Perhaps the Jury System is flawed after all

RonBoyd

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
6,259
Location
Denver, Colorado
Yeah, I know. I don't have all (if any) of the facts but this dropped my jaw.

Montana jury finds H&B at fault in baseball bat lawsuit

In any event, I suspect that The Consumerist captures the essence of what happened:

I imagine it went down like this: One night over drinks, a couple lawyers got together and started one-upping one another with crazy boasts. At the end of the night, one of them said, "Dude, I could sue Louisville Slugger for making baseball bats. And win!"

The other lawyer thought this was ludicrous and bet him that he couldn't. Well, the other lawyer lost that bet.
 
This decision is crazy! :nonono:
Why stop there? Sue the baseball and glove manufacturers too. :mad:

Um...aren't liability waivers (for injuries) signed when kids participate in team sports ?
 
Um...aren't liability waivers (for injuries) signed when kids participate in team sports ?
Yes, generally so, but:

1) Those are generally to indemnify the sports league and the folks associated with it -- not the equipment makers.

2) Juries are largely free to ignore the waivers if they see fit. Judges sometimes have the authority to overrule an obviously flawed verdict, but in reality they rarely do.
 
Hmf. Never underestimate human stupidity. I like the one about the dolt who tried to use a lawn mower as a hedge trimmer and then sued Briggs & Stratton when he cut his fingers off. B&S didn't even make the lawn mower, only the engine on it.

That's why you see such strange labels on lawn mowers and other power equipment saying "Do not use as a potato peeler."
 
Hmf. Never underestimate human stupidity. I like the one about the dolt who tried to use a lawn mower as a hedge trimmer and then sued Briggs & Stratton when he cut his fingers off. B&S didn't even make the lawn mower, only the engine on it.

That's why you see such strange labels on lawn mowers and other power equipment saying "Do not use as a potato peeler."

snopes.com: Lawn Mower as Hedge Trimmer
 
I'm generally not one in favor of nanny-statism nor the legal system run amok, but there may be something to this. These newer aluminum bats are capable of creating tremendous speeds, significantly faster than what you would get off a wooden bat or even the older aluminum bats. I remember a co-worker who was a softball player talking about how he was saving up the money to buy one a few years ago after borrowing one during a game (they were $300-400). He did admit that they were at least a little scary to play against in the infield because the speeds coming off of them cut reaction time to almost nothing.

I used to deride the jury system over cases like the often cited McDonald's coffee burn case, then I read the facts and rethought that.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
 
The outcome of the aluminum bats case may have more to do with the quality and effectiveness of the lawyers than the jury system.
 
The outcome of the aluminum bats case may have more to do with the quality and effectiveness of the lawyers than the jury system.
Not only that, but the plaintiffs claim they want to outlaw aluminum bats or some such. This gives me a couple of talking points:

1 -- if that is the goal and it wasn't "about the money," can I assume the entire reward (less the huge chunk going to the lawyers) is going to some charity that is working toward that end? If not, then claims that it's "not about the money" ring very hollow.

2 -- So we go back to wooden bats, then what? A repeat of what happened in 1976 with Dodgers catcher Steve Yeager, who was struck in the neck and almost killed by shrapnel from an exploding wooden bat? Then we sue wooden bat makers?

I'm actually fairly neutral about the issue of aluminum bats and I don't much care whether they are or are not "banned" by leagues in play. But that doesn't mean I support junk lawsuits. And I think giving several hundred thousand as "lost wages" for an 18-year-old who wasn't supporting anyone is ridiculous, too. If he left a family behind who was reliant on his current and future earning potential -- or if he were merely injured to the point where he could no longer work to take care of himself for life -- I might think differently.
 
Last edited:
I used to deride the jury system over cases like the often cited McDonald's coffee burn case, then I read the facts and rethought that.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

I agree that this McDonald's coffee case is not as ridiculous as it is usually made out to be (surprising to some, considering my strong libertarian leanings?).

But McD is a big company that is doing this thousands of times each day. They ought to take proper precautions. Handing off a boiling hot cup of liquid to someone behind the wheel and effectively saying "deal with it" is not being responsible, IMO. As you can see from the evidence, that cup of hot liquid *is* dangerous. It's not a joke.

