IP: comment on A bit of "humor"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

For IP if you like.

Dave-Based on other postings, it appears most of these purported
judgments in favor of plaintiffs are false. But I do know something
about the REAL NM case involving McDonalds and find the repeated
case-bashing I see (not just in this attempt at humor) as feeding the
"tort reform" arguments that amount to little more than calls for
liability shields for corporations that repeatedly sell harmful
products.

At trial it was shown that McDonalds coffee has injured many people,
and many people had sued over their injuries and put Mc. on notice
that
the temperature is a problem for some people. McDonalds knew this
but
chose to continue to put the product out as always because the
profits
from coffee are huge. THe verdict amount was based on the profit
McDonalds receives from less than a single day of coffee sales.

In the U.S. we generally rely on tort cases to reign in and deter the
most rapacious conduct of America's corporations. The McDonalds
verdict came from a jury that heard the evidence and argument and was
instructed by a judge in a manner consistent with controlling law. The
utter disrespect for the jury system and results reached by juries (in
this
case McDonalds of course help select the jury) the "weird lawsuit"
posting demonstates is appalling. I also wonder why everyone loves to
slam the jury in the McDonalds case but when it comes to the MS case
its
ok to champion one judge's view of what is quite obviously one of the
most successful companies and products of the last century. Seems
IP'ers want their burns salved by a lawsuit too.



For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/