As I’m sure you know, I agree with you on that. My only point was this: often (as in the McDonalds case) the anti-tort reform movement seeks to defeat arguments that a particular suit is frivolous by presenting facts about what happened designed to “prove” that the case has legal merit. That’s Tort Deform’s approach here.

And I’m saying that if we accept for the sake of argument that they’re correct, then that’s evidence the law needs to be changed, not evidence that tort reform proponents should close up shop and stop criticizing the case.

Cyrus, I did not say that the facts were not in dispute. I said that “most of which are not in dispute OR are not important.”

I gave an example: whether she was the driver or passenger. Lots of people do admittedly get that wrong — but what does that have to do with whether the case is a “poster child” case for tort reform? It’s unimportant. Nothing in McDonalds’ liability, or lack thereof, turns on that point.

You (like many tort reformers) list details of the monetary give-and-take, for instance by saying that she offered to settle for $20,000, and McDonalds rejected it. I don’t know that this has ever been “in dispute,” but assuming arguendo that it was, what possible relevance does it have to whether the case was correctly decided? Ditto for the facts related to remittur. Again, I don’t know that these facts were ever in dispute, but even if they were, what do they have to do with whether the case should ever have been brought or was correctly decided?

The dispute over Stella Liebeck between tort reformers and anti-tort reformers is not over the facts, but over the legal issues. Assuming that some of the facts you raise have actually been incorrectly stated by tort reformers, that doesn’t vitiate the tort reform argument that the case was problematic (that’s a polite word for “bogus”) as a matter of law.

(To the extent that it was correctly decided under existing law, that’s an argument for why the law needs to be changed, not an argument that the case was legitimate.)

The RELEVANT facts are not in dispute. She spilled the coffee on herself, causing burns.

How she did so or the degree of the burns is not relevant to who is at fault. She spilled a hot substance on herself.

Was she the driver? Well, no (and that is certainly not in dispute HERE), but it doesn’t matter.

Was she mildly burned? Again, no (not in dispute here, either), but again, referring to McDonald’s liability, that doesn’t matter, either.

What matters is the following: is coffee served hot? If not, OK, there might be a case. If so (and it IS so), then who did the spilling? The party who did the spilling is the party responsible.

The other facts of the case are not relevant to the finding of fault.

“I invite you to get [a tort “reform” organization] or any other [defendat’s]law firm (whether under indictment or not) to double my salary to support tort reform and see whether I accept

(these comment boxes are pretty cramped)

Thanks for your response.

I in turn say:

“I invite you to get [a tort “reform” organization] or any other [defendat’s]law firm (whether under indictment or not) to double my salary to oppose tort reform and see whether I accept it.

Ted, for once in our short but fiery online relationship, we truly find common ground.

Thanks for finding it.

Cheers,
Cyrus

I don’t personally find funding relevant; ideas should be judged on their merits. I just think it’s curious that you’re not willing to be judged by the same standards by which your blog judges others. Motes and beams and all that.

For the record, my salary from the American Enterprise Institute is fully funded by the American Enterprise Institute, which discloses its policies on funding. My annual salary reflects a decrease of over 70% from the AGI I reported in 2004, the last full tax year I was an attorney–so if one includes opportunity costs, the majority of my funding is provided by me, because I am foregoing far more lucrative opportunities. If you think my views are available to the highest bidder, I invite you to get Milberg Weiss or any other plaintiffs’ law firm (whether under indictment or not) to double my salary to oppose tort reform and see whether I accept it.

Thanks for your comment. You are incorrect that the facts were not in dispute. I can and will supply an entire list of tort “reformer” public comments which completely distorted these facts beyond recognition in making their case.

As you know from reading the entire thing, this post is not focused on the legal issues, but in debunking the facts which you attempt to minimize above.

Readers should take a read and judge for themselves whether the facts are in dispute.

If they weren’t in dispute, it would have been a waste of time to write the post….. because there would be nothing to debunk.

Thanks for your comment.

I will always encourage people to question the source(s) of funding of all organizations.

Indeed, I invite you now to disclose your own.

As to my fellowship, all I can respond with is the truth, which is the ultimate formal name of the fellow was in constant flux in the months before I began working. If that works into some narratuve regarding MW that fits your fancy, that’s fine with me, but it is what it is.

But going forward if you chose to discuss the funding of my public interest fellowship, I really must insist that you disclose your own – whatever kind it may be or is.