Posted On: April 27, 2006, 1:25 pm CDT

Posted By: Jeffrey E. Martin

Dear Willing to Bet:

What took you so long in mentioning the McDonald's coffee case? Most people have no idea what really happened in that case but nevertheless continue to cite it in support of their argument for tort reform. Not many know that McDonald's was specifially warned that their coffee was too hot based on prior incidnets where people were burned (although not to the extent that that woman was). Most do not know that there was evidence presented in that case comparing the temperatures of various restaurants' coffee to show that McDonald's was excessively hot. That woman had to undergo multiple, painful surgeries due to those burns in her genital area. The jury awardeed puntive damages in an amt equal to the value of only 2 days worth of McDonald's coffee sales, which the court subsequently redued showin that the judical system has in place a system of checks and balances.

But this was only one case and, when yu compare it to the normal recovery, it was an extreme case as were the facts. However, a jury of our peers was able to hear the facts and under the court's instructions deliberate to a unanimous verdict. How would you prefer that disputes be settled in this coutry? Trial by jury was instituted by this country's founders who in their wisdom recognized the danger inherent in allowing too much power to be vested in a single source and thought that a trial by ones peers to be the safest way to avoid tyranny and injustice. For all its faults, no one has come up with a better system than the collective wisdom of the people.

Still willing to allow business interests to tamper with the sanctity of the jury system?