TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I was under the impression that the woman in question *was* the driver. Isn't this correct?
Still, if she had an issue that limited use of her hands, it was *her* fault for not making adequate compensation therefore through the use of more than average prudence. McDonald's only responsibility regarding such cases is that required under the applicable law respecting handicapped access.
If the woman was not obviously impaired, McDonald's would have had no reasonable expectation it needed to do anything to protect her from her own limitations.
Since the coffee was deemed unreasonably hot, and since McDonald's was found to not only be aware of that fact but also to have had it that way as a result of deliberate policy, their responsibility was clear.
The woman may have been found to be contributorily negligent--in many states, that would offset part of the damages. Historically, there was an "absolute liability" standard in many cases, where if anyone were found to have been a contributing factor to an accident, even to a small degree, recovery was completely barred. As time has passed, however, the standard that predominates now is one of contributory negligence. Presently, in those states with this standard, if a person is found to be 20% responsible for an accident and the other party 80%, then the damages awarded are supposed to be reduced by that amount. This is at times the producer of some interesting verdicts, especially concerning third parties who are injured in the accident. If, for instance, you are found to be 20% liable for an accident and a passenger in your auto had damages of, say, two million dollars, then theoretically you would be liable for four hundred thousand bucks. (There are other factors often involved, such as "joint and several liability" rules that may mean that if you aren't solvent the other party may be held liable for the whole thing--but that's a topic for another day!).
Many results in court seem very strange; a good percentage of them are not strange at all when the facts are known and the applicable law is not so esoteric. Since the law is an institution of, by, and for human beings, though, the results are often strange by *any* standard!
However, throwing in "facts not in evidence"--like the question regarding arthritic hands--is a favorite tactic among law students. It is also a favorite of law professors to use in hypothetical cases for the students to give opinions on during the exams. Since most law school exams are essays, you can imagine how complex it must be to grade them...and what an advantage it is to be a good typist when law school exam time comes around!
In my case, I *loved* law school but hated dealing with lawyers 24/7--so I left practice many years ago with a great sigh of relief (sounding from all sides, I'm sure!).
David
-----Original Message from Jason A. Czekalski <Topsidefarm -at- mva -dot- net>-----
Then the fault lies with the driver of the car for not assisting her.
Besides, it would still seem stupid to attempt to hold a styrofoam
cup between your knees.
Jaspn A. Czekalski
-------- Original Message --------
==> From: cupton -at- syclone -dot- net
==> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:29:36 -0400
No one has mentioned the possibility that she was arthritic and
didn't have good use of her hands. Wouldn't that make a difference?
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or view a live demo at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
