Comments on: Liability roundup

By: En Passant

En Passant — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:30:33 +0000

In reply to jimc5499.

I was thanked for my time and dismissed.

It's small solace, but at least you cost the side who dismissed you one of their limited number of peremptory challenges. The same thing often happens to lawyers and other professionals who are called for jury duty. One side or the other usually wants a jury of the most gullible and unskilled people possible.

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:42:08 +0000

In reply to Gasman. I’ve been impaneled several times, but reached a jury only once. That was in slip and fall liability case in NYC. I was amazed, because at the time I was a senior exec at a large insurance company in New York. Go figure.

By: jimc5499

jimc5499 — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 20:35:07 +0000

In reply to Gasman.

Gasman,
I have been summoned for Jury Duty three times in my life. Once I was in a pool for three days and then told that I wasn’t needed. The other two times I made it to the selection phase. Both were Liability Trials, both times when I was asked what I did for a living and replied “Mechanical Engineer” I was thanked for my time and dismissed. Do you think that there might be a reason why they want people on a Jury that don’t understand science?

By: Gasman

Gasman — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:02:23 +0000

Regarding the idea of expert jurors for cases with a scientific question at the core, such as the plausibility of glyphosate causing NHL.
The writers in the links suggested that only jurors who knew the science could judge the science. But that would hardly be an impartial jury, or at the least, selection of jurors absent something like a compulsory and random draft from throughout the country or throughout the world would be needed. Science knows no jurisdiction, so there can be no geographic relationship between the juror and the courts venue. And experts might well be foreign citizens, so how could a true fact finding jury exclude the best fact finders merely because they live elsewhere

Maybe a better proposal would be to impanel jurors capable of knowing the subject. Learned folks who have rigorous scientific training, and some decades experience at the general methodology of research, data analysis, and general debunkum skills. Pull from an unrelated scientific field, and then let the expert witnesses on both sides present the evidence to a at cannot easily be fooled with smoke and mirrors.

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:26:28 +0000

“Elizabeth Warren has nothing to apologize for about her bankruptcy work for Dow Corning.”

I accept what you say, and i think that identifies the sole qualification (aside from her age) that Warren has to be President – she knows a lot about bankruptcy.