Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!purdue!decwrl!eda!jim
From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES:  DID HE DO US A SER
Message-ID: <374@eda.com>
Date: 25 Nov 88 19:15:37 GMT
References: <1330@stiatl.UUCP> <79700016@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1564@stiatl.UUCP> <15@kepler1.UUCP> <22740@cornell.UUCP> <617@white.gcm>
Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Distribution: na
Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 38

In article <617@white.gcm> dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell) writes:
| In article <22740@cornell.UUCP> moore@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Doug Moore) writes:
| 
[...]
| .>to be insufficient to cover those claims Cornell should be liable to the
| .>extent that their own negligence contributed to those damages.
[...]
| .in at least 3 ways.  First, and most selfishly, you threaten me.  I don't want
| 
| Doug, learn what the words "to the extent" mean, and cut the bull about
| being threatened.
| 
| -- 
| Dave Caswell

Uhm, Dave, I think you should review the 'deep pockets' laws, before you say
this.

Many states have 'deep pockets laws' which result in any liability, even
1%, under the law being 100% liable.

In the RTM/Cornell case, if tried in California, any amount rewarded, would
be paid by the combination of RTM and Cornell. After RTM put up his $10,
the balance of the penalty would be paid by Cornell, even if the jury
judged Cornell only 1% responsible. And don't quote the recent California
deep pockets limiting initiative. That only limited the non-economic, 
i.e. 'pain and suffering', awards.

So unfortunately, in the context you meant 'to the extent', it may be
a legally meaningless term.

jim

-- 
Jim Budler   address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com
#define disclaimer	"I do not speak for my employer"
#define truth       "I speak for myself"
#define result      "variable"