Speed bump video (now tort law discussion)

[Jeff]

It seems that silly things I post like to turn in the huge MM deep-thinking treads. LOL. After much review I have decided that the "wrongness" of my use of the coffee example only depends on one's OPINION of the case. If you agree with the court that McDonald's was negligent then I am making a bad analogy. But I don't care what the court found. I think (as said above) that the woman deserves nothing. That is not up for debate as it is MY personal view on the story. So taken in that way the fool in the fast car (he hasn't been mentioned in here for ages) deserves nothing. Why? Because it was his error, just like the woman with the coffee. The point I was making is that if this guy could sue and win it would be the same issue (from my point of view) as the coffee. Needless litigation to make people money. Which I see as a growing trend in America where everyone who owns a business must fear loosing it all (or a ton of it) over something stupid that goes on outside of their control. So really it comes down to how a person decides the evidence in their mind. Look at all the people who go to death row proceedings and beg for the murderer to get off. It really does not matter to them that he was found guilty, they feel he was wrongly convicted. Alright, just thought I would make a post to clear up, I have slept off any feelings of anger I had previous.