Only the most hardened heart cannot find some level of sympathy for the family members of the coal miners who were found dead in Tallmansville, West Virginia. After the initial news of miners being trapped inside the mine, family members gathered at the Sago Baptist Church near the mine.
After some 41 hours of waiting for news regarding the status of their loved ones, word finally came that one body had been found and the status of the other 12 was yet undetermined. Obviously, emotions were all over the map as families prayed and hoped for positive news. About 3 hours after the news of the first discovery, news surfaced from the depths of the mine that the 12 remaining miners were alive. As one might imagine, euphoria broke out inside and outside the church and the good news spread rapidly. Unfortunately, somewhere between the location of the miners and the location of their families, the message of the miners’ status was garbled or misunderstood or misspoken: 11 of the remaining 12 were, in fact, dead.
In the midst of all the excitement and confusion, the mistake was realized and needed to be corrected. The company, in an effort to verify the miners’ status, waited another 3 hours before notifying the families who were still celebrating and waiting for their men to finally return alive from the depths of the earth. Jubilation was suddenly turned to disbelief, outrage, bewilderment, and brokenness when the correction was delivered.
In Israel this type of miscommunication is commonly referred to as a “broken telephone.” Many people are familiar with the children’s game where the first person whispers something into the ear of the second child. The second child whispers the message to the third and so on. The “fun” part of the game is to see how much the message has changed by the time it gets to the end. Of course, the change isn’t intentional it simply demonstrates the tenuous nature of point to point to point communication. Clearly, in the case of the coalmine, the message of the “broken telephone” was not a game, neither was it intentional nor fun.
As usual, the 24-hour news channels are offering all types of speculations on who is to blame for this miscommunication. Additionally, they are offering video blurbs of the angry, grieving families lashing out at the mining company management, which is probably unfair to the families because they are being tempted to say all sorts of things, primarily venting their anger. International television is not a good venue for that type of thing so close to the time of the tragedy. While the raw emotions are real, they are raw emotions, which generally need some time to be put into perspective. This being the case, I have committed myself to be very generous in my reaction toward these grieving people as they vent their anger and speculation on who is to blame, though it is too early to know what happened.
I am, however, going to be less generous toward the news outlets and the lawyers who invade this community in an effort to encourage these families to sue someone because of a “broken telephone.” People make mistakes, and this was just that, a mistake. Unfortunately, I just saw on the news a woman declaring her intentions to sue because she had been told her daddy was alive before she was told he was dead. It’s a tragedy to be put on an emotional roller coaster like these families were, no doubt. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it doesn’t merit financial compensation. Suing in this case, would suggest that the motivation is greed not justice.
Jury Duty
Here’s the short version: On their way home to watch a movie, Jeromy, his mother Trela and friend Andrew Ellifritz stopped at a McDonalds drive-thru for a quick bite to eat. When ordering their meals through the drive-thru speaker, Jeromy allegedly informed the order-taker that he DID NOT want cheese on his burgers because he is allergic to cheese. According to his lawyer, Jeromy also told at least two other workers “face to face” that he couldn’t have cheese because of allergies.
Assuming he had done enough to protect his own life, Jeromy and company drove home, entered a darkened room where they planned to watch a movie, and without inspection tore into the meal.
Almost immediately Jeromy started to have allergic reactions because there was, in fact, cheese on his burgers. He was rushed to the hospital and “was only moments from death or serious injury by the time he reached the hospital.”
Jeromy’s lawyer, Timothy Houston, said, “By my count, he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it. And it did [have cheese] and almost cost him his life.” Therefore, the trio, deserve $10,000,000: Jeromy for almost dying and the other two for risking their lives rushing him to the hospital.
If I’m on the jury, I’m probably getting dismissed at this point, because I would likely start muttering to myself or out loud: “Maybe he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it, but what about the sixth and MOST IMPORTANT step?” Why didn’t he look at the thing just to make sure it didn’t have cheese?
Doesn’t it make more sense that if he is deathly allergic to cheese that he would inspect his sandwich BEFORE eating it? And if he didn’t, wouldn’t that be reckless behavior?
At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. If McDonalds had advertised “hypo-allergenic hamburgers” and then hid the cheese in the burger, that would be one thing. But that isn’t what is being alleged. That McDonalds mistakenly gave the man a cheeseburger is what is being alleged.
McDonalds pushes out lots of burgers everyday (many of them cheeseburgers); and the chance that a cheeseburger may be put into the wrong wrapper or the wrong bag is, it seems to me, fairly high. For a deathly allergic person to eat at McDonalds seems risky to me, but for that same person to not check his food before eating is without question, highly risky behavior.
According to Jeromy’s lawyer, McDonalds offered to pay half, then all of Jeromy’s $700 medical expenses, but the trio was not interested in that offer and McDonalds wasn’t offering anything more than the medical expenses. That being the case, apparently the only resolution is $10,000,000. If I’m on the jury, Jeromy would regret the decision to reject McDonalds’ initial offer.
However, my prediction is that one of two things will happen: First and most likely, due to the high cost of defending themselves in a trial, McDonalds will settle out of court for a million or so. We probably will not find out due to secrecy agreements. Or, the jury will award a ridiculous amount to the plaintiff rewarding him for his reckless behavior. This seems to be the pattern of juries these days.
To read the whole story (without my commentary) see here.
Share this:
Like this: