"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Jeff McCann wrote:

snip

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted
some
years ago, actually.

Large portions your post was copied verbatum from Lectlaw and/or
Consumer Attorneys of California. Granted, you threw in your opinion
here and there as well but claiming it as your own is a stretch.
Unless you're the one who wrote the piece for CAC?

There was a widely circulated (amongst lawyers) bullet lists of key points
of the case to aid lawyers in answering the inevitable public questions
lawyers always get asked about such well publicized cases. I've seen
several essays extremely similar to mine. I suppose most drew on the same
root sources as me and I doubt any actually participated in or read the
record of the trial. Indeed, I have seen my post substantially copied
elsewhere as well as others making all the same points. Lawyers' writings
tend to sound pretty similar, especially when they are relying on the same
sources. Ever read 30 student summaries of the same case? It gets pretty
redundant, as did several of the internet references I just reviewd from a
cursory internet search that I just did.

Oh well, that's not my point and it really doesn't matter.

snip


I'd prefer to rely on the facts produced in open court, subject to
vigorous
cross-examination, by qualified experts, rather than you in your kitchen
with your meat thermometer. Sorry. I've learned that the "facts" can
be
complex things, especially where humans are involved.

snip

And there, sir is the point I was hoping to reach and the point, I
feel, of the "Stella Awards". Facts and truth in the physical world
are usually quite simple things; it is only when they run headlong
against a legal system where "truth" and "fact" are whatever a
hand-picked pool of jurors can be convinced of that they become
complex. The point of today's recreational discussion is, court
findings notwithstanding, that McDonald's was conforming to
established standards with their coffee's temperature.

If it were all that simple, I'm sure McDonald's could have shown that and
defeated the negligence claim. But since that didn't happen, apparently
there's more to the story.

Granted that Ms Liebeck's case is an egregious exception and most
lawsuits do not torture reality to anywhere near this degree, but
you'd be more convincing if you didn't repeat easily debunked claims
about facts and standards, to say nothing of your bit of hyperbole
about the "victim" being "gagged".

Take it up with the experts, not me. As for being "gagged," Liebeck had
the choice of further years of appellate proceedings, during which she might
well die at her advanced aged, or take a settlement and not reveal the
terms. This is commonly known as "gagging." Don't confuse jargon with
hyperbole. When a judge prevents the parties from talking, it's called a
"gag ruling." As for "victim," that's what the verdict established she was:
the victim of negligence by McDonald's. .

Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.

It bears directly on the issue of impartiality. It is a panel of jurors,
not a panel of investigators. The jury's job is to weigh the credibility
and probative value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial, and
certainly not to rely on their own, unknown, untestable, unexaminable and
unchallangeable "experience" in the matter. Lots of people "know" stuff
that just ain't so. The only proper role for "experience" is in the common
sense judgment the juror applies in weighing the credibility and probative
value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial.

Jeff