3 ms·
If you want to re-litigate it in the court of public opinion, fine: It's not the volume of product sold that matters. It's the damages that one product can ha
by bb88 10y ago
If you want to re-litigate it in the court of public opinion, fine:
It's not the volume of product sold that matters. It's the damages that one product can have in one specific case.
And besides, if they really had a case, they should have appealed rather than settled and then re-litigate it in the court of public opinion. Winning a case is always a stronger argument than trying to prove you were right afterwards.
- steveeq1 10y agoActually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule. Source (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.... (in "aftermath" section)
- bb88 10y agoSo what you're saying is, had they appealed, they would have had a bunch of case law on their side, which may or may not have mattered to the appellate court. Again, if they felt they would have won, they should have appealed.
- steveeq1 10y agoI'm saying that the liebeck case was an outlier. The vast majority of judges throw off hot coffee cases (as hot or hotter) as "frivolous".