Page 2 of 2

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:54 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Ameer wrote:
Grammy wrote:3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?
Here's how I understand it. I can sue you for wrongful termination even if I never worked for you. The suit should be tossed out but I have the right to sue.
Correct, and the judge would likely award the defendant his/her defense costs since the suit would be so frivolous.

Chas.

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:23 am
by Grammy
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Ameer wrote:
Grammy wrote:3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?
Here's how I understand it. I can sue you for wrongful termination even if I never worked for you. The suit should be tossed out but I have the right to sue.
Correct, and the judge would likely award the defendant his/her defense costs since the suit would be so frivolous.

Chas.
Thank-you,
Jim

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:32 am
by cbr600
deleted

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:25 am
by e-bil
The McDonald's case while the media has had a field day with it was actually a valid product safety case. It came out in trial that the coffee was stored and served at around 190 degrees which is capable of causing very severe burns and was much higher than the standard that McDonald's used.

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:03 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
e-bil wrote:The McDonald's case while the media has had a field day with it was actually a valid product safety case. It came out in trial that the coffee was stored and served at around 190 degrees which is capable of causing very severe burns and was much higher than the standard that McDonald's used.
Correct, and the manager had wired around a faulty thermostat so the burner was always fully on. There's a lot more to the story than the media disclosed.

Chas.

Re: Castle Doctrine in Texas

Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:30 am
by b322da
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
e-bil wrote:The McDonald's case while the media has had a field day with it was actually a valid product safety case. It came out in trial that the coffee was stored and served at around 190 degrees which is capable of causing very severe burns and was much higher than the standard that McDonald's used.
Correct, and the manager had wired around a faulty thermostat so the burner was always fully on. There's a lot more to the story than the media disclosed.

Chas.
:iagree: as usual.

Although, with undying respect for our mentor, I might suggest that "There's a lot more to the story than the media disclosed" be changed to read: "There's a lot more to the story than the media chose to disclose."

Elmo