7 ms·

How a Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment (2014)

wahern 10y ago
The article is wrong in one very important detail regarding the Federal Arbitration Act. The author states, The legal basis for outsourcing legal proceedings is a 1925 law passed by Congress specifying arbitration as an option for “merchants” who agree to a private alternative. Actually, nowhere in the statute is the word merchant or merchants used. That word is used in the legislative history (i.e. the debates and arguments). But from the plain text of the statute, a layman reading would have it apply to all commerce that would otherwise be governed by federal law. You have to rely on some presently out of favor legal interpretative devices to believe that the law should only apply between merchants. The _real_ issues are, 1) What kinds of commerce are reachable? This bill passed in a time when the Federal Courts held a substantially narrower interpretation of Congress' powers over commerce. And even proponents of modern, so-called plain text interpretation usually admit that in some circumstances, especially involving constitutional issues of powers, you want to see a more clear articulation of an intent to extend power so broadly. 2) SCOTUS upended over half a century of settled precedent. First when it held that the FAA was enforceable in state courts applying state law, and again when it decided that state law defenses to enforceability (i.e. state-specific definitions of unconscionability) could not be used. 3) Deciding that state law defenses are not useable is ironic give the plain text limitation that arbitration agreements are enforceable "save upon any grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract". There's a sound argument that this exclusion doesn't capture state-based grounds. But that argument necessarily depends on the historical legal context--at the time the law couldn't have reached nearly as much commerce as SCOTUS allows today. And it wasn't until 1938 until Erie Railroad v. Tompkins exalted state law in choice of law matters. These details matter because if you try to debate the Federal Arbitration Act with knowledgeable defenders you lose all credibility by repeating falsehoods like the author did. We really need change in this regard: 1) stop so-called tort reform, and 2) fix SCOTUS' error in applying the FAA so broadly. It helps if people stick to facts. Many conservatives love the FAA; and many conservatives love so-called tort reform. But the inevitable outcome of both these things will be centralization of consumer protection in federal government agencies. A modern democracy simply won't stand-by while corporations cheat and injure people. The question is, which system do you want: 1) One that is decentralized, relatively equitable (1000 years of careful balancing of interests between plaintiff and defendant), and with more freedom for states to experiment, or 2) One that is centralized in a few government regulatory bodies, where the little guy will almost always get screwed, and businesses are subject to the whims of each passing administration on major issues, turning every major business dispute into a political issue. The latter is what you get when you take away the ability for people to seek out individualized justice in the courts. And the outcome will not (and is not) good for anybody.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > A modern democracy simply won't stand-by while corporations cheat and injure people. This is essentially a religious belief.
  - pmarreck 10y ago
    Just world fallacy, perhaps. ;) "The karma will get them eventually!!"
  - wahern 10y ago
    No, it just follows from the definition of democracy. If McDonalds starts shooting every fifth customer in the head, no matter how deeply in the pockets the police and legislators are, in a functional democracy representatives will be responsive to the electorate to some substantial degree. But note that what change the electorate gets might not be very effective. It might be just barely adequate, or it might just obscure the problem. And that's my point: conservatives are taking away the tools to seek out justice. Liberals are replacing some of those tools, but the newer tools suck. They'll not only be less effective in protecting consumers, but they're likely to be even more stifling to business. Everybody will be worse off. Regulatory agencies are worse for business because unlike courts, regulatory agencies can _prevent_ businesses from innovating on the pretense of consumer protection. While as a general matter courts can only respond to manifest harm. Because regulatory agencies don't and cannot provide individualized justice, when they work well to protect consumers they do so by being overly protective. Usually it's beneficial to society to let businesses take more risk as long as they can compensate those people who are harmed. I'm not saying regulatory agencies are always a bad idea, just that vesting the power in consumers to sue on their own behalf, and relying on them to do so, is a much more powerful mechanism for correcting bad behavior than people think. It's administratively inefficient in many respects, but at least it's uncoupled from politics and more directly tied to manifest harms. I think in real economic terms it's less costly for society.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      The problem with this line of thinking is that McDonald's has a team of people to lobby tirelessly on their behalf and individual voters don't really know or care about these issues until they're affected personally. So by one small change after another the court system can become less and less favorable to individuals by very small steps. The idea that regulation is becoming more stringent is simply not borne out by reality.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
This is a great example of how the modern media is a cancer to the truth. I wish there was a media source that wasn't incentivized by clicks and ads. I would pay monthly for a news source that doesn't lie to me.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  It really isn't, at all. Media sources owned by companies that sell other products and services are all you need to have your media sources twist stories towards caps on liability. It doesn't matter whether you pay them or they're sponsored - or whether they're giving it away for free without sponsorship.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Shivetya 10y ago
  a lot of times the further the audience is from the story the more of a condensed version they get. what is front page locally ends up buried in a small available space on the other side of the country. now getting that blurb in another paper likely requires packaging it in such a way that the word count is acceptable and the text is interesting. sadly as the count goes down the facts fall out.
- jostmey 10y ago
  And such news services used to exist, and nobody paid for them once it became free on the Internet. I saw it happen as I grew up--my dad worked in a newsroom as a journalist.
  - DrScump 10y ago
    I think people reduced their consumption of commercial media in general when they found, partly as a result of being able to see unfiltered, original sources via the internet, that they were being spun (and outright lied to) by those very news services.
desdiv 10y ago
>Nurses, housekeepers, and lab techs crammed into a conference room where hospital administrators presented a form and told them to sign. Signing meant agreeing to submit any future employment-related complaints to an arbitrator hired by the hospital and waiving the right to sue in court. Refusing to sign meant they'd be fired. Can you sue for wrongful termination if you get fired for refusing to sign such a waiver?
- pattisapu 10y ago
  In some jurisdictions, yes. In others, no. I've tried to make such arguments on behalf of terminated employees in federal district courts in the Fifth Circuit, but have not been successful to date. But some courts have held that a demand to arbitrate or be fired, and then firing the employee for refusing to sign, is unlawful retaliation when there is a pending claim. See, e.g., Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1267-1268 (11th Cir. Ala. 2008): The main issue in this appeal is whether Bagby Elevator Company was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Greg Goldsmith's claim of retaliation when it is undisputed that Goldsmith's employment was terminated based on his refusal to sign a dispute resolution agreement that applied to his charge of racial discrimination pending with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Bagby Elevator appeals a jury verdict that awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Goldsmith based on his complaint of both racial discrimination and retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. In Weeks v. Harden Manufacturing [1268] Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002), we ruled that a refusal to sign an arbitration agreement was not a protected activity that could support a claim of retaliation, but we did not address an employee's refusal to sign an agreement that applied to a pending charge of discrimination. Goldsmith was willing to execute an amended dispute resolution agreement that would not have applied to his pending charge, but Bagby Elevator insisted that Goldsmith sign an agreement that applied to the pending charge and fired him immediately after he refused to do so. We conclude that Bagby Elevator was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Goldsmith's claim of retaliation because there was sufficient evidence of a causal relation between the filing of his pending charge and later termination. As a result, we need not decide any issue about the verdict regarding Goldsmith's alternative claim that he was terminated based on his race.
- emodendroket 10y ago
bluejekyll 10y ago
> Businesses complaining about greedy Americans being overly litigious may want to look in a mirror. This is excellent. In fact, the patent office should require arbitration agreements which the patent office would oversee for any patent disputes. Maybe it would be a small step forward over the patent mess that exists now.
- desireco42 10y ago
  That is not a bad idea. Not at all.
harry8 10y ago
Still seems totally ridiculous that it would go to court. 180F is 82C. If you're stupid enough to burn yourself with it (and I am) blaming someone else for your stupidity and suing is not moronic, it's amoral. The problem of medical bills is one to take up with your elected representatives rather than blaming coffee for being coffee ffs.
- gohrt 10y ago
  What does "180F is 82C" prove? Does water boil at a high temperature for smart people?
  - quesera 10y ago
    > What does "180F is 82C" prove? Does water boil at a high temperature for smart people? Why so hostile? Not everyone who reads HN is from an imperial or customary units country. The inline conversion provides context for those readers, in addition to being a natural form of speech, the same way you might say "60 meters? That's like 200 feet! How can they hold their breath that deep?". I really don't think GP was lording primary school math skills over the HN populace.
- Buttons840 10y ago
  If someone asks for a coffee you'd just casually hand them a cup capable of causing third degree burns (which the lady did suffer)? Seems too hot. I mean, if you spill this on yourself your skin will end up looking like a hot dog roasted over a campfire; third degree burns mean the skin is charred.
  - steveeq1 10y ago
    Hot Coffee lawsuits constantly come up in the US court system at temperatures that were as hot or hotter than the coffee in the Liebeck case, and they almost always gets thrown out as frivolous (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... ). The liebeck case was more of an exception than the rule. Also, 180 degrees is considered standard serving temperature for coffee according to the Specialty Coffee Association of America. Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, and a host of companies serve at this temperature as well. While some might complain this is still too hot, I would not say that mcdonald's serves it's coffee UNUSUALLY hot.
sjg007 10y ago
This story has been highly politicized and is proof that even in the 90s everybody was like tl;dr. It is the perfect example of lies and inneuendo trumping the facts and reality. And it is a perfect illustration of why we are in the mess we are in today.
pacaro 10y ago
So next time I buy a car, if I put a line through paragraphs that I don't agree with in the contract are they going to walk away from the deal? I'm sure that the dealership doesn't want this to happen, but the sales personnel are more deal focused than anything else. I'm bloody minded enough to try this half a dozen times.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Make sure you strike out the line about not being able to modify the contract as well.
- mark212 10y ago
  I tried it twice, asking the manager flat out "what happens if I don't agree to arbitration?" And he said "Then we can't sell you a car."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Rapzid 10y ago
It's pretty amazing that her initial week in the hospital only racked up 10k in bills. I had a hernia repair recently and it was ~7k for a few hours in-and-out. Wouldn't want to see the bill for spending a week in the hospital these days.
aichi 10y ago
Point of view from Europe: doesn't matter that Coffee sue wasn't about millions just thousands, the main issue is that she won. That is what we laugh about. You can act as brainless and won money. If you order hot coffee you can pay your own bill when you spill it on you. So thanks to her and only her Gourleys got limited money.
- icebraining 10y ago
  As an European myself, I fully disagree; getting a cup of coffee at 82ºC is not reasonable, and spilling it on yourself should never cause 2nd degree burns. The payout was completely justified. And the fact that it was standard policy and not an error further solidifies the point.
  - grobbles 10y ago
    The temperature was entirely reasonable. The woman got burns because she was an elderly woman with extremely dry skin. If your skin is excessively dry, much lower temperatures can damage. McDonalds still serves their coffee at the same temperature. Almost all brewers do. Because that's what customers desire (especially people who add milk/cream).
- douche 10y ago
  Seriously. Coffee is hot. Traditional methods of preparing it involve boiling water. If you are not smart enough to avoid pouring boiling hot coffee in your lap, I have little sympathy for you.
gkafkg8y8 10y ago
> Businesses complaining about greedy Americans being overly litigious may want to look in a mirror. Sure, but it goes both ways. On one hand, companies are overly litigious for reasons described in the post. I've been frustrated at least once that I couldn't be part of a class action suit because there wasn't a recall for a design flaw costing me thousands; I knew however that a class action suit probably would've resulting in a small check at most. On the other hand, there are law firms that advertise on television to get people to claim malpractice, etc. and "get money." And there are patent trolls that are purely exploiting. I think it's fair to say there is a lot that could be done for reform.
bluesign 10y ago
Is there any statistics about the performance of jury trial? I am from Europe and to be honest I don't have much experience with US legal system. But what I watch from news and stuff, it is a utility to force people, out of court settlements or guilty pleas. What I see is going on a jury trial is a probabilistic decision. You would most likely settle out of court for your Expected Value at jury trial. I strongly feel this should not be what justice should be.

The article is wrong in one very important detail regarding the Federal Arbitration Act. The author states, The legal basis for outsourcing legal proceedings is a 1925 law passed by Congress specifying arbitration as an option for “merchants” who agree to a private alternative. Actually, nowhere in the statute is the word merchant or merchants used. That word is used in the legislative history (i.e. the debates and arguments). But from the plain text of the statute, a layman reading would have it apply to all commerce that would otherwise be governed by federal law. You have to rely on some presently out of favor legal interpretative devices to believe that the law should only apply between merchants. The _real_ issues are, 1) What kinds of commerce are reachable? This bill passed in a time when the Federal Courts held a substantially narrower interpretation of Congress' powers over commerce. And even proponents of modern, so-called plain text interpretation usually admit that in some circumstances, especially involving constitutional issues of powers, you want to see a more clear articulation of an intent to extend power so broadly. 2) SCOTUS upended over half a century of settled precedent. First when it held that the FAA was enforceable in state courts applying state law, and again when it decided that state law defenses to enforceability (i.e. state-specific definitions of unconscionability) could not be used. 3) Deciding that state law defenses are not useable is ironic give the plain text limitation that arbitration agreements are enforceable "save upon any grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract". There's a sound argument that this exclusion doesn't capture state-based grounds. But that argument necessarily depends on the historical legal context--at the time the law couldn't have reached nearly as much commerce as SCOTUS allows today. And it wasn't until 1938 until Erie Railroad v. Tompkins exalted state law in choice of law matters. These details matter because if you try to debate the Federal Arbitration Act with knowledgeable defenders you lose all credibility by repeating falsehoods like the author did. We really need change in this regard: 1) stop so-called tort reform, and 2) fix SCOTUS' error in applying the FAA so broadly. It helps if people stick to facts. Many conservatives love the FAA; and many conservatives love so-called tort reform. But the inevitable outcome of both these things will be centralization of consumer protection in federal government agencies. A modern democracy simply won't stand-by while corporations cheat and injure people. The question is, which system do you want: 1) One that is decentralized, relatively equitable (1000 years of careful balancing of interests between plaintiff and defendant), and with more freedom for states to experiment, or 2) One that is centralized in a few government regulatory bodies, where the little guy will almost always get screwed, and businesses are subject to the whims of each passing administration on major issues, turning every major business dispute into a political issue. The latter is what you get when you take away the ability for people to seek out individualized justice in the courts. And the outcome will not (and is not) good for anybody.

