I keep seeing all these threads where people say that they won't use hollowpoints/+p/mean sounding ammo for self defence because they're afraid they'll be sued. Where do you all live that these sorts of frivolous lawsuits will be tolerated and actually hold water in court? I'm not trying to make fun of you, I'm genuinely curious. In my state, as long as you are justified in defending yourself in the first place, you're pretty well past your legal troubles.
Legal Ramifications
- Thread starter Webleymkv
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
That's pretty much universal, except in foreign countries like California and New Jersey. Devil's in the details. What State are you in?
Rich
OneInTheChamber
New member
I'll second that, because here in CA 50% of the people don't even speak english anymore!!
atlctyslkr
New member
If it's good enough for the cops it's good enough for me! I carry a .357 loaded with .38 +p and sometimes .357. I asked a cop buddy of mine what they use. They carry auto as a main duty weapon but for backup/offduty generally it's a tie between smaller auto or small revolver. The old standby snubby seems to be favorite. He told me they can use any nationally recognized -whatever that means factory ammunition in backups and off duty guns. Basically can't whip a super duper reload in your basement. Someone did that and one of the Majors found out and put a stop to it (for fear of a suit).
Even so, I don't know anyone in NM who avoids using decent ammo for fear of lawsuits."As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount."
"But McDonald's didn't bite."
Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.
"The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."
"Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee."
"The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million."
"Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature."
I would say that the award was a self inflicted wound by McDonalds.....they got luck that the other party agreed to a reduction also.....
so no the lady didnt get millions from the lawsuit......
"But McDonald's didn't bite."
Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.
"The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."
"Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee."
"The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million."
"Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature."
I would say that the award was a self inflicted wound by McDonalds.....they got luck that the other party agreed to a reduction also.....
so no the lady didnt get millions from the lawsuit......
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Like I said, the Devil's in the details. Indiana only just passed the Castle Doctrine law this month.
People can sue people for any reason they want. In a civil proceeding, you can bet that your choice of weapon, your ammunition, any modifications, courses you took, comments made to friends and even your Internet posts will be fair game for the complainant.
Will they prevail? Unknown. That's why attorneys use the phrase, "Govern yourself accordingly".
Rich
People can sue people for any reason they want. In a civil proceeding, you can bet that your choice of weapon, your ammunition, any modifications, courses you took, comments made to friends and even your Internet posts will be fair game for the complainant.
Will they prevail? Unknown. That's why attorneys use the phrase, "Govern yourself accordingly".
Rich
Second that!
Thanks to Eghad for challenging the mendacious claims about the "frivolous" McDonald's lawsuit. It has been my experience that those who post such drivel are either fools or liars hoping we're foolish enough to believe it.
Unfortunately, there are thousands out there who mindlessly accept and then forward missives about "frivolous lawsuits" and then claim we need "tort reform." Call it by it's REAL name: Corporate Disregard Relief Act. :barf:
Thanks to Eghad for challenging the mendacious claims about the "frivolous" McDonald's lawsuit. It has been my experience that those who post such drivel are either fools or liars hoping we're foolish enough to believe it.
Unfortunately, there are thousands out there who mindlessly accept and then forward missives about "frivolous lawsuits" and then claim we need "tort reform." Call it by it's REAL name: Corporate Disregard Relief Act. :barf: