Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on June 04, 2001, 07:40:00 AM
-
Now I Understand (and I might add, all the law suits below were won as a result of liberal judges)
Let's see if I understand how America works lately. . .
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock 'n' roll music or musician he liked.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company.
If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you blame the school for poor sex education.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, you blame the bartender.
If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to shoot up with heroin was dirty, you blame the government for not providing clean ones.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners,you blame television.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer.
If a crazed person climbs into the cockpit of an airliner and tries to kill the pilots at 35,000 feet and the passengers kill him instead, the mother of the deceased blames the airline.
If a women is accused of embezzeling $250,000 from her employer, she can use the defense of 'addicted to shopping' and get off scott free.
I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is anymore.
So if I die while my old, wrinkled bellybutton is parked in front of this computer, I want you to blame Bill Gates, OK?
-
I already blame Bill Gates for everything that is wrong in the world.
Windows becomes increasingly popular and so does the internet.
Law suits are on the rise, oddly enough coinciding with the extreme increase in the Windows operating system and Personal Computing.
Oh yeah and the Government is out to get me!
Doh! That's cuz I work for them! So much for that theory.
-SW
-
I think there would be one adjustment to our system of justice that could solve some problems. “Looser pays”, all the court costs, attorneys fees, etc…
It’s too easy to sue anybody for anything at anytime without any consideration. Whew, did I use any enough? There can be some of pitfalls with this type of system but I think it would help curb the tide of law suites going on.
Zippatuh
[This message has been edited by Zippatuh (edited 06-04-2001).]
-
Hey Rip,
From a liberal's perspective, I think these lawsuits are stupid, too! Except maybe the one about the ill-mannered grandkids and the TV. Some of the "role model" material we put on TV is downright horrible. And to think our kids don't learn from it is downright naive.
But I don't think they are representative of the American way of life, just a few stupid people. Just because some people don't take responsibility for their lives doesn't mean ALL people don't.
So don't loose heart. Some of us liberals are actually capable or rational thought.
Buhdman, out
-
If a women is accused of embezzeling $250,000 from her employer, she can use the defense of 'addicted to shopping' and get off scott free.
"scott free" is somewhat misleading.
Its strange, but this very thing happened in my parents neighborhood and may be the story you are reffering too. The similarities are glaring.
A lady is an accountant for a family owned buisness. She has been keeping the books for years. The company decides that they'll go to computerized accounting software and the accountant refuses to do so... so addimantly that flags are raised. An audit shows some $400,000 embezzled over the period of 10 years.
The lady has been using all of this money for two things: Supporting the shopping network almost singlehandedly and re-modeling here home with such lavish things that it was simply rediculous... like an all Teac deck that surrounded the house.
Her shopping addiction was prevelant as she had to rent mini-storage to keep all of her purchases stored. All worthless junk that was still in the mail packaging (never even unwrapped).
She was caught and may have gotten out of jail time, but she lost her house and all those neat little purchases. The family buisness never saw all of the $400,000... but the father is now living in a house with an all teac deck surrounding the house.
AKDejaVu
-
So don't loose heart. Some of us liberals are actually capable or rational thought
Yah, and to think TV is a role model in a home with strong parents?
No wonder I despise you tards.
-
Many of the problems referred to their can be traced to one cause: our antequated tort law system. At a time in history when the jury-trial method of proof was proving unworkable and being scaled back (in the UK) to specific criminal cases, some moron enshrined it as one of our precious rights never to be abridged. So if you can convince 12 professional ignoramuses that the preponderance of evidence in a field they know nothing about shows someone else to be at fault (add in your favorite "deep pockets" law here), not only can you win a nice award, but those same ignoramuses get to pick it.
In short, it's an out-of-date notion enshrined in the constitution that's causing all kinds of problems today, kinda like our right to a well-regulated militia (G, D, R).
As for the needles, well we don't blame the government, but we do point out that free distribution of needles is an inexpensive way to keep the incidence rate of seriously nasty diseases down. Folks who are addicted to heroin don't particularly care about their lives, but their illnesses not only add to the state's expenses, but also contribute to the spread of the epidemic.
And well kids have been disrespectful to Grandparents forever.
It's not a problem of "liberal judges". In these cases, the judges do not decide, the juries do.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 06-04-2001).]
-
Dinger, just for the record , some cases were decided by jury (ends to the means?) and some by the judges. (I know for a fact that the lady on a shopping spree was let off by a liberal Federal judge, since it was just in the news recently)
-
Stumbled across the article you were reffering to Rip.. not the same as my parents neighbor. The $$$ involved were much less with this one.
