Jailbait wrote:
>
> (I'm sorry. I know it has no mailing-list-manager content, but given the
> number of times people have referred to the case in the course of this
> discussion, I just can't hold back any longer.)
>
> As has been mentioned by other people, reading the facts of a given case
> is a good thing before making too many claims about it....
> [....]
>
> what actually happened, in detail:
> [...]
> HEADLINE: Verdict Against McDonald's Is Fully Justified
>
> BYLINE: S. REED MORGAN, S. Reed Morgan & Associates, Houston
>
> I AM THE LAWYER who tried Stella Liebeck's case in Albuquerque, N.M.,
> from Aug. 8-16. [...]
I would hardly call a recital of the facts and verdict in a case *by the
plaintiff's attorney* "what actually happened, in detail".
His version of the circumstances is highly biased and self-serving,
considering that this case is widely viewed, in both the legal and lay
communities, as an anomaly (and to the extent that it is NOT an anomaly,
it has been a spur for continued tort reform).
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
