Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Perrine on November 07, 2010, 01:23:36 PM
-
where you can sue a 4 yr old for negligence :banana:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20021342-504083.html
NEW YORK (CBS) Two 4-year-olds, a girl and a boy, are racing bicycles with training wheels on a New York City sidewalk when they crash into an 87-year-old woman, who is severely injured. Can the 4-year-olds be sued for negligence?
A Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice has ruled yes, in a case reported Thursday in the New York Law Journal
-
See Rule #14
-
The supreme court system is a broken system that is under control by lawyers.
There is a way to fix it, but chances are it will not happen
-
I believe you can sue a kid as young as 6 month old.
-
I believe you can sue a kid as young as 6 month old.
For what, having to change his diapers too often?
-
What company do you work for Tassos?
-
Tassos you are in Baden Baden?
I lived in Weitenung from 1986 until near end of 1990. I was with the Canadian Airforce then. Worked in the center dispersal on the airbase serving with 421 Tactical Fighter Squadron at the time. Just saw on google earth that my old squadron buildings and the A/C shelters are still there.
Many fond memories, a great place to be.
cheers,
RTR
-
See Rule #14
-
For what, having to change his diapers too often?
Do not know. I remember reading about this a question was asked how young a person has to be to be sued.
-
All the lawyers involved should be shot.
Well, maybe not the lawyer defending the kids.
-
can i sue my ex wife for being fat? :old:
-
Question, can the kid sue her for being injured and being on the street without bodyguards?
-
Question, can the kid sue her for being injured and being on the street without bodyguards?
i dont know.....do walkers come in a child proof version? :headscratch:
:D
-
can i sue my ex wife for being fat? :old:
sadly, you probably can these days
-
Were the 4 year olds actually racing?
Was the 87 year old doing the speed limit?
Did anyone run a stop sign on the sidewalk?
Seriously, it is awful that a senior citizen was severely injured. To go ambulance chasing is just rediculous in this instance. This all based on the limited info we actually have of course. There could be some other things that happened leading up to this accident.
-
can i sue my ex wife for being fat? :old:
If she is causing you financial, emotional and physical stress, I say yes!
-
:huh :rofl :rofl :rofl
Go America!!! :rock
-
I'm confused, was she injured before the kid hit her or after?
-
I'm confused, was she injured before the kid hit her or after?
:lol :aok :x :rofl
That words came from you ore from Woody Allen?
(http://trianacity.blogia.com/upload/20060324104831-bananas-sly.jpg)
-
:lol :aok :x :rofl
That words came from you ore from Woody Allen?
(http://trianacity.blogia.com/upload/20060324104831-bananas-sly.jpg)
me, I honestly had no idea who Woddy Allen was until now (excuse my ignorance).
-
ummmmmmm tell me I'm not really reading disparaging judgements in horrible English from a GERMAN of all peoples. have you forgotten your own judicial history????
lets each keep our judgements of the affairs of others to ourselves unless we are ourselves are guiltless of the same or worse actions. you really dont wanna get into the laws created and enforced through out Germany's history.
in addition, the children themselves are not actually being sued, it will be the parents and/or guardians of the children held responsible. the children should have been supervised, the failure to do so properly lead directly to the injury of another. NOW to me, if my actions or omissions causes a third party harm then i am responsible, as this is what i would expect from someone who's actions or omissions harmed me. it seems like common sense to me.
Uhhm, if you can't figure out where he is from :bolt:
-
You can sue any one for anything. It does not mean you are going to win. You guys are acting as if the old woman won the case.
-
We are assuming she is the one who sued McDonalds after she spilled hot coffee on herself. :D
I mean..... who knew that hot coffee was hot.
-
You can sue any one for anything. It does not mean you are going to win. You guys are acting as if the old woman won the case.
I hope you are kidding.
The fact that the notion of bringing suit against a 4 year old was even conceived is ludicrous enough, let alone the supreme court allowing it.
At what point do we admit that there is something broken in the justice system?
My knee-jerk reaction would be "Where were the parents?"
-
We are assuming she is the one who sued McDonalds after she spilled hot coffee on herself. :D
I mean..... who knew that hot coffee was hot.
the shadow knowsssssssss.......mmmmmmmmu uuUUUUUUUUUUUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA H
:noid :noid
-
See Rule #14
-
We are assuming she is the one who sued McDonalds after she spilled hot coffee on herself. :D
I mean..... who knew that hot coffee was hot.
Maybe you should read the facts first before lippin off.
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, an 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Prior to her lawsuit, there had been approximately 700 other burn cases involving McDonald's between 1982 and 1992. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed.
-
Maybe you should read the facts first before lippin off.
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, an 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Prior to her lawsuit, there had been approximately 700 other burn cases involving McDonald's between 1982 and 1992. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed.
she knew it was hot, and therefore, placing it between her legs was in all obviousness not a very smart thing to do.
but you're fishing, aren't ya?
-
JHC, one boils water to make coffee. :O The ol' biddy must not be all there between the ears. She had her hand around the cup, put it between her knees, yet couldn't feel the heat through the side of the cup. :eek:
-
Maybe you should read the facts first before lippin off.
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, an 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Prior to her lawsuit, there had been approximately 700 other burn cases involving McDonald's between 1982 and 1992. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed.
I read in another thread where some colleges are offering classes in Humor. You might try one so you can "get it". :)
The word HOT did not mention a temperature. We also have ladders with rediculous instructions just for folks like you.
Common sense is not common.
-
she knew it was hot, and therefore, placing it between her legs was in all obviousness not a very smart thing to do.
but you're fishing, aren't ya?
You guys seriously think that 185 degress farenheit is a reasonable temperature to sell coffee in a cheap plastic cup? :rofl
Talk about lack of common sense.
-
Common Sense doesn't always prevail in court cases, but this particular case did set off a heated debate over tort reform regarding frivilous lawsuits.
In Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, the 1994 product liability lawsuit that stemmed from the woman who sued McDonalds because she was burned by hot coffee. Absurd - but she did have standing to sue and she won. The result was a law mandating the precautionary labelling of all hot beverages sold to consumers and more than $640,000 in damages to the plantiff. Despite the common-sense notion that hot coffee will burn you, the jury applied the principles of comparative negligence, and found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault.
-
See Rule #14