corporate rights, I do think the US legal system needs to be reigned in. John ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
Hello John Legal Myths: The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case Thanks, Keith, for sharing this information. I have known about the McDonald's coffee case for a long time, but have never bothered to research the details. Yes, it's so easy to swallow all these twisted lies without close examination, and the air is thick with them. I agree that the procorporate, antihuman attitude of much of the United States today is appalling. That's why I don't participate in much of mainstream US society. I prefer to keep my transactions at a local, individual level. However, having read the facts of the McDonald's case that you offer, I have to admit that this seems like a clear case of consumers' rights trampling legitimate corporate rights. Corporations have more human rights than you do. Anyway I strongly disagree, please read it again. http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg71128.html Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch There is no way that anyone can convince me that a person is only 20% responsible for pouring steaming hot coffee on themselves in their own car. She was a passenger, not the driver, cars are things that move, the passenger is not in control and cannot be expected to predict how and when the car will move, especially when pulling off, and McDonald's not only knew that, after so many previous cases, they also knew that their coffee was dangerously hot. And they had no explanation or excuse for what can only be termed negligence. Their subsequent behaviour was callous and disgraceful. How can you call that legitimate corporate rights? Stella Liebeck was 79, an old woman, and she was seriously injured. Other casualties were children and infants, are you going to blame them too? Or blame their parents? Why flail about like this when it's altogether obvious who's to blame? They didn't even try to deny it. You present a poor case that ignores most of the explanation I posted. Which I guess is what all the spin and disinfo is intended to accomplish, as indeed it does. All non-hypnotised Americans should be fighting tort reform tooth and nail, for their own sakes and for their communities' and their country's future. And ours too, probably. IMHO. I think you should spend a bit of time at this site that I reffed: http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/ Public Citizen | Tort Law Issues / Debunking Legal Myths - Tort Law Best Keith People do not need to be warned that hot coffee will burn you or that a Winnebago might go off the road if you leave the driver's seat at 70 mph. It is perfectly reasonable to assume a minimum level of intelligence of one's customers. The fact that previous burn cases had been settled for up to $500,000 proves nothing about McDonald's negligence. It speaks more to our insurance industry's penchant for settling rather than fighting a solid case. I've seen this personally through friends and family several times. The cases were cut and dried in favor of the defendant, but the insurance companies decided that it would be cheaper to settle than try the case, disregarding the black smudge this places on the defendants' reputations. Additionally, several of the other cases mentioned in Bob's post point out a problem with the US system that is unrelated to the corporate--human discussion. Three of the cases did not involve corporations: the man with the broken hand, the burglar stuck in the garage and the dog bit. In fact, the second-highest award went to the burglar. I guess I'm glad I don't have a garage door opener (or a garage door or garage for that matter). These cases make it clear it is not even safe to mind your own business because someone will come along and sue you anyway. While I don't support many corporate rights, I do think the US legal system needs to be reigned in. John ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
john, maybe you need to participate a little more because in spite of your current practice you're doing a good job of sounding pretty pro-corporate/anti-human yourself. the jury didn't find her 20% responsible for the spilling. they found that by doing the spilling, she was 20% liable for the damage that resulted. see the distinction? furthermore, she didn't just come along and sue them anyway. and despite the appreciation you express for keith's post, it souods as though you missed the point entirely, which is that you have to take the stellas with a grain of salt. instead you seem to agree with their bogus purpose, and as though to defend them cite several of their own highlighted cases (not going to bother explaining the logical flaw in *that*), apparently without doing any independent checking of the facts behind any of those cases. On 9/30/07, John Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Legal Myths: The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case Thanks, Keith, for sharing this information. I have known about the McDonald's coffee case for a long time, but have never bothered to research the details. I agree that the procorporate, antihuman attitude of much of the United States today is appalling. That's why I don't participate in much of mainstream US society. I prefer to keep my transactions at a local, individual level. However, having read the facts of the McDonald's case that you offer, I have to admit that this seems like a clear case of consumers' rights trampling legitimate corporate rights. There is no way that anyone can convince me that a person is only 20% responsible for pouring steaming hot coffee on themselves in their own car. People do not need to be warned that hot coffee will burn you or that a Winnebago might go off the road if you leave the driver's seat at 70 mph. It is perfectly reasonable to assume a minimum level of intelligence of one's customers. The fact that previous burn cases had been settled for up to $500,000 proves nothing about McDonald's negligence. It speaks more to our insurance industry's penchant for settling rather than fighting a solid case. I've seen this personally through friends and family several times. The cases were cut and dried in favor of the defendant, but the insurance companies decided that it would be cheaper to settle than try the case, disregarding the black smudge this places on the defendants' reputations. Additionally, several of the other cases mentioned in Bob's post point out a problem with the US system that is unrelated to the corporate--human discussion. Three of the cases did not involve corporations: the man with the broken hand, the burglar stuck in the garage and the dog bit. In fact, the second-highest award went to the burglar. I guess I'm glad I don't have a garage door opener (or a garage door or garage for that matter). These cases make it clear it is not even safe to mind your own business because someone will come along and sue you anyway. While I don't support many corporate rights, I do think the US legal system needs to be reigned in. John ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
