What I did not mention, when I gave the example above of how a “wrongful death” suit against Hobie might go, was the following. The lawyer, making the case that Hobie was responsible for the AI/TI user’s hypothetical death, wheels a TI into the court room (the lawyer couldn’t do this, so a strong assistant would do this, someone young like RoadRunner or Dosjers). The assistant would lift the TI partially off the wheels, and then rapidly lower it acting like it was too heavy. The assistant would remove the amas/akas, roll the boat on its side, and remove the wheels. The jury would and examine the scupper holes. You guessed it: the scuppers are ruptured. The lawyer would then proceed to claim that the ruptured scuppers occurred during normal use of the boat—such as any Hobie owner might exercise.
I am not a lawyer. I’ve only used a lawyer once in my life when my local village lawyer claimed a flood caused by a village water tank with a faulty valve and a non-working alarm flooded my property one night and damaged my house. The village claimed it was an “act of God.” My lawyer shamed them into giving me an out-of-court award for damages. My case did not go to court. My lawyer said he did not like that kind of case, because he would prefer to win it in court, but would have been difficult under the law (New Mexico law regarding grievances by a citizen against a city.) Lawyers are a necessary evil, especially when an individual goes against a large corporate entity.
I agree but then a jury gave a women millions of dollars because she spilled coffee on her lap and got burned.
Jerry, interesting you would bring up the “McDonald’s Hot Coffee” law suit. It also happened in NM. You should read the Wall Street Journal’s report on that case: http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
The McDonald’s coffee was found to be 20-degrees hotter than other fast-food restaurant’s coffee—it was scalding hot. McDonald had also previously had 700 other complaints about injuries from hot coffee and settled them out of court, some for more than $500,000. They offered the NM burn victim $800. The burn victim spent 7 days in the hospital and had several skin grafts. Although the jury awarded the plaintiff about $4 million, most of it punitive damages, the judge reduced that to $480,000, “even though the judge called McDonald’s conduct reckless, callous, and willful.” Prior to this case, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had “published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.” McDonald’s training manual stated that its coffee be held at “180-190 degrees for optimal taste.” A slightly different version of the case can be found in Wikipedia.
The McDonald’s jury found the plaintiff was 20% at fault—McDonalds 80%. What would the users of this forum rate Flaneur/Hobie fault ratio?