LIABILITY


jstanton@...
 

Dean,

You missed the most ridiculous one of all. A woman in Texas spilt
hot coffee on herself at McDonalds and got a multi-million dollar
settlement! Now McDonalds dont serve their coffee hot enough and
include a warning on the cup about the hazards of hot coffee!

The most ridiculous product liability judgements come from provincial
courts and juries carefully selected by the lawyers who know that a
jury (not a Judge) in that area would always rule against a big
corporation, regardless of the merit of the case. A modern form of
highway robbery.

I cannot imagine someone who has the wit to purchase a classic
instrument and repair it would be dishonest enough to lodge a product
liability claim if they got zapped because of their own carelessness.

John Stanton


Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

John,

There is enough dishonesty around to sprinkle some of it even on this
esteemed group of classic instrument owners.

But that is not the point. From a stand point of a company, the gospel is
what their counsel on payroll or more likely the one on retainer tells them;
retained counsel is usually believed more because he costs more. It seems to
be a matter of pride among lawyers to come up with worst case scenario,
regardless of probability of event. The law profession seems to be still at
the level of worst case, instead of risk evaluation, as it is done by
insurance companies. Considering that fees relate to the scare instilled in
client, a more appropriate name for lawyers might be fear mongers. For same
reason, level of fees, it is quite likely that sticking to worst case
scenario will perpetuate.

You are quite right about selection of jury. I understand that it is a
matter of ranking among lawyers who managed to empanel most stupid jury. I
do not know how it is up in Canada, but down here federal government does
not allow cases against it to be tried in jury trials.

I understand that case against McDonalds, coffee etc., was appealed and
overturned. But still, cost of appeal might have come close to couple of
millions, not too short of judgement. The changes in coffee temperature and
printed warnings are just preventive measures for future cases, advised by a
highly paid counsel on retainer, no doubt.


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: jstanton@viacognis.com
[mailto:jstanton@viacognis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:56 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TekScopes] LIABILITY

Dean,

You missed the most ridiculous one of all. A woman in Texas
spilt
hot coffee on herself at McDonalds and got a multi-million
dollar
settlement! Now McDonalds dont serve their coffee hot
enough and
include a warning on the cup about the hazards of hot
coffee!

The most ridiculous product liability judgements come from
provincial
courts and juries carefully selected by the lawyers who know
that a
jury (not a Judge) in that area would always rule against a
big
corporation, regardless of the merit of the case. A modern
form of
highway robbery.

I cannot imagine someone who has the wit to purchase a
classic
instrument and repair it would be dishonest enough to lodge
a product
liability claim if they got zapped because of their own
carelessness.

John Stanton


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Miroslav Pokorni <mpokorni@...>
 

Point well made (and taken). It did start as an outgrowth of pros and cons
for Tektronix to grant copyright license, but it turned out to a tangential
shot.


Regards

Miroslav Pokorni

-----Original Message-----
From: david@slack.com [mailto:david@slack.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:01 AM
To: TekScopes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TekScopes] LIABILITY

I don't know why we have to discuss this on the TekScopes
list when there
are so many more appropriate places.

But, for those who want the details of the McDonald's
scalding coffee case,
see:

http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht

Also of interest:

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/lawsuits.htm


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TekScopes-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


david@...
 

I don't know why we have to discuss this on the TekScopes list when there
are so many more appropriate places.

But, for those who want the details of the McDonald's scalding coffee case,
see:

http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht

Also of interest:

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/lawsuits.htm