第３６回　WORKSHOP報告（４月２１日） / 参加者９４名

第３６回　WORKSHOP報告（４月２１日） / 参加者９４名

みなさまこんにちは。

４月２１日（土）に開催されたworkshopの報告をさせていただきます。

**************************************

《　今回のworkshop　》

○workshop参加人数：９４名（うち新人の方：１１名）
○【前半】：「日本の司法制度の問題点」をテーマとしたワールドカフェ方式のワーク
○【後半】：「日本とアメリカの法制度の違い」をテーマとしたディスカッション
○【懇親会】約８０人の方がご参加

**************************************

今回は、これまで一番多くの方々にご参加いただきました（９４名）。
多くの新人の方々にもお越しいただき、ありがとうございました。

 

今回の後半は、幹事の一人であるFさんに作成していただきました。
「日本とアメリカの法制度の違い」という法律のテーマで、
難易度が高いマテリアルでしたが、前半も「日本の司法制度の問題点」
をテーマにワールドカフェを採用し、前半と後半で、司法制度という点で
関連させて、workshopを行いました。

ワールドカフェは基本的に４人のテーブルで議論が行われます。
少人数ということで、話題が続くかな、とも思いましたが、
実際に議論を始めてみると、各テーブルで活発に議論が行われていました。

後半はテレビでも「自分でコーヒーをこぼしてマクドナルドを訴えて
大金をもらったおばあさんがいる」とよく話題になっていた「マクドナルド・コーヒー事件」を
題材に「日本とアメリカの法制度の違い」について議論が行われました。

上級テーブルでは、法律の専門家として現場でご活躍のメンバーや、ロースクール生である
作成者のFさんを中心に、興味深い議論が行われていたようです。

話はかわりますが、今回参加された新人の方々は、４月という新たな年度はじまりの
月ということもあって、就職などで新たに関西に来られた方々も何人かご参加いただいて
いたようです。E’s clubは関西以外の出身の方々が多く参加されているので、
この春関西で新生活を始められたこの報告をご覧のみなさまもぜひご参加ください。

それでは今回の案内メールをご覧ください。

**********************************************

私たちと一緒に英語で話をしませんか？ご興味を持たれた方は、

入会申込フォーム

https://english-speaking-club.com/cms/?page_id=93

よりお申し込みください。お待ちしています！

 

***********************************************************

＜英語サークル　E’s club　第３６回workshopのご案内＞

みなさまこんにちは、E’s club幹事のKです。第３６回workshopの詳細をお送りいたします。
今回のマテリアルは前半をNさんに、後半をFさんに作成していただきました。
前半は「日本の司法制度の問題点」をテーマとしたワールドカフェ方式のワークを行います。
後半は「日本とアメリカの法制度の違い」をテーマとしたディスカッションです。

[今週のマテリアル]

今年の１月に、「ワールドカフェ」という手法でディスカッションを行いました。
今回はその2回目です。
前回ご参加していただいた方には繰り返しになりますが、
まず、ワールドカフェとはどのようなものか、がこちらになります。

********************************************************************

■ワールド・カフェとは？

Juanita Brown（アニータ・ブラウン）氏とDavid Isaacs（デイビッド・アイ
ザックス）氏によって、1995年に開発・提唱されました。

当時二人が、知的資本経営に関するリーダーを自宅に招いた話し合いの場におい
て、ゲストがリラックスしてオープンに生成的な話し合いを行 えるよ うに、
様々な工夫を凝らした空間で話し合いを行った結果、創造性に富んだダイアロー
グを行うことができたことが始まりとなります。

その後、想像できないほど多くの知識や洞察が生まれたことに感銘を受けた二人
が、その経験から主体性と創造性を高める話し合いのエッセンス を抽出 してま
とめたのがワールド・カフェです。「知識や知恵は、機能的な会議室の中で生ま
れるのではなく、人々がオープンに会話を行い、自由にネット ワークを築くこ
とのできる『カフェ』のような空間でこそ創発される」という考えに基づいた話
し合いの手法です。

□本物のカフェのようにリラックスした雰囲気の中で、テーマに集中した対話を
行います。

□自分の意見を否定されず、尊重されるという安全な場で、相手の意見を聞き、
つながりを意識しながら自分の意見を伝えることにより生まれる 場の一 体感を
味わえます。

□メンバーの組み合わせを変えながら、４～５人単位の小グループで話し合いを
続けることにより、あたかも参加者全員が話し合っているような 効果が 得られ
ます。

□参加者数は12人から、1,000人以上でも実施可能です。

*********************************************************************

以上がウェブからの情報になります。

様々な団体が、この対話方式を取り入れて、話しやすい雰囲気のなか、クリエイ
ティブな考えを生み出しているようです。

一度E’s clubでもこの手法を取り入れてみたいと思います。

具体的な方法はこちら↓

*******************************************

一般的に行われている「ワールドカフェ」では、１つのテーマに対して
（１）講師やその議題に関する識者から、プレゼンなどでの１～３時間ほどの情
報提供
があって、その後
（２）４人前後のグループに分かれて、ワールドカフェ方式で対話を約１～３時間
をするということが多いようです。