There is no way that anyone can convince me that a person is only 20% responsible for pouring steaming hot coffee on themselves in their own car. She was a passenger, not the driver, cars are things that move, the passenger is not in control and cannot be expected to predict how and when the car will move, especially when pulling off, and McDonald's not only knew that, after so many previous cases, That is exactly my point. She knew that she was sitting in a car that was about to move and yet she chose to put steaming hot coffee in an open container between her legs. That is a blatant disregard for the consequences of her own actions. The only other person that I could see as even remotely responsible for her burns is the driver, her grandson. they also knew that their coffee was dangerously hot. And they had no explanation or excuse for what can only be termed negligence. People like hot coffee. They expect it to stay hot for a long time even when they add cold creamer to it. If I sell you a hammer and you use it to kill someone what is my responsibility? Hammers are just as dangerous as hot coffee. Their subsequent behaviour was callous and disgraceful. How can you call that legitimate corporate rights? The mere suggestion that McDonald's is responsible in any way for Stella's burns is disgraceful. The fact that they offered any payment at all is testament to their generosity. The case should have been thrown out the first day the judge saw it. Stella Liebeck was 79, an old woman, and she was seriously injured. Her age is irrelevant. She should have known better than to put hot coffee between her legs in an open container. If she was not competent to know better, her guardian should have been paying closer attention. I did not see anything in the facts of the case that indicated that McDonald's had been appointed to or accepted that position. Other casualties were children and infants, are you going to blame them too? Or blame their parents? Yes, I blame their parents in normal circumstances. So far, I have not seen anything that puts this or other such cases outside the range of normal. Why flail about like this when it's altogether obvious who's to blame? Exactly. And why did a jury award her anything? You present a poor case that ignores most of the explanation I posted. Which I guess is what all the spin and disinfo is intended to accomplish, as indeed it does. I read your entire post hoping to find something that implicated the defendant. All I found was reverse spin, no better then corporate spin. All non-hypnotised Americans should be fighting tort reform tooth and nail, for their own sakes and for their communities' and their country's future. And ours too, probably. IMHO. Attacking me does not change the facts of this particular case. While I agree with you and ciitzen.org about the value uncapped punitive damage awards in general, I don't agree that they should be applied blindly without regard to the truth. I don't see this as a black-and-white issue (what issue is black and white?). Corporations can be wrong and evil in general and it can still be wrong to hurt any particular corporation for false reasons. Doing so only hurts us and society in general. This whole brouhaha is a case in point. The fact that a jury would award damages for such disregard for one's own personal safety opened up a huge opportunity for the corporate spin doctors to drive another nail in the coffin of unlimited punitive damages. If the only cases awarded such large damages involved at least a modicum of responsibility on the part of the defendant, many fewer people would be taken in by the spin doctors. Additionally, while tort reform is generally understood to refer to limitations on litigation and damages, that is not where I see the problem with the US judicial system. The problem is much deeper and widespread. Tinkering with the fender is not the make the engine run any more smoothly. John ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
john, maybe you need to participate a little more because in spite of your current practice you're doing a good job of sounding pretty pro-corporate/anti-human yourself. Any independent thinker will occasionally do so. The issues our society faces are not nearly as black and white as many people would like us to believe. the jury didn't find her 20% responsible for the spilling. they found that by doing the spilling, she was 20% liable for the damage that resulted. see the distinction? No, I don't see a distinction. The liability flows from the responsibility. If she is 99% responsible and the driver is 1% responsible, how does 80% of the liability land on the bystander? furthermore, she didn't just come along and sue them anyway. and despite the appreciation you express for keith's post, it souods as though you missed the point entirely, which is that you have to take the stellas with a grain of salt. instead you seem to agree with their bogus purpose, and as though to defend them cite several of their own highlighted cases (not going to bother explaining the logical flaw in *that*), apparently without doing any independent checking of the facts behind any of those cases. I don't need to do any independent checking of those particular cases. They could be completely fabricated for all I care. They are merely symbolic of the issue I wanted to bring up. I have experienced that issue directly through my friends and family, but it is easier to discuss the hypothetical cases already mentioned on this list than to go into the details of other cases. John ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
