I think it's a lot to do with the principle. Do you sue because of genuine health concerns or an obvious risk to you or others from a product or such?
Or do you sue because you think you could possibly make a quick buck and get your mug in the papers and on TV.
I think the latter wins over in a lot of cases, now i don't think that was the case with Liebeck, certainly not initially, if at all, more than likely a law firm's eye on publicity and $$$.
I just cannot fathom after reading the 'details' of the law suit and the verdict, that even after MD's seemed to cover it's bases, via warning label and numerous counter offers, that it was decided that they were 80% to blame!
Actually, after thinking it over a bit, i do know how this happened.
The justice system has always been 'inconsistent' if you will, loosely put.
And that gives hope to others out there, perhaps like our 'not so bright star' in the OP's article, that it is quiet possible to take on the laws of this society, being stupid, irresponsible and downright 'shifty' and quiet possibly come out of it with a victory, allbeit with a few scratches.
Where does one's total lack of common sense sit in all of this?
|