今回のworkshopでは、Fさんからlatter halfの議題

【Can you accept the idea of PUNITIVE DAMAGES（懲罰的損害賠償）?】

と、法律・裁判に関するagendaをいただいていますので、
前半のテーマも法律・裁判に関連するものにさせていただきました。

————————————————————————————–
Question for WORLD CAFE on Apr 21th.
【What do you see as problematic points of Japan’s judicial system? How
can we solve the problems?】
Q：日本の司法制度の問題点はなんだと思いますか。また、その問題点をどのよ
うに解決すべきですか。
————————————————————————————–
１．準備
・４人ずつグループを作り、テーブルに座る
・テーブルの上には大きめの紙と各自一本ずつのペン
２．カフェトーク・ラウンド
・１ラウンド１５分で、トピックにそってカフェ的にリラックスした会話を楽しむ
・会話しながら、出たアイデアとか言葉をそれぞれが自由に紙に書く（紙ス
ペースの使い方は自由）
・１ラウンドが終わるころにテーブルに残る人（ホスト）を決め、その場に残
し、それ以外の参加者は別のテーブルへ移動
・残ったホストが自分のテーブルで話された内容を新しいメンバーに説明。さ
らに会話を深める
・ラウンドを２ラウンド繰り返す
３．最終（３回目）ラウンド
・最終（３回目）ラウンドで、全員が最初のテーブルへもどる
・別のテーブルで得られた気付きや理解を交換し、さらに全体でもシェアをする

 

Fです。

今回は日本とアメリカの法制度の違いについて議論してもらいます。

裁判で損害賠償請求が認められた場合、賠償額は日本では原則として原状回復に
必要な額に限られます。
その一方で、アメリカでは悪質だと認定された場合には懲罰的損害賠償としてと
んでもない額の賠償金が課されることがあります。

そこで、「アメリカではコーヒーをこぼしてマクドナルドを訴えて大金をもらっ
たおばあさんがいるらしい」と話題になった事件を題材に考えてみま しょう。
この事件は、一部分だけがセンセーショナルに報じられてしまったため、一見す
るとひどい話にも思えます。
でも、裁判での事実認定を確認すると、そう単純な話ではないようです。

Materialは2つ載せているので長めですが、多くの人は1つ目のものだけをじっく
り読んでいただければ十分です。
2つ目は、訴状と答弁書の概要をまとめたものです。アメリカの裁判で当事者が
どのような主張をするのか気になるという方はこちらも読んでいただけ れば興
味深いかと思います。

【Agenda 】Can you accept the idea of PUNITIVE DAMAGES（懲罰的損害賠償）?
~Differences about “DAMAGES SUITS(損害賠償請求訴訟)” between Japan and
America~

【Questions】

1. Before reading the materials below, have you known about the
McDonalds’ coffee case? If Yes, how did you feel about that?

2. If you were Stella Liebeck, would you sue McDonalds’ Restaurants?

3. It is said that America is a litigious society(訴訟社会). Do you
expect that
Japan will be the same society as America?

4. These phrases are warnings of some products in America.
○ロウソク⇒「耳栓として使用しないで下さい」”Do not use soft wax as ear plugs”
○包丁⇒「口論のさいに絶対に包丁を持たないで下さい」”Never hold a knife
while arguing”
○携帯電話⇒「電子レンジの中で乾かさないで下さい」”Don’t try to dry your
phone in a microwave oven”
What do you think of these warnings?
What do you think of the society where companies need these warnings for
their defense measures?

5. Should Japan introduce a system of punitive damages?

The Actual Facts about the McDonalds’ Coffee Case
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds’ scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it
is important to understand some points that were not reported in most
of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it
was scalding — capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin,
flesh and muscle. Here’s the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat
of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’
coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that
was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local
McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case,
often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was
in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck
placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic
lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the
cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it
next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered
full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her
body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and
groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time
she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and
nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds’ quality assurance manager testified that the
company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot
at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a
burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or
above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was
poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it
would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager
admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no
intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.

Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the
extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases
exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155
degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a
serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own
research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a “warning” but a
“reminder” since the location of the writing would not warn customers
of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 —
or three times compensatory damages — even though the judge called
McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has
never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a
public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media
reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be
condoned.
—–
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. (c) 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California
—–
Brought to you by – The ‘Lectric Law Library
The Net’s Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ
http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html

What did the complaint allege?

Filed on October 5, 1993 the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint recited the
following allegations:

A. The coffee purchased by her on 2/27/92 was unreasonably dangerous
because it was excessively hot and Defendants are liable to her for
the physical and mental harm which it caused at the time of its sale
and consumption on 2/27/92.