John There is no way that anyone can convince me that a person is only 20% responsible for pouring steaming hot coffee on themselves in their own car. She was a passenger, not the driver, cars are things that move, the passenger is not in control and cannot be expected to predict how and when the car will move, especially when pulling off, and McDonald's not only knew that, after so many previous cases, That is exactly my point. She knew that she was sitting in a car that was about to move and yet she chose to put steaming hot coffee in an open container between her legs. That is a blatant disregard for the consequences of her own actions. The only other person that I could see as even remotely responsible for her burns is the driver, her grandson. they also knew that their coffee was dangerously hot. And they had no explanation or excuse for what can only be termed negligence. People like hot coffee. They expect it to stay hot for a long time even when they add cold creamer to it. If I sell you a hammer and you use it to kill someone what is my responsibility? Hammers are just as dangerous as hot coffee. Your comparison is not a good one. To make it an apt comparison, you'd have to make it a hammer with a concealed break in the handle, and the hammer supplied in good faith for use in a crowded room. snip I read your entire post hoping to find something that implicated the defendant. All I found was reverse spin, no better then corporate spin. All non-hypnotised Americans should be fighting tort reform tooth and nail, for their own sakes and for their communities' and their country's future. And ours too, probably. IMHO. Attacking me does not change the facts of this particular case. I didn't attack you, but now I will. You're leaving out essential factors, ignoring them not once, but at least twice. You're being disingenuous, to say the least. That's enough thankyou. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
There is no excuse to serve 190 degree coffee. It is an accident looking for a place to happen. Whats more it was a matter of history that others had been injured by this negligent business practice. If it were up to me I would have fined them 50 million and made some of the funds available to other victims. No one who cares about others hands them a drink that can cause almost instant burns. John Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no way that anyone can convince me that a person is only 20% responsible for pouring steaming hot coffee on themselves in their own car. She was a passenger, not the driver, cars are things that move, the passenger is not in control and cannot be expected to predict how and when the car will move, especially when pulling off, and McDonald's not only knew that, after so many previous cases, That is exactly my point. She knew that she was sitting in a car that was about to move and yet she chose to put steaming hot coffee in an open container between her legs. That is a blatant disregard for the consequences of her own actions. The only other person that I could see as even remotely responsible for her burns is the driver, her grandson. they also knew that their coffee was dangerously hot. And they had no explanation or excuse for what can only be termed negligence. People like hot coffee. They expect it to stay hot for a long time even when they add cold creamer to it. If I sell you a hammer and you use it to kill someone what is my responsibility? Hammers are just as dangerous as hot coffee. Their subsequent behaviour was callous and disgraceful. How can you call that legitimate corporate rights? The mere suggestion that McDonald's is responsible in any way for Stella's burns is disgraceful. The fact that they offered any payment at all is testament to their generosity. The case should have been thrown out the first day the judge saw it. Stella Liebeck was 79, an old woman, and she was seriously injured. Her age is irrelevant. She should have known better than to put hot coffee between her legs in an open container. If she was not competent to know better, her guardian should have been paying closer attention. I did not see anything in the facts of the case that indicated that McDonald's had been appointed to or accepted that position. Other casualties were children and infants, are you going to blame them too? Or blame their parents? Yes, I blame their parents in normal circumstances. So far, I have not seen anything that puts this or other such cases outside the range of normal. Why flail about like this when it's altogether obvious who's to blame? Exactly. And why did a jury award her anything? You present a poor case that ignores most of the explanation I posted. Which I guess is what all the spin and disinfo is intended to accomplish, as indeed it does. I read your entire post hoping to find something that implicated the defendant. All I found was reverse spin, no better then corporate spin. All non-hypnotised Americans should be fighting tort reform tooth and nail, for their own sakes and for their communities' and their country's future. And ours too, probably. IMHO. Attacking me does not change the facts of this particular case. While I agree with you and ciitzen.org about the value uncapped punitive damage awards in general, I don't agree that they should be applied blindly without regard to the truth. I don't see this as a black-and-white issue (what issue is black and white?). Corporations can be wrong and evil in general and it can still be wrong to hurt any particular corporation for false reasons. Doing so only hurts us and society in general. This whole brouhaha is a case in point. The fact that a jury would award damages for such disregard for one's own personal safety opened up a huge opportunity for the corporate spin doctors to drive another nail in the coffin of unlimited punitive damages. If the only cases awarded such large damages involved at least a modicum of responsibility on the part of the defendant, many fewer people would be taken in by the spin doctors. Additionally, while tort reform is generally understood to refer to limitations on litigation and damages, that is not where I see the problem with the US judicial system. The problem is much deeper and widespread. Tinkering with the fender is not the make the engine run any more smoothly. John ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
