Warning: Non-LBC, long, rambling, somewhat disjointed, and I really
should be doing homework....
> I have heard of the "lawn mower case" before. It may have been one
> of the Harvard case studies I had to read in one of the Business Law
> classes I took to get my masters.
When I first heard (back in '96) of the "Lawn Mower" case, it was
presented as a products liability hypothetical, and was based on the
facts in Jones v. Ryobi, Ltd., 37 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 1994). You'll be
interested to know that in the actual case, judgement was for the
manufacturer (ie, *not* for the plaintiff who was injured through his/her
own negligence and ignorance). To check myself, I did a quick search in
Lexis and WestLaw this evening, and could find no fed or state cases that
matched the facts in the "Lawn Mower" case; however, I did find the
following quote describing another hypothetical:
"… [n]ow, imagine that the plaintiff is an unusually strong man and
perhaps creative, albeit somewhat obtuse. He decides that the mower would
serve as an excellent tool with which to trim his hedges. When he picks
up the mower and holds it over his hedges, a stick from the hedge impales
his eyeball. This activity obviously falls within the category of either
unforeseeable misuse or assumption of risk…." Mathew J. Moore,
"Missouri, the State of Confusion for Comparitive Fault in Strict
Liability Contexts." 64 UMKC L. Rev. 759, 782.
The "Lawn Mower" case, while perhaps not a hoax, is almost certainly a
hypothetical which has passed into an urban legend.
>Even if it is a hoax, we all know of worse cases than that. How
>about the lady that dropped the McDonald's coffee in her lap?
Just a couple of notes on the McDonald's coffee case:
1. The lady, over 60 as I recall, was parked in a car, as a passenger,
when the coffee was spilt.
2. The coffee was served at a 185 F. By contrast , the coffee in your
coffee maker comes out at approximately 135-145.
3. Applying 185 F coffee to human skin causes it to *melt* before
resulting in a third degree burn (and this coffee was spilt on the lady's
genitals). During trial, an expert in napalm described the effects of
the coffee on her skin, and drew a corrollary between it and the weapon
he was familar with.
4. McDonald's own executives described the coffee as not being fit for
human consumption at its serving temperature. No warnings were given at
any time about the temperature of the coffee.
5. The lady suffered through months of burn treatments and
rehabilitiation (burn treatment involves immersing the affected area in a
bleach/disinfectant and sloughing off the dead tissue with a rapidly
rotating stainless steel wire brush; ie, debridement ).
6. McDonald's had several hundred cases of burns before this one.
7. The lady offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 prior to trial
(yes, twenty thousand). McDonald's refused.
8. The jury made the multi-million dollar award -- not the lawyers, and
not the plaintiff.
9. The award included a 20% allocation of fault to the lady.
10. The award was reduced soon after on appeal to much, much less.
WIth some actual facts thrown in, it suddenly becomes a bit more than
"some clumsy old lady spills a little coffee on her lap, and gets rich at
the expense of a fast food giant." I wonder how many of us would be so
cavalier if our tender parts were being subjected to thrice daily
stainless steel brushings after a "minor beverage spill"?
> My favorite is the case where an experienced pilot rented an
> airplane to fly to Aspen. ...1) The couple was estranged. Their
divorse
> was to be final less than a month after the accident occured 2) The
guy,
> a plumber, hadn't worked in two years due to a disability - alcoholism.
3) The
> pilot had no other dependents. Those facts were deemed inadmissible by
> the judge.
1. The wife was still the wife, and still had standing to sue. Whether
or not they were estranged with an impending divorce had nothing to do
with the guy's ability to fly a plane, or whether the plane was
defective.
2. Whether the guy was a plumber or not had nothing to do with his
ability to fly a plane; further, whether he was an alcoholic or not had
nothing to do with his ability to fly the plane -- unless, of course, he
was drinking when he took off, or in the air, and the club knew about it
(in which case, the club certainly wouldn't want to emphasize that
fact...). Regardless, neither has anything to do with whether the plane
was defective.
3. Whether or not the guy had dependents had nothing to do with his
ability to fly a plane, or whether the plane was defective.
Assuming the guy was licensed and sober when he took off, and did not
drink while in the air, the only questions that seem to be present is
whether or not the guy was flying a defective plane and whether he
contributed to his demise through pilot error (hot dogging it before he
encountered that vertical obstacle). Since he had rented it, the logical
parties who would be responsible would be the manufacturer and the owner
(the club); I'd be willing to bet that a portion of the fault was
assigned to the pilot in the judgement. It seems the problem is with the
would-have-been-divorced wife getting the money. Since the legislature
sets out who can sue who, and for what, the problem isn't lawyers, but
rather with the lawmakers.
> And lawyers wonder why we love them so.
Lawyers are like cops and soldiers -- don't no one like 'em, until they
need one....
> Lawyer Joke:
Email me off list, and I'll send you a bunch of these!
> (My appologies to any lawyers who are not blood sucking
> vampires. I personnally have met two.)
ROFL!
Disclaimer: Lest anyone think I have lost my mind and am overly
impressed with my 1L status, I have five years direct experience as a
paralegal in family, tort, and criminal law. having said that, I note
specifically that I don't know half as much as I'd like to, except this:
what seems very plain is often not the case.
Rich
(believing that rights require equal measures of responsibility)
|