ryanov wrote:You actually don't know what you're talking about with regard to the coffee suit. It's not my job to teach you, but go read something about it before you make snap judgments.
Having educated myself to a reasonable degree regarding this suit, I have essentially come to the same 'snap judgment' conclusion.
justalurker66 wrote:As far as how the case is going ... I believe the plaintiff should be doing the research. Asking the defendant to do their homework for them seems like it would violate some rule about self incrimination. The information provided in their response is enough to go on ... few problems at that time of night and no other electrocutions on their system. Let the plaintiff prove their point instead of placing the burden of proof on the defense.
This process is known as discovery and is present in all civil trials. The defendant has to provide information requested from the plaintiff (and vice versa) as long as it is within a certain degree of relevance. This information exchange is 'out of court', so to speak - the plaintiff still has to introduce any evidence that is acquired and prove the elements of the claim.
CHANGEATJAMAICA wrote:After reading Hopkin's council's request to the court it is obvious a lot of $100+/hours have been spent thus far. Even if Mr. Hopkin's wins his suit, he and his family will see very little of the gross award.
These types of cases are frequently taken on a contingency fee basis, where the lawyer will get 1/3 of the award, instead of being paid by the hour