Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

[bigdee]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Ironic - going to court is a gamble...for a case against gambling. But I wonder why we always blame the lawyers -- isn't it the jury who decides? I'm pretty sure the lawyers would lose interest in these cases if juries didn't make it so lucrative. It's kind of like us blaming the politicians when we're the ones who put them in office?

Good point jeffnick......jurors get impatient after a case drags out for a long time and lawyers play on this. A good judge should keep things moving.

 

[wifisher]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

Ironic - going to court is a gamble...for a case against gambling. But I wonder why we always blame the lawyers -- isn't it the jury who decides? I'm pretty sure the lawyers would lose interest in these cases if juries didn't make it so lucrative. It's kind of like us blaming the politicians when we're the ones who put them in office?

The reason that we blame the lawyers is because there are lawyers that seek out cases such as this. They will approach the plaintiff and suggest the case, instead of the way it should be. The jury is really caught in the middle. They have to listen to the entire case, and consider the law instead of common sense. It is not an easy thing to do, especially for the average jury member, who has no education dealing with the law. (99% of the population of our country.) They are bombarded with information from both sides of the case, and have to interpret laws that many times may leave interpretation up to the audience. With a good lawyer on each side, it may be hard to sort out the interpretation of the law from either side. Especially in a case such as this, where the infraction (gambling) is under contention as to the meaning of the word in addition to the letter of the law.

 

[fishrdan]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

They have to listen to the entire case, and consider the law instead of common sense.

and have to interpret laws that many times may leave interpretation up to the audience. With a good lawyer on each side, it may be hard to sort out the interpretation of the law from either side.

I totally agree! When I served on a jury (once), we received our instructions and I basically took it as, forget common sense and try to interpret the law mean. We were also told, there were things that could not be taken into consideration, even though they have a huge bearing on the case... One of the witnesses slipped and we found out something that we were not supposed to know. NICE, lets leave out some of the facts and call it a fair trial.

 

[jonesg]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

This will go nowhere because she can't show how she has been personally damaged.
Dismissed.!

 

[j_martin]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

I totally agree! When I served on a jury (once), we received our instructions and I basically took it as, forget common sense and try to interpret the law mean. We were also told, there were things that could not be taken into consideration, even though they have a huge bearing on the case... One of the witnesses slipped and we found out something that we were not supposed to know. NICE, lets leave out some of the facts and call it a fair trial.

Actually, one of the key concepts that helped form this country is called jury lawlessness. It actually means that a juror can totally disregard the law if the law does not comply with common sense or decency. I've been called to jury duty several times but only served once. I have a hard time hiding the fact that I understand jury lawlessness and would apply it in a heartbeat.

Jury instructions, of course, tell you just exactly the opposite. You're supposed to be dumber than a pickle and follow instructions, while appearing to be making a legal decision.

 

[ezmobee]

Re: Chuck e cheese lawsuit. You gotta be kidding me!

The coffee thing does seem to have a second side, which often gets overlooked.

Yeah it's often overlooked that the coffee she was served was like 7 million degrees. It was negligence and she was seriously injured.

Kinda like mocking someone for suing cuz they slipped and fell at Home Depot but leaving out the fact that there was giant hole in the floor or something