1544
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
1544 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59436 readers
1159 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
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