Comments on: Hot Coffee and Legal Urban Legends http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends Can-Do-Ology: Business meets Personal, falls in love, has several Stuff That Needs Doing offspring, and goes seeking suitable live-in help. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:05:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Marissa Bracke http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends/comment-page-1#comment-9591 Marissa Bracke Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:32:22 +0000 http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends#comment-9591 Hi Paul! Thanks for the thoughtful response to the post, though I wanted to point out that the meat of the post to which you're responding is actually from Overlawyered. The post can be found at http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/ I was posting it because I find the conversation around the case interesting, but if you want to get into more debate around it, you might be better off posting your comment at the original post. I appreciate the comment and the reasoned analysis though! --Marissa Hi Paul!

Thanks for the thoughtful response to the post, though I wanted to point out that the meat of the post to which you’re responding is actually from Overlawyered. The post can be found at http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/

I was posting it because I find the conversation around the case interesting, but if you want to get into more debate around it, you might be better off posting your comment at the original post.

I appreciate the comment and the reasoned analysis though!
–Marissa

]]> By: Paul http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends/comment-page-1#comment-9590 Paul Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:21:48 +0000 http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends#comment-9590 By the way, for what it is worth, both Liebeck and the trial judge were reportedly conservative Republicans. By the way, for what it is worth, both Liebeck and the trial judge were reportedly conservative Republicans.

]]> By: Paul http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends/comment-page-1#comment-9589 Paul Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:15:49 +0000 http://marissabracke.com/hot-coffee-and-legal-urban-legends#comment-9589 Other learned and accomplished legal scholars have concluded that the Liebeck case is not "ludicrous on its face, as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense" and that it was not decided "incorrectly." I share their conclusions. It is pretty easy to refute the occasional comment on a blog. Most people do not research enough of any matter to comment authoritatively on the matter. That some people have repeated hearsay and rumor in their comments does not indicate or prove that the case was not decided correctly. The vast majority of lay persons do not know the details of the case and still think that it is an example of an abuse of our jury system. I am a trial attorney (I do more defense than plaintiffs' work), I do know more about the case than the average person and I have reached the conclusion that the system worked well in this case. It is a gross exaggeration to say that our tort system is killing our economy or ruining our society. First, most court filings are business against business rather than tort cases. Second, we have some of the safest systems (habitation, transportation, sanitation, food safety) of any country in the world. It is precisely the safety of our society and products that make the USA a desirable and preferred destination for people to live, invest and do business. Our laws and regulations make our system transparent and outcomes predictable. Just look at the countries where the courts are not open to people, where the burden of safe products is not on the producer. The outcomes in those societies, to the extent they are predictable, are predictably bad. Lack of regulation in Haiti contributed directly to the terrible mortality and destruction which is the outcome of the recent earthquake. Responsibility is a two-way street. Just as Ms. Liebeck was held accountable by the judge and jury through a reduced verdict, so should McDonald's be held accountable for known, predictable, and voluntarily-undertaken bad outcomes from its actions. Other learned and accomplished legal scholars have concluded that the Liebeck case is not “ludicrous on its face, as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense” and that it was not decided “incorrectly.” I share their conclusions.

It is pretty easy to refute the occasional comment on a blog. Most people do not research enough of any matter to comment authoritatively on the matter. That some people have repeated hearsay and rumor in their comments does not indicate or prove that the case was not decided correctly. The vast majority of lay persons do not know the details of the case and still think that it is an example of an abuse of our jury system. I am a trial attorney (I do more defense than plaintiffs’ work), I do know more about the case than the average person and I have reached the conclusion that the system worked well in this case.

It is a gross exaggeration to say that our tort system is killing our economy or ruining our society. First, most court filings are business against business rather than tort cases. Second, we have some of the safest systems (habitation, transportation, sanitation, food safety) of any country in the world. It is precisely the safety of our society and products that make the USA a desirable and preferred destination for people to live, invest and do business. Our laws and regulations make our system transparent and outcomes predictable. Just look at the countries where the courts are not open to people, where the burden of safe products is not on the producer. The outcomes in those societies, to the extent they are predictable, are predictably bad. Lack of regulation in Haiti contributed directly to the terrible mortality and destruction which is the outcome of the recent earthquake.

Responsibility is a two-way street. Just as Ms. Liebeck was held accountable by the judge and jury through a reduced verdict, so should McDonald’s be held accountable for known, predictable, and voluntarily-undertaken bad outcomes from its actions.

]]>