They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. ![]() Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries ( McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault), reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. ![]() Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial McDonald's refused both. McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". * When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. McDonald's had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases. * Liebeck's case was far from an isolated event. If that is a reference to the famous McDonald's Hot Coffee Case you are completely ignorant of the facts: > whatever random reason down to your own stupidity ("hot coffee") "At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa's state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so." "When MindGeek decides to monetize child porn, and Visa decides to continue to allow its payment network to be used for that goal despite knowledge of MindGeek's monetization of child porn, it is entirely foreseeable that victims of child porn like plaintiff will suffer the harms that plaintiff alleges," Carney wrote. Specifically, he wrote, "Visa knew that MindGeek's websites were teeming with monetized child porn" that there was a "criminal agreement to financially benefit from child porn that can be inferred from decision to continue to recognize MindGeek as a merchant despite allegedly knowing that MindGeek monetized a substantial amount of child porn" and that "the court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn" by "knowingly provid the tool used to complete the crime." ![]() In the ruling, Carney held that the plaintiff "adequately alleged" that Visa engaged in a criminal conspiracy with MindGeek to monetize child pornography. MindGeek case, denying Visa's motion to dismiss the claim it violated California's Unfair Competition Law - which prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices - by processing payments for child porn. District Court of the Central District of California issued a decision in the Fleites v. In a setback for Visa in a case alleging the payment processor is liable for the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek, a federal judge ruled that it was reasonable to conclude that Visa knowingly facilitated the criminal activity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |