QUESTION ON REDIRECT: Were any of the threats in question actually made
on your mailing list?
YOU: No.
QoR: How do you know the threats were actually made?
YOU: Because the palintiff in this case claimed they were.
JUDGE: The jury will please stop laughing.
QoR: Would removal of the alleged threatening person from your mailing list
have prevented the threats from being made?
YOU: No.
JUDGE: The plaintiff counsel will please explain why I'm even hearing
this case.
I'd say it's nowhere near as cut and dried as you're making it sound.
> I'm done with this topic. Next!
While it's you're right not to respond further, this sounds awfully
final for an opinion supported only by a couple of anonymous attorneys
whose opinions were based solely on your undoubtedly biased
presentation of the situation. You certainly haven't proven anything.
The example of the McDonald's case, frequently used to show how "ridiculous"
civil cases can be in this country, left out one important fact: McDonald's
had previously been officially warned of this danger, and did nothing about
it. This was more of a punitive award than a merit award. (I'm not saying
that the awards in some civil cases aren't absurd, just that there's more
to the McDonald's case than the popular view).
--Greg
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