pessimizer 10y ago
> A modern democracy simply won't stand-by while corporations cheat and injure people. This is essentially a religious belief.
- pmarreck 10y ago
  Just world fallacy, perhaps. ;) "The karma will get them eventually!!"
- wahern 10y ago
  No, it just follows from the definition of democracy. If McDonalds starts shooting every fifth customer in the head, no matter how deeply in the pockets the police and legislators are, in a functional democracy representatives will be responsive to the electorate to some substantial degree. But note that what change the electorate gets might not be very effective. It might be just barely adequate, or it might just obscure the problem. And that's my point: conservatives are taking away the tools to seek out justice. Liberals are replacing some of those tools, but the newer tools suck. They'll not only be less effective in protecting consumers, but they're likely to be even more stifling to business. Everybody will be worse off. Regulatory agencies are worse for business because unlike courts, regulatory agencies can _prevent_ businesses from innovating on the pretense of consumer protection. While as a general matter courts can only respond to manifest harm. Because regulatory agencies don't and cannot provide individualized justice, when they work well to protect consumers they do so by being overly protective. Usually it's beneficial to society to let businesses take more risk as long as they can compensate those people who are harmed. I'm not saying regulatory agencies are always a bad idea, just that vesting the power in consumers to sue on their own behalf, and relying on them to do so, is a much more powerful mechanism for correcting bad behavior than people think. It's administratively inefficient in many respects, but at least it's uncoupled from politics and more directly tied to manifest harms. I think in real economic terms it's less costly for society.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    The problem with this line of thinking is that McDonald's has a team of people to lobby tirelessly on their behalf and individual voters don't really know or care about these issues until they're affected personally. So by one small change after another the court system can become less and less favorable to individuals by very small steps. The idea that regulation is becoming more stringent is simply not borne out by reality.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