It didn't mention that she had repaid all of the money to her employer... and that she now has a felony fraud conviction. She wasn't sentanced to serve time in prison, but she still received a sentance.
I've seen 2 people (vendors) try to get access at our site with fraud convictions on their record. I imagine the same holds true at Boeing.... its not gonna happen.
She didn't get off easy by a long shot.
AKDejaVu
-
Deja, what the judge did was confirm that she does have a shopping disorder, ie. an excuse as to why she did what she did, thus the reduced sentence. Now that this precedence was set, expect to start seeing it quite often in future cases in order to get reduced sentences for anyone that steals. Big topic here on talk radio, both KVI and KOMO.
-
The government should never distribute the needles because it is too controversial an issue - it goes against moral and/or religious principles of many citizens/taxpayers (for example I think that people who get sick using dirty needles while taking drugs should be allowed to die and no state/federal money should be spent on their treatment, some other people would think such program would be condoning or promoting the drugs).
On the other hand, the needles are cheap and charities can distribute them at low cost and without any moral issues. But you need a prescription in order to buy those needles.
Why is that? I can (barely) see a need to require prescriptions for deadly poisons that can be used to harm other people or things that are considered addictive narcotics (as long as we fight illegal ones), but needles?
Government should get out of the way in that case. Not take responcibility for anything, just allow the needles/syringes to be sold freely.
miko
-
How about:
If, because of a medical condition, you are unable to walk a golf course, you sue the professional sport's association and the Supreme Court forces the association to change the sport.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992:
How about:
If, because of a medical condition, you are unable to walk a golf course, you sue the professional sport's association and the Supreme Court forces the association to change the sport.
What ever came of that? I remember hearing about it going on, but don't remember any resolution. Though, I think in this case it's a little different than a person spilling hot coffee on themselves and then suing the restaurant. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by buhdman:
Except maybe the one about the ill-mannered grandkids and the TV. Some of the "role model" material we put on TV is downright horrible. And to think our kids don't learn from it is downright naive.
Is it the fault of the TV or the fault of the parents of the children that kids are learning from the not-so-wholesome TV aspects?
Your comment is right though, kids DO learn from the TV. Especially when the parents use it as a babysitter.
IMO, it's up to the parents of the children to monitor what their kids watch. That responsibility doesn't go anywhere else, with the exception of movie theaters. TV does it's part by putting guidelines/ratings on shows and movies. What happens with the kids rests solely on the parents (and the movie theaters that actually ID and turn away kids from R movies.)
My point in all of this is in most cases, you can blame the parent for the kid's lack of respect/good behavior. Don't go blaming TV or computer games. Most of that stuff is made for adults (or at least older children), so the parents should do their best to keep the children from it, or better, educate them as to why it's not representative of good behavior. My mom did the latter with me, and I think I turned out ok. I'm a little messed up, but in good ways! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
"It's not my fault! its theirs who can't roll the dice of blame on anyone else"
-
Originally posted by Nifty:
What ever came of that? I remember hearing about it going on, but don't remember any resolution.
Actually the final Supreme Court decision just came down last week I think. They decided that he is allowed to use a cart under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I dont necessarily disagree with the decision....I just think people are overreacting thinking that all golfers are gonna try to take advantage of it. I mean if its covered by the ADA then wouldnt the other golfers who wanted to use a cart have to have a documented disability also? Its not like you could just show up one weekend and say "My back hurts....I wanna ride a cart this week."
-
LOL Rip.. now that u understand America... share with us yer understanding of women.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bye the bye.. at one time England ruled a mighty empire.. and had about 5000 lawyers. Total. Then one day they discovered they had 2 million lawyers... and no empire.
I'm wondering if we're gettin into the same boat now...
-
"Society has lost it's finesse"
Name the movie, win a dollar
-
Ripsnort,
The only one of the cases that you list, that I know the real details of, that is justified was the coffee incident.
Here's why:
1: McDonald's had recieved many (hundreds) of prior complaints about the tempature of their coffee. The coffee was so hot, 180 degrees farenheight in fact, that it would cause 3rd degree burns within a second of contact with human skin.
2: She was not driving. She was a passenger in her grandson's car. He stopped in a parking lot whereupon she went to remove the cap in order to add the cream and sugar that had been provided by McDonald's (showing that they intended the cap to be removed).