If I go to a kitchen supply store and buy a big razor sharp knife, I know it is dangerous and I should have a reasonable expectation that the store will package it up properly for the trip home. If the check out person just threw it at me and said "catch", that would be irresponsible. That is pretty much what McD does at the drive up window thousands of times each day. Irresponsible on their part, IMO.

-ERD50
 
I agree that this McDonald's coffee case is not as ridiculous as it is usually made out to be (surprising to some, considering my strong libertarian leanings?).

-ERD50

Though the gumment nanny has run amok, it's worth remembering that many of these safety, environmental, and finanacial regulations came about because businesses, and individuals, were not willing to use common sense/decency...

Of course, in order for democracy and capitalism to work, there has to be some responsibility attached to "freedom"... Too bad it seems to be in short supply...
 
Beware of taking the chain of responsability too far, and suing left and right. Otherwise in an adultery case we´ll end up suing the carpenter that made the bed.....
 
I agree that this McDonald's coffee case is not as ridiculous as it is usually made out to be (surprising to some, considering my strong libertarian leanings?).

But McD is a big company that is doing this thousands of times each day. They ought to take proper precautions. Handing off a boiling hot cup of liquid to someone behind the wheel and effectively saying "deal with it" is not being responsible, IMO. As you can see from the evidence, that cup of hot liquid *is* dangerous. It's not a joke.

If I go to a kitchen supply store and buy a big razor sharp knife, I know it is dangerous and I should have a reasonable expectation that the store will package it up properly for the trip home. If the check out person just threw it at me and said "catch", that would be irresponsible. That is pretty much what McD does at the drive up window thousands of times each day. Irresponsible on their part, IMO.

-ERD50


I am more on McDs side.... this was not her first cup of coffee from them... so she had reason to know that it was HOT... hotter than others.. in fact, that is why people bought from them... she opened it up while holding it between her knees (not sure if her knees were holding it or not, but that is what I remember reading back when)...

Now reading what was provided, she was in the coffee for a long time.. so even less hot coffee would have caused problems... she still would have been burned badly... so what temperature is liable and what is not...


As far as the current lawsuit... I do agree that they should not have won.. why not sure the guy who HIT the ball, since it was him that caused the problem.... (and where was he hit? in the head? the heart? both can kill)... and finally for me... how do we know that even with a wooden bat he would not have been killed:confused:


If there are newer bats that make the ball faster, then the leagues can 'ban' those bats... if you get caught with one, you are banned from playing in that league for life.... one of the reasons they went to aluminum was the costs... wood broke all the time... and talk about dangerous... I remember my next door neighbor who would crack a bat and then use wood screws to put it back together because he could not afford a new one...
 
Texas Proud...I definitely agree with you on the hot coffee/McDonald's suit. When I read "opened it while holding it between her knees" that did it for me. You know it's hot, why not put it on a stable surface to open it. Case closed, no award!
 
Texas Proud...I definitely agree with you on the hot coffee/McDonald's suit. When I read "opened it while holding it between her knees" that did it for me. You know it's hot, why not put it on a stable surface to open it. Case closed, no award!

While I'll agree that McDonald's case was not quite as ridiculous as the first media reports made it out to appear. I still think it is a nice case study in the American[-] Lottery[/-] Legal System.

After buying two or three cups of McDonald coffee. I quickly figured out the coffee was way too hot for me and quite painful to drink or spill, so I stopped buying it. It is pretty obvious to me that plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that opening the coffee between her knees was a risky thing to do.
 
I am more on McDs side.... this was not her first cup of coffee from them... so she had reason to know that it was HOT... hotter than others.. in fact, that is why people bought from them... she opened it up while holding it between her knees (not sure if her knees were holding it or not, but that is what I remember reading back when)...

I agree that the lady probably (I have not read all the details) shares some blame - she should have been more careful. But here's how I tend to look at these things in general - the business providing the service is the "expert", they deal with the issue every day. And since they are making a profit I think they also hold a higher level of responsibility than a "once-in-a-while" customer ( a first time customer could have the same problem).