This is a great example of how the modern media is a cancer to the truth. I wish there was a media source that wasn't incentivized by clicks and ads. I would pay monthly for a news source that doesn't lie to me.

pessimizer 10y ago
It really isn't, at all. Media sources owned by companies that sell other products and services are all you need to have your media sources twist stories towards caps on liability. It doesn't matter whether you pay them or they're sponsored - or whether they're giving it away for free without sponsorship.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Shivetya 10y ago
a lot of times the further the audience is from the story the more of a condensed version they get. what is front page locally ends up buried in a small available space on the other side of the country. now getting that blurb in another paper likely requires packaging it in such a way that the word count is acceptable and the text is interesting. sadly as the count goes down the facts fall out.
jostmey 10y ago
And such news services used to exist, and nobody paid for them once it became free on the Internet. I saw it happen as I grew up--my dad worked in a newsroom as a journalist.
- DrScump 10y ago
  I think people reduced their consumption of commercial media in general when they found, partly as a result of being able to see unfiltered, original sources via the internet, that they were being spun (and outright lied to) by those very news services.

desdiv 10y ago

>Nurses, housekeepers, and lab techs crammed into a conference room where hospital administrators presented a form and told them to sign. Signing meant agreeing to submit any future employment-related complaints to an arbitrator hired by the hospital and waiving the right to sue in court. Refusing to sign meant they'd be fired. Can you sue for wrongful termination if you get fired for refusing to sign such a waiver?

pattisapu 10y ago
In some jurisdictions, yes. In others, no. I've tried to make such arguments on behalf of terminated employees in federal district courts in the Fifth Circuit, but have not been successful to date. But some courts have held that a demand to arbitrate or be fired, and then firing the employee for refusing to sign, is unlawful retaliation when there is a pending claim. See, e.g., Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1267-1268 (11th Cir. Ala. 2008): The main issue in this appeal is whether Bagby Elevator Company was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Greg Goldsmith's claim of retaliation when it is undisputed that Goldsmith's employment was terminated based on his refusal to sign a dispute resolution agreement that applied to his charge of racial discrimination pending with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Bagby Elevator appeals a jury verdict that awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Goldsmith based on his complaint of both racial discrimination and retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. In Weeks v. Harden Manufacturing [1268] Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002), we ruled that a refusal to sign an arbitration agreement was not a protected activity that could support a claim of retaliation, but we did not address an employee's refusal to sign an agreement that applied to a pending charge of discrimination. Goldsmith was willing to execute an amended dispute resolution agreement that would not have applied to his pending charge, but Bagby Elevator insisted that Goldsmith sign an agreement that applied to the pending charge and fired him immediately after he refused to do so. We conclude that Bagby Elevator was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Goldsmith's claim of retaliation because there was sufficient evidence of a causal relation between the filing of his pending charge and later termination. As a result, we need not decide any issue about the verdict regarding Goldsmith's alternative claim that he was terminated based on his race.
emodendroket 10y ago

bluejekyll 10y ago

> Businesses complaining about greedy Americans being overly litigious may want to look in a mirror. This is excellent. In fact, the patent office should require arbitration agreements which the patent office would oversee for any patent disputes. Maybe it would be a small step forward over the patent mess that exists now.

desireco42 10y ago
That is not a bad idea. Not at all.

harry8 10y ago

Still seems totally ridiculous that it would go to court. 180F is 82C. If you're stupid enough to burn yourself with it (and I am) blaming someone else for your stupidity and suing is not moronic, it's amoral. The problem of medical bills is one to take up with your elected representatives rather than blaming coffee for being coffee ffs.