3: She initially asked them for $20,000.00 to help with the medical bills incurred by the 3rd degree burns she received over most of her lap and thighs. McDonald's told her to get lost. $20,000.00 would not have cover all of the bills, it simply would have helped.
4: She was not awarded "millions" as is most often said. She was initially awarded a total, from both the damages and punitive, of about $750,000.00, or about 1 day's coffee profits. The amount was reduced by a judge to about $250,000.00.
5. Lawsuits such as this are supposed to discourage companies from releasing products that are forseeably dangerous. It is easily forseeable that somebody will spill coffee on themselves. McDonald's had the same liability that a auto manufactuer has when an automobile is prone to combustion in a collision. Coffee is not being used as it is intended when it is spill on one's self, but neither is an automobile being used as intended when it is being crashed. In both cases it is reasonble to assume these things will occur occasionally and reasonable for the manufacturer to take reasonable steps to make the product safer in such an event. Coffee can be made safer by heating it to a tempature that is actually consumable and automobiles can be made safer by using more durable fuel tanks in more protected locations.
What it comes down to is that McDonald's knew their coffee was dangerously hot from the prior complaints and did nothing about it when it was reasonable for them to reduce the tempature by 10-20 degrees. A large part of the jury's punitive damage penalty was due to the callous manner that McDonalds had treated her.
Those are the facts, and that's the way I see it.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Crazy lawsuits are nothing new. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the extreme litigiousness of American society way back in the 1820's.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
Crazy lawsuits are nothing new. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the extreme litigiousness of American society way back in the 1820's.
-- Todd/DMF
Yes, but he was french, and immigrated, so whats your point? ;)
-
not sure whether to trust it or not but an LA jury awarded 2 billion dollar damages to a guy dying of cancer to be paid by Philip Morris??? If it's the case (and there was a clip of a really not very brainy sounding lady juror explaining their decision attached to this news section)
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
Karnak - let's replay this scenario replacing Macdonalds with her own kitchen (I guess you can choose different drink too as long as it's hot). Using your logic she could have sued:
a. at least 2 utility companies - water and gas/electric depending on how her stove is wired;
b. a kettle manufacturer;
c. a mug maker;
d. Nescafe for supplying the coffee so tasty that she just had to have a cuppa etc
Where does this stupidity end? Maybe the restaurant should have put some rat poison in that coffee so that the world would be rid of one more stupid? There's enough of them going around as it is... But I guess even that wouldn't work - she spilled the darn thing instead of drinking it - we are doomed! :D :D
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]
-
lynx-,
Your counter is a "straw man" argument. You substitute the events that happened for another set and say that because suing in the context of this other event would be stupid (I agree that it would be a idiotic lawsuit that any judge should toss out) then the other scenario is also stupid. That doesn't fly as a logical argument though.
In your changed event the lady in question had both the control and knowedge of how hot her coffee was, thus any harm she does to herself is entirely her fault.
In the real event the lady had neither the knowedge, nor complete control over the tempature of her coffee. True, she could have waited for it to cool off, but to know to do that requires her to know that the coffee is way, way too hot, information that she did not have.
There is also the purpose of allowing consumers to sue negligent corporations, the purpose of which is to disuade corporations from selling products that are known to be dangerous. McDonalds knew the coffee was dangerously hot because they had received hundreds of prior complaints. There was a cheap and easy solution to the danger, simply reduce the tempature by 10 degrees. Instead they gambled, and when she recognized that McDonald's was partially at fault, she asked them to assist her with the medical bills (she wasn't even asking then to pay all of her medical bills, let alone for pain and suffering) and they told her to get lost. Because of this McDonald's lost.
BTW, she did not suffer minor damage. Her genital area was severly burned, 3rd degree burned, requiring extensive surgery. She also had extensive 3rd and 2nd degree burns on her inner thighs. There was lots of medical wotk. She recognized that she was partially at fault by only asking for McDonald's to pay some of the total medical bill cost. Only when McDonald's refused did she sue, and at that point what was asked for and awarded was really in the hands of her lawyers and the jury.
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)
I don't think it takes more than a couple of brain cells to see that the coffee was hot. I am not familiar with McDonald's coffee brewing technique but normally a boiling water is used in the process. Who in his right mind would start driving with a hot coffee in his/her lap anyway??? I have to refer you to my previous statement about stupids and their abundance in the world. I think you might also add to it that there are way too many lawyers out there who finally realised that only by suing large companies you can get anywhere with the damages amounts. And those lawyers are complemented by vindictive juries who are supposed to be all neutral and impartial and stuff and are in fact (case after case) on the warpath after the Big Guys. The case should have been dismissed by a judge outright as wasting court time but hey - I guess they didn't serve him a tasty enough burger or something...
I would also be very careful about reports on injuries and how severe those are in the light of this or similar cases. There was an episode of Simpsons just on the subject... 3rd degree is the least dangerous one of burns, that is, any burn can be a third degree burn...
Under no circumstances I'm trying to say that the big corporations are whiter than white but a bit of common sense should apply in many cases when people are suing for god knows what...
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]
-
"There is also the purpose of allowing consumers to sue negligent corporations, the
purpose of which is to disuade corporations from selling products that are known to be dangerous."
See Lynx's post about obvious things like "Coffee=Hot"
Unfortunatly, this has been taken advantage of , via the lawyers looking to make a buck.(BAR association is today, primarily democratic)
Don't fall for the typical party line, look at it from all angles, when they tell you Corporate America is evil, then think again when you are employeed by them, have a decent retirement years from now, and enjoy the pleasures that life in America offers you, you wouldn't have those pleasures without 'Corporate America'...they employee over 1/2 the country!
-
Ripsnort,
Yes, coffee is hot. She knew that and did not intentonally spill the coffee on herself.
Coffee should not be so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns after less than 1 second of contact with human skin. It is forseeable that people will accidentally spill coffee onthemselfs. Hell, I know I've accidentally spilled drinks on myself, my dad even had a cup of gas station coffee go from the dashboard to his lap, spilling of course, while driving down the freeway. Now, that gas station had its coffee at a hot tempature, he said it hurt, but not at a dangerous tempature. The issue isn't whether or not coffe should be hot, it is whether or not it should be dangerously hot. The crux of the matter is that McDonald's knew their coffe was too hot. They had received hundereds of complaints about injuries caused by it. The fix for the problem was both easy and cheap, just lower the tempature. It was not something expensive and unreasonable to expect McDonald's to do to make their product a little bit safer for their customers.
Coffee is not intended to be spilled and cars are not intended to be crashed, but it is reasonable to assume that both will happen. We expect auto manufacturers to make their products safer in the event of a crash, why should it be unreasonable for McDonald's to make sure their coffee is not dangerous when spilled? McDonald's frankly has it easy compared to Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, ect, ect, who must spend millions of dollars devloping saftey systems. McDonald's could simply have revised the rules in their book to have coffee heated to 165 degrees instead of 180 degrees.
-lynx-,
Agreeing to disagree seems reasonable to me.
-
FYI, they were 2nd degree burns, not 3rd..big difference!
Anyway, agree to disagree.
FYI, everytime you think that Corporate America has got what they deserved (ie. laswsuits won against them) think again, its costing the consumers money. Cost goes up when they get hit like this (not in the coffee deal, but possible the tobacco settlement?)
Anyway, I'm all for sueing big corporations on prudent issues, but hot pickles and coffee is truly the "Fleecing of America" in my eyes.
-
Ripsnort,
I do agree that there are many, many frivilious lawsuits that are filed and go through the system without being thrown out.
I used to use the "McDonald's Coffee" case as an example, but after reading the actual facts of what happened I came to the conclusion that that one was justified.
You are correct that there are an awful lot of really, really stupid lawsuits filed by people who did stupid things, willfully stupid things, and then expect somebody else to pay for it. Its quite a sad comment on those people, maybe even on our civilization.
I am generally skeptical of lawsuits, but they are sometimes needed.
-
Did McDonald's employee pour that coffee to that lady's "Genital areas" ?
If yes then its justified that company pays the bills.
If not... Why should someone else pay for the mistake lady did her self ? :confused:
-
Staga,
Did Ford crash people's Pintoes?
If she had intentionally spilled the coffee on herself I would agree with you, but she didn't. Accidents happen and products should be made as safe as reasonably possible in the event of foreseeable accidents.
People spilling coffee on themselves is a foreseeable accident, just as cars being rear-ended is foreseeable.
Selling coffee that is 15 degrees cooler is a reasonable expectation.
If the solution to the problem cost 50 Million dollars, then it wouldn't be reasonable. But the solution was inexpensive, they knew there was a problem, and they did nothing. Lawsuits are designed to guard against that kind of behavior.
They are not intended to reward somebody who intentionally hurts themselves with a product or who ignores common sense repeatedly and get hurt. Those people are just idiots and should get nothing.
-
Hey, speaking of which, how about that 'divorce' between Firestone and Ford! Whew, that one got ugly!
Now there, my friends, is a justifiable lawsuit (in regards to manufacturers safty)
-
At least I want my coffee hot (100 meter walk from our cafeteria to my office).
Maybe they should sell two kind of coffees in States:
Already cold for people who can't take care of their self and hot for others. Of course you need to get a licence first to buy hot coffee.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
If the solution to the problem cost 50 Million dollars, then it wouldn't be reasonable. But the solution was inexpensive, they knew there was a problem, and they did nothing. Lawsuits are designed to guard against that kind of behavior.
They are not intended to reward somebody who intentionally hurts themselves with a product or who ignores common sense repeatedly and get hurt. Those people are just idiots and should get nothing.
Then give the majority of the money taken from the company and give it to a charity or something, and definitely NOT the lawyers. I agree that the lady should have had her medical bills paid, plus partial loss of wages if she missed work due to the coffee being too hot. As it is, a lawyer will go for as much as they can get, because the greedy bloodsucking beeyotches want their percent of the "winnings." I disagree with damages being given to alleviate mental distress. Damages should be to 1) pay for medical costs, if any; 2) pay for lost wages due to the incident, if any; 3) pay the lawyers a MODEST fee, not a percentage of total winnings; and 4) punitive damages (I think that's the right word) should go to a charity of some sort. This way, you still get the punishment to the company, the victim still gets what they deserve, the lawyers finally get ONLY what they deserve, and some organization that benefits EVERYONE gets financial help.
This will never, ever happen because of the inherent greed in our nation. People that sue aren't thinking "this will punish the company into making their product safer," they're thinking "this is gonna get my dumb bellybutton RICH!" Lawyers are thinking "we're gonna get a very nice percentage outta this one!!!" or "they might make me a full partner after this cut!"
-
Staga,
Coffee at 180 degrees will take an average of about 500 seconds to cool to a tempature at which it is consumable. Thats not cool to a cold level, thats cool to the hotest point at which you won't scald your mouth.
Coffee at 165 degrees is still to hot for consumption, but will not cause burns when it comes in contact with skin.
I am not suggestion that coffee be sold cold, just that it should have been served at a reasonable tempature.
Let me ask this, when you buy coffee now do find that it is too cold? If your answer is yes you can blame that lawsuit, if the answer is no then why are you complaining?
Why do you think corporations should not be expected to take reasonable precautions that their products are safe in forseeable accidents?
Nifty,
I agree with you on that. The rewards should not go to either the lawyers or plaintifs, other than costs of medical care(or a portion thereof) and compensation for pain and lost wages.
-
Heh I'm glad I live in Finland where coffee sold in cafeterias is still hot.
Is the coffee served in States already cooled down or do you have signs in coffee mugs saying:
"Warning: Hot coffee inside of this mug. If used unproperly may cause injuries. Handle with care."
:D
In that case it was the customer who made a mistake thus suffering injuries.
What do you expect this kind of behaviour from courts lead?
-Someone is playing with his gun and shoots himself to foot. It sure wasn't manufacturers fault but maybe there should be a mechanism that prevents shooting gun if barrel is pointing 45 or more degrees down?
-Someone is driving a highway 100miles per hour(In Montana ;)) and slides out of the road. It was not manufacturers fault person was speeding but maybe that nice Buick should have speed governor which limits speed to 40mph when its raining?
At least your lawyers don't had to search new jobs as long as your courts give decisions like in that coffee case :D
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Staga ]
-
Staga, you forget, this is not the "Land of the Free, and home of the Brave" since the Dem's have had their way over the last 40 years...its now "Land of the leaches, home of the irresponsible" ;)
-
Staga,
See my post responding to -lynx-and see if you can reason out why your to counter arguments aren't counter arguments.
BTW,
The old lady thought that she bore some of the responsibility, that's why she went to McDonald's asking only for them to pay some of her medical bills and nothing for pain and suffering. It only went to the courts because they told her to get lost. McDonald's only lost because it was demostrated that they were aware of the problem, that there was a reasonable solution and that they did nothing to address the known saftey hazard.
I agree that people do not take enough responsibility for their own actions, but I think that extends to corporations as well.
I think we'll simply have to politely disagree on this issue.
-
Staga,
One more thing, I'd be curious what the tempature is that coffee is kept heated to in Finland.
Perhaps you could ask one of the places where you buy coffee?