B. The product in question, coffee, was and is routinely sold and
manufactured by the Defendants, and it reached Plaintiff in the same
condition as it was at the time of the sale; further, Plaintiff in no
way is guilty of any fault and the Defendants are strictly liable to
Plaintiff under the Restatement of Torts Second, §402(a);

C. The coffee was defectively manufactured, served in a container that
had design defects, and the coffee itself was manufactured defectively
due to excessive heat; further, the container that it was sold in had
no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, rendering the product
defectively marketed;

D. The producing cause of Stella Liebeck’s injuries was the exclusive
fault of the Defendants;

E. At all material times Defendants were aware of the dangerous
condition of the coffee inherent in serving it at the temperature at
which it was sold; they knew of the likely consequences of such acts;
they knew of the risks involved and acted with a conscious
indifference and willful and wanton disregard for the safety of Stella
Liebeck and any other consumer of the product;

F. Defendants are expert manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of
coffee and had a duty to test and inspect the product for unreasonably
dangerous conditions, which they either failed to do, or
alternatively, which they did negligently, or in the alternative, did
with malice with complete disregard for the dangers inherent in
selling coffee at the temperature at which it was sold causing a high
probability of severe burns in connection with the sale of the
product.

What damages were alleged in the amended complaint?

As set forth in the Amended Complaint, the damages purportedly
sustained and sought were:

VI.
As a result of spillage of the defective coffee, Plaintiff sustained
burns on her perineum, upper inner thighs, buttocks, genital areas,
and lower abdominal wall including the left groin. The burns consisted
of both second and third degree burns and were of such severity as to
require debridement and skin grafting, causing enormous conscious pain
and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of life’s enjoyment, for which
she seeks damages. The foregoing treatment caused Plaintiff to incur
medical expenses in the past, at the present, and into the reasonable
future as follows: (a) past medical expenses: approximately
$10,500.00; (b) future medical expenses: approximately $2,500.00.
Total: $12,500.00.

VII.
Plaintiff Stella Liebeck was born on XX/XX/12 and was 79 years old at
the time of the injury. At the time in question Plaintiff was a
healthy, robust, and gainfully employed person, who worked as a sales
clerk and earned in excess of $5,000.00 per year; Stella Liebeck has
incurred lost earnings of approximately $5,000.00.

IX.
Further, as a direct result of the fault, or in the alternative, the
negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained severe
disfigurement and permanent scarring to her body, which she claims has
damaged her in an amount of not less than $100,000.

X.
As a result of the severe and painful burns described herein,
Plaintiff sues the Defendants in the amount of $125,000 for physical
pain, mental pain and anguish, and loss of life’s enjoyment during the
pendency of treatment including skin grafting, debridement, and
general recovery from painful scarring, as well as pain and discomfort
associated with drawn and tight skin in the scarred areas, which pain
and discomfort persists at the present and will persist into the
future.

XI.
Plaintiff comes now and sues McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s
Restaurants P.T.S., Inc. for gross negligence, for willful and wanton
disregrad of the rights, safety, and welfare of Stella Liebeck and any
other consumers that purchase coffee in the defective state in which
it is sold by Defendants, and for the marketing defect of no warning,
or in the alternative, insufficient warning, because McDonald’s
Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants P.T.S., Inc. fully know of and
are aware of innumerable burn cases caused by the fault, or in the
alternative, negligence of their operations in the manufacture, sale,
and marketing of extremely hot coffee. For this, Plaintiff comes now
and sues in the amount of three times compensatory damages for
punitive damages.

What were McDonald’s defenses?

In its Answer to the Amended Complaint, filed on September 22, 1993,
McDonald’s asserted the following affirmative defenses:

SECOND DEFENSE
If the Plaintiff was injured and damaged as alleged, then her injuries
and damages were the result of her own negligence or of the negligence
of a third person or party for whom this Defendant may not be held
responsible.

THIRD DEFENSE
If the Plaintiff was injured and damaged as alleged, which is
specifically denied, then her injuries or damages were the result of
an accident or inadvertence which was not the fault or responsibility
of this Defendant.

FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages.

FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff should be required to make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to punitive damages before any evidence hearing thereupon
is adduced before a jury.

SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims for excessively hot coffee fail to state a claim
for which this Court might grant relief.

SEVENTH DEFENSE
At all material times, these Defendants adhered to the applicable
standard of care and engaged in reasonable conduct.

＜参考資料＞
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9E%E3%82%AF%E3%83%89%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AB%E3%83%89%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%92%E3%83%BC%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6
※wikipedia「マクドナルド・コーヒー事件」

**********************************************

私たちと一緒に英語コミュニケーション能力を鍛えませんか？

ご興味を持たれた方は、

入会申込フォーム

https://english-speaking-club.com/cms/?page_id=93

よりお申し込みください。お待ちしています！

 

***********************************************************