Re: Practice the Black Arts in class, get fired.

In article <sg3r2494617f7l4b1u37p2f1gvlg73del5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 mike weber <fair****tfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:05:56 -0700, Daniel R. Reitman
> <dreitman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:25:12 -0400, Howard S Shubs <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>But it has, and the woman involved was old enough to know it.  I have 
> >>very little sympathy for her.  There's no fool like an old fool.  All 
> >>that life experience and she STILL put hot coffee where she did.  What

> >>an idiot.
> >
> >For which she was found 25 percent at fault, and her damages were
> >reduced accordingly.  But no one ever points that out when complaining
> >about the case.
> >
> I didn't know the exact number, but i knew there had been a reduction.
> 
> There's an im****tant philosophical difference between "the verdict was
> *wrong*" and "the awarded damages were way out of line."

What I find puzzling, reading the Wikipedia article, is:

"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and 
held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 
90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8]"

Why would one remain sitting in the "puddle of hot liquid" in the car 
for over 90 seconds? I can understand that it might take that long to 
get out of the sweatpants in a moving car, but this sounds like a good 
deal more than that.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now