Re: The McDonald's incident

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

        I guess physics teachers can be as knee-jerk as anyone else.

        Is our society "litigation-crazed"?  Most court cases involve
divorce and drug prosecutions.  Lawyers cannot afford to take contingent
fee cases unless there is a good prospect of recovery.

        Was the plaintiff in the McD's case primarily responsible for her
own injury?  What evidence was presented on this point and how was the
jury instructed?  Juries, in my experience, have little patience with
careless plaintiffs, and most states limit or bar recovery by persons who
negligently contribute to their own injuries.

        Were the damages excessive?  The purpose of punitive damages is to
deter conduct that is deemed to be dangerous to  the public.  How much
does it take to deter a corporation like McDonald's?

                                        Regards,
                                                Jack

Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Rick Tarara wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Craigen" <dcc@ESCAPE.CA>
> To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: The McDonald's incident
>
>
> > The size of the damages was quite likely unreasonable - but that does
> > not make this case stand out - the reason people ridicule the case is
> > they think of the last time they had coffee spilled on themself or saw
> > it spilled on someone else.  People are careless in their handling of
> > coffee precisely because years of experience has shown them it might
> > sting a bit, but nobody gets seriously hurt.  The fact that so few
> > people stop to even consider that she might have been seriously hurt
> > shows how deeply ingrained this expectation is.   The fact is that the
> > restaurant knew that their coffee was hotter than normal - enough to
> > cause serious injury - and "everybody knows" that coffee spills are
> > commonplace.  It seems pretty straightforward then that they should have
> > expected their temperature choice would eventually cause serious
> > injury.  This is far from the worst thing a restaurant has ever done,
> > but I think a lawsuit of some kind against them is not a cause for
> > ridicule.
>
> If an employee at McDs spills hot coffee on you and you are seriously
> injured, then fine--sue.  But if you spill the coffee on yourself (stupidly
> trying to drink it in motion-- probably) then it is your fault!  It's
> something called 'personal responsibility', a concept that has been all but
> lost in our litigation crazed society.  Our foolishness and stupidity must
> always be blamed on someone else.  For these reasons the McDs case is quite
> worthy of ridicule no matter how hot the coffee actually was.
>
> Rick
>
> **************************************************
> Richard W. Tarara
> Associate Professor of Physics
> Department of Chemistry & Physics
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> 219-284-4664
> rtarara@saintmarys.edu
>
> Free Physics Instructional Software
> www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara
>
> Win9.x, WinNT/2000,  Win3.x, Dos, Mac, and PowerMac
> New:  World Energy Simulator, New Animated Chalkboard package
> Windows and Mac CD-ROMs  now available.
> ****************************************************