The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search instagram avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content

Segment Three:

They go after the 700 complaints against McDonalds. What they point out is that there were 1 billion cups served. The professor comes up with a ten billion number and then the judge says he would have to know more. See, the point they are missing is that a person was injured. Think about how many cars go through intersections and there are no accidents does that reduce the fault of those who do injure people?

The professor then goes on to say she’s not bothered by the number of people injured and that other cases have been rejected by the court. So apparently the idea that a person should have a right to go to trial isn’t governed by the constitution, but by her sense of right and wrong.

They go to punitive and at least admit they were rare. They try to defend the McDonalds case here. What about the jury that thought McDonalds was just plain wrong and didn’t care? That they were reckless and thus punished them two days coffee sales. The jury said “Sure McDonalds, act as you please, but here is what you get for harming this woman so badly”. This panel is a bunch of apologists who are masquerading as being real reviewers.

Comments for this article are closed.