Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: SSL operation failed with code 1. OpenSSL Error messages: error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: Failed to enable crypto in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blan.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: operation failed in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26
Friday, August 18th 2006

"Uh, So If I Vote 'Negleegent' Who Wins?"

Juries can’t even keep their verdicts in order.

The jury in the Barnett case was asked both if Merck should be held strictly liable for failure to warn and causing Barnett’s heart attack, and if Merck was negligent in failing to warn and causing Barnett’s heart attack. Interestingly, the jury answered the first question “No,” and the second question, “Yes,” which is logically inconsistent. While it’s possible to not be negligent, yet held strictly liable, it’s impossible to both be negligent but not strictly liable.

Thank God that our system is set up to only allow people to sit who either have nothing to do or aren’t smart enough to come up with a reason to be excused.

Seriously, with antecedal evidence like this, you don’t need anything else. This is inexcusable even once:

“When they started talking all their science stuff, it was just like, wah wah wah (imitating the “adults talking during a Charlie Brown movie” noise). We didn’t understand a thing they were saying.” — Juror, Garza v. Merck