I just think that if a business is going to routinely hand near-boiling hot liquids to people in a car, that business should do it in a routinely safe manner. Offering one of those cardboard carrying cases (kind of like an egg carton) so that you could set the drink on the floor without it spilling on a turn would be a minimum I would say.

-ERD50
 
One knows the coffee is hot. I would have put it on the floor mat to open it. But I can see the point that McD's is the expert and should take some precautions like a drink crate(or whatever it's called) with maybe a red warning label on the lid.
 
with maybe a red warning label on the lid.
In some instances I think the warning is sufficient. Then again, some of the warnings I have seen on products are just hilarious:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Found on “Bat Man The Animated Series Armor Set” Halloween costume box:
PARENT: Please exercise caution—mask and chest plate are not protective; cape does not enable wearer to fly.[/FONT]
You can find a collection of them here: WARNING! This page contains ACTUAL Warnings

There is common sense in using products and then there is warning people against things that might not be readily apparent. The coffee thing for example. I recognize that Mickey D's coffee is hotter than hell, but I didn't realize that they used to serve their coffee at 190 and burns would be instantaneous and 12 seconds exposure (soaked in your clothing next to your skin) was enough to require skin grafts.

Back in my poorer than dirt days I drove a motorcycle because it was cheap transportation to all the different jobs I worked, and because it was the only thing I could afford to own. Riding the thing in all kinds of weather turned me into a fairly proficient rider and wet streets weren't a problem. One rainy morning I stopped to buy gas on the way to work and hit the local Jim Wallace service station. There was a product liability moment that ensued.

The Wallace stations were a small chain in the Atlanta area that had the habit of painting their parking lots a battleship gray.

While paying the attendant he warned me of the danger posed by the rainwater on top of the paint. "Careful when you leave out. When it gits wet like this that parking lot is slicker than owl snot." (Here in the South we have developed our own system of measuring viscosity that uses the mucous and/or feces of various creatures of nature as a scale. Owl snot is notoriously slippery, but somewhat less so than owl s%*t.)

There was a moment, as I started to leave, that my nineteen-year-old smartass self thought about revving the engine a bit and then dumping the clutch just to prove to Cooter/Bubba that I could ride anywhere in any kind of conditions. But that inner voice, that I later came to realize was brought on by the better-late-than-never maturity that was finally arriving before I had aced myself, said "Nah, not today."

So, I was very cautious and gave it just a fraction of gas and eased off the clutch - just to find myself sliding across the parking lot on my side. A recent upgrade to full face helmet and crash bars meant that the only injury was to chrome and the paint job on the helmet.

If I had hurt myself would I have sued Jim Wallace? Should a jury have allowed me to prevail?

I don't think so as I had been properly warned. Slicker than owl snot is descriptive warning enough.
 
I guess I am still in a minority who still think the McDonalds coffee lawsuit was ridiculous. Coffee is brewed at boiling temperatures. So what if McDonalds (or other restaurants) serve it closer to the boiling point than others. If you have ever had coffee before you know that it is made by boiling water and if the cup you get is freshly made it could reasonably be expected to be at or near the boiling point. Always. From any restaurant. From your own percolator. If I accept a cup of boiling liquid from someone, I have no guarantee that it is any particular temperature, but I know it will be hot enough to be potentially dangerous. If it's not hot enough I'll probably reject it. Is this the three bears and the restaurant is responsible for insuring the temperature is just right? Sure, McDonalds had complaints about coffee too hot in the past, as well as complaints about coffee too cold and everything else. What about the brewing and service policies of MsDonalds makes them responsible for customers who pour the coffee on themselves? I'm sorry for the lady who was hurt, but I fail to see why the coffee is to blame and not the user. This case is all about how persuasive the lawyers could be, not the inherent dangers of hot liquids.

As for Jim Wallace, there I think you have a case. Pavement is not supposed to be slicker than owl snot, whether warned or not. They created a hazardous situation where you wouldn't expect it to be and if someone is injured I'd expect them to be liable.
 
Back
Top Bottom