| From: | Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@ucl.ac.uk> |
| To: | Wright, Richard <Rwright@kentlaw.edu> |
| CC: | obligations@uwo.ca |
| Date: | 06/11/2009 08:43:28 UTC |
| Subject: | RE: outlandish torts |
In England, similar claims failed. See here
Bogle & Ors v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. [2002] EWHC 490
A rather drier judgment than the American one.
Rob
> IMHO, Easterbrook's reasons are bogus. (In addition, his bringing in
> all sorts of "facts" not in the record and not subject to consideration
> or dispute by the parties, IMHO, was improper judicial behavior). He
> himself admits that the coffee was much more dangerous than consumers
> would expect and that a warning thus should have been given if feasible,
> but he then holds -- as a matter of law -- that it would not be feasible
> to do so, since supposedly one would have to have a degree in
> thermodynamics as well as economics to be able to make a proper
> cost-benefit tradeoff -- which is not the test for required warnings on
> any product. I can imagine all sorts of feasible warnings, including a
> picture of someone's charred nether regions along with a bold statement
> that this could easily happen to you if you spill this coffee on you and
> it remains on your skin for only a few seconds.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:33 PM
> To: 'obligations@uwo.ca'
> Subject: RE: outlandish torts
>
>
>
> The result still strikes me as quite wrong, for the reasons
> that Judge Easterbrook gave in McMahon v. Bunn-o-Matic Corp.,
> http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/974131.html .
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
> From: Barbara Legate [mailto:blegate@legate.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:28 AM
> To: Chaim Saiman; obligations@uwo.ca
> Subject: RE: outlandish torts
>
>
>
> Chaim, I believe your suspicion about Stella and other such stories is
> correct. Stella was burned alright, but the evidence at trial was this:
>
> Cheap coffee tastes better hot
>
> Market research showed dirve through customers drank same about 18 min
> after purchase
>
> The coffee had to be heated to a temperature that was capable of severe
> burns to be hot after 18 min. The company's own engineers warned of
> same. A memo was produced at trial.
>
> In that context, the result is not difficult to accept.
>
> I once attempted to learn the source of the Stellas, who evaluated the
> cases, who funded the evaluation, and who was behind the organization.
> My pointed enquiries were ignored. I concluded it is indeed a tort
> reform group funded by insurers. I didn't keep my research since it was
> just for my own benefit.
>
> Barb Legate (from Canada)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Chaim Saiman [mailto:Saiman@law.villanova.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 3:43 PM
> To: obligations@uwo.ca
> Subject: outlandish torts
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been following the emails of the past few days with some
> interest, and note that most of the examples (real and otherwise) are
> taken from the American context. Moreover, as one poster suggested, some
> of these hoaxes may be part of a concerted effort by activists on the
> American scene to paint a cartoonish picture of the American tort system
> in order to spur on political efforts at tort reform (limitation)
>
>
>
> My question to this largely non-American audience is whether, from an
> international perspective, these sort s of suits are seen as uniquely
> (or typically) American, and if so, is it only on account of the jury,
> or are there other factors at work.
>
>
>
> Would be interested in your thoughts.
>
>
>
> --cs
>
>
>
> Chaim Saiman
>
> Associate Professor
>
> Villanova Law School
>
> 610.519.3296
>
> saiman@law.villanova.edu
>
> http://ssrn.com/author=549545
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Robert Stevens
Professor of Commercial Law
University College London