gohrt 10y ago
What does "180F is 82C" prove? Does water boil at a high temperature for smart people?
- quesera 10y ago
  > What does "180F is 82C" prove? Does water boil at a high temperature for smart people? Why so hostile? Not everyone who reads HN is from an imperial or customary units country. The inline conversion provides context for those readers, in addition to being a natural form of speech, the same way you might say "60 meters? That's like 200 feet! How can they hold their breath that deep?". I really don't think GP was lording primary school math skills over the HN populace.
Buttons840 10y ago
If someone asks for a coffee you'd just casually hand them a cup capable of causing third degree burns (which the lady did suffer)? Seems too hot. I mean, if you spill this on yourself your skin will end up looking like a hot dog roasted over a campfire; third degree burns mean the skin is charred.
- steveeq1 10y ago
  Hot Coffee lawsuits constantly come up in the US court system at temperatures that were as hot or hotter than the coffee in the Liebeck case, and they almost always gets thrown out as frivolous (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... ). The liebeck case was more of an exception than the rule. Also, 180 degrees is considered standard serving temperature for coffee according to the Specialty Coffee Association of America. Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, and a host of companies serve at this temperature as well. While some might complain this is still too hot, I would not say that mcdonald's serves it's coffee UNUSUALLY hot.

sjg007 10y ago

This story has been highly politicized and is proof that even in the 90s everybody was like tl;dr. It is the perfect example of lies and inneuendo trumping the facts and reality. And it is a perfect illustration of why we are in the mess we are in today.

pacaro 10y ago

So next time I buy a car, if I put a line through paragraphs that I don't agree with in the contract are they going to walk away from the deal? I'm sure that the dealership doesn't want this to happen, but the sales personnel are more deal focused than anything else. I'm bloody minded enough to try this half a dozen times.

gozur88 10y ago
Make sure you strike out the line about not being able to modify the contract as well.
mark212 10y ago
I tried it twice, asking the manager flat out "what happens if I don't agree to arbitration?" And he said "Then we can't sell you a car."

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Rapzid 10y ago

It's pretty amazing that her initial week in the hospital only racked up 10k in bills. I had a hernia repair recently and it was ~7k for a few hours in-and-out. Wouldn't want to see the bill for spending a week in the hospital these days.

aichi 10y ago

Point of view from Europe: doesn't matter that Coffee sue wasn't about millions just thousands, the main issue is that she won. That is what we laugh about. You can act as brainless and won money. If you order hot coffee you can pay your own bill when you spill it on you. So thanks to her and only her Gourleys got limited money.

icebraining 10y ago
As an European myself, I fully disagree; getting a cup of coffee at 82ºC is not reasonable, and spilling it on yourself should never cause 2nd degree burns. The payout was completely justified. And the fact that it was standard policy and not an error further solidifies the point.
- grobbles 10y ago
  The temperature was entirely reasonable. The woman got burns because she was an elderly woman with extremely dry skin. If your skin is excessively dry, much lower temperatures can damage. McDonalds still serves their coffee at the same temperature. Almost all brewers do. Because that's what customers desire (especially people who add milk/cream).
douche 10y ago
Seriously. Coffee is hot. Traditional methods of preparing it involve boiling water. If you are not smart enough to avoid pouring boiling hot coffee in your lap, I have little sympathy for you.

gkafkg8y8 10y ago

> Businesses complaining about greedy Americans being overly litigious may want to look in a mirror. Sure, but it goes both ways. On one hand, companies are overly litigious for reasons described in the post. I've been frustrated at least once that I couldn't be part of a class action suit because there wasn't a recall for a design flaw costing me thousands; I knew however that a class action suit probably would've resulting in a small check at most. On the other hand, there are law firms that advertise on television to get people to claim malpractice, etc. and "get money." And there are patent trolls that are purely exploiting. I think it's fair to say there is a lot that could be done for reform.

bluesign 10y ago

Is there any statistics about the performance of jury trial? I am from Europe and to be honest I don't have much experience with US legal system. But what I watch from news and stuff, it is a utility to force people, out of court settlements or guilty pleas. What I see is going on a jury trial is a probabilistic decision. You would most likely settle out of court for your Expected Value at jury trial. I strongly feel this should not be what justice should be.