this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
1545 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59339 readers
5520 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was in the specific moment that tort reform limited damages to 250,000 because they blamed an old Lady for getting burned by her 170° coffee. Though she was awarded like 7.6 million as an additive damage because.mcdonalds had been gently warned several times before
Why, because it's cheaper to get sued for a few bucks than to not be a shitty company? Interesting. Like Ed Norton's car recall equation in Fight Club. Got a source? Not challenging you but I'm curious if that's your opinion or a known concept.
More specifically because the vast majority of cases will either never be filed or in rarer circumstances be easily settled out of court with an initial low-ball. Judgements often take this into account but by limiting the maximum payout it could be argued that that was the price of a human life. You are free to look this up but it's settled law barring several notable exemptions.
https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/news-and-update/liebeck-v-mcdonalds