[quote]decimation wrote:
Ok I shoudn’t, make sweeping statements.
I would ban it because it is dangerous and near useless for anything but a bench throw.
Good, better
Let 's not wear seatbelts too. Typical French laissez-faire attitude . Only joking mate.
Would you not prefer a powerrack in its place?
I have seen fairly safe ones too. But someone will often not replace the safety pins and the next person will use it without safetys. There are very stupid people at gyms and people don’t think at the gym.[/quote]
The smith machine has plenty of valid uses. Youre either ignorant or trying to play the “im so hardcore” card, and youre failing at it
[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
So this is a question for all you lawyer type people out there. Is it considered negligence if a gym does not have hammer strength equipment bolted into the ground (as it’s supposed to be as far as I know) which could cause bodily harm? I was doing hammer strength lat iso row (high to low) with decent weight on it 3p/side which is obviously more then the frame can handle without being bolted into the ground as anytime I’d lift explosively the front end of the frame would come up off the ground nearly flipping over (obviously I stopped doing this after one or two reps). I didn’t have improper back movement, i.e. swinging open with my lower lower back and having my chest come off the supportive pad. Had this flipped over and injured me would it be considered negligence or some other type of lawsuit possibility?[/quote]
Maybe, if the company says it should be bolted down and you could prove you were using it correctly, possibly.[/quote]
I’d like to call BG in for my case and then let’s have a big T-Nation party after? Squat racks for everyone.
[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Well glad to see this thread brought about some interesting discussion. I’ll have to look into the anchors for my buds place, I know he is not the owner of his future building and will be leasing so this seems to be the most cost effective way to approach this, thanks for the tip Skyzy.
Personally I’m just excited I’ll have a gym to go to with platforms and real squat racks and being able to use chalk so I’d like this place to succeed for my own personal reasons as well as that of a friend wanting to see success of a friend.
[/quote]
You’re welcome. It is good to see people succeed.
Particularly with squat racks, as the will take a beating, you don’t want them getting knocked around and walking when someone is trying to re-rack the bar. Their chances of tipping are slim, but when you knock something even a little with a few hundred lbs, it tends to move unless it is bolted down.
Rawl anchors seem to be the industrial standard. HD and Lowes has them, but industrial suppliers like Fastenal will usually have the best price per quantity. If you only need 4 for a rack, no biggie, but if you need a gross volume (10lbs) for an entire row, they’re the way to go.
They also have good stuff like uni-strut, beam clamps, and all thread for hanging speaker systems and TVs or other commercial/industrial amenities.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The truth about the McDonald’s coffee case:
In short, they were aware of the hazard to their customers, were on notice of previous incidents, did not have a good reason for their decision and ignored the hazard in the interest of what they believed “tasted” better. In sum, they were clearly negligent, and willfully negligent at that. Furthermore, the jury properly considered the plaintiff’s comparative fault and the award was reduced accordingly. The McDonald’s case was an instance of justice. [/quote]
Okay, I read the link. Couple of things. Coffee at home only 140 degrees? I think not. My Keurig brews at 192 degrees, but I’m not sure about the usual drip style coffee makers. And seriously, even though they put out hot coffee, what dumbass opens the cup between their legs? Shouldn’t common sense tell you that coffee is hot? Don’t most people blow on it to cool it off initially and should infer that perhaps it will burn your ass? Before this lawsuit, I coulda told you not to pour coffee onto your lap.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The truth about the McDonald’s coffee case:
In short, they were aware of the hazard to their customers, were on notice of previous incidents, did not have a good reason for their decision and ignored the hazard in the interest of what they believed “tasted” better. In sum, they were clearly negligent, and willfully negligent at that. Furthermore, the jury properly considered the plaintiff’s comparative fault and the award was reduced accordingly. The McDonald’s case was an instance of justice. [/quote]
Okay, I read the link. Couple of things. Coffee at home only 140 degrees? I think not. My Keurig brews at 192 degrees, but I’m not sure about the usual drip style coffee makers. And seriously, even though they put out hot coffee, what dumbass opens the cup between their legs? Shouldn’t common sense tell you that coffee is hot? Don’t most people blow on it to cool it off initially and should infer that perhaps it will burn your ass? Before this lawsuit, I coulda told you not to pour coffee onto your lap.[/quote]
I’m not going to argue this with you. I provided the reference, and if you don’t “get it”, no response by me is going to change your mind. But a few quick points: How you make your coffee at home is irrelevant. McDonald’s is a business and much of that business is providing coffee to customers thru the DRIVE THRU. You are also forgetting that other people were burned AND McDonald’s was aware of the prior incidents. Nonetheless, fully informed of the danger and risk, they did not make changes to make the coffee safer. Your coffee maker may brew at 190 degrees but you certainly don’t drink it at that temperature. And it is certainly not wise to serve coffee at that temperature to customers in their cars where spills are entirely foreseeable and likely.
How Yates trained is an irrelevance for 99.9% of gmyusers.
If gym-owners adhered or were forced to adhere to basic safety rules, then accidents like the one above won’t happen.
If you really think his quads wouldn’t have grown as well with free bar squats,
you are more Bonehead than Bonez. Plus people won’t be crippled by a pathetic piece of gear than takes the space where a powerrack(S) should be.
[quote]decimation wrote:
Thanks I mean signalling to turn left or right.
The police and emergency services get no immunity here.
Of course they escape personal liability unless they are behaving like a maniac.
[/quote]
Where is here?
As far as I know, they are subject to the same rules of the road as everyone else unless they are responding to an emergency. As a practical matter, they do pretty much whatever the fuck they want. [/quote]
“Here” must be some backwater country where they say things like “indicate” when they should say “use their blinker” like a good American.
decimation, where did you learn to speak American anyway?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The truth about the McDonald’s coffee case:
In short, they were aware of the hazard to their customers, were on notice of previous incidents, did not have a good reason for their decision and ignored the hazard in the interest of what they believed “tasted” better. In sum, they were clearly negligent, and willfully negligent at that. Furthermore, the jury properly considered the plaintiff’s comparative fault and the award was reduced accordingly. The McDonald’s case was an instance of justice. [/quote]
Okay, I read the link. Couple of things. Coffee at home only 140 degrees? I think not. My Keurig brews at 192 degrees, but I’m not sure about the usual drip style coffee makers. And seriously, even though they put out hot coffee, what dumbass opens the cup between their legs? Shouldn’t common sense tell you that coffee is hot? Don’t most people blow on it to cool it off initially and should infer that perhaps it will burn your ass? Before this lawsuit, I coulda told you not to pour coffee onto your lap.[/quote]
I’m not going to argue this with you. I provided the reference, and if you don’t “get it”, no response by me is going to change your mind. But a few quick points: How you make your coffee at home is irrelevant. McDonald’s is a business and much of that business is providing coffee to customers thru the DRIVE THRU. You are also forgetting that other people were burned AND McDonald’s was aware of the prior incidents. Nonetheless, fully informed of the danger and risk, they did not make changes to make the coffee safer. Your coffee maker may brew at 190 degrees but you certainly don’t drink it at that temperature. And it is certainly not wise to serve coffee at that temperature to customers in their cars where spills are entirely foreseeable and likely. [/quote]
Oh I “get it”, but it doesn’t mean I agree with how things work in this country. Yes, McD’s was retarded for not taking action before this lady burned her self in light of the other complaints they received. What I don’t understand is why anyone would open a cup of coffee balanced on their knees no matter where they got it. Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot?
[quote]decimation wrote:
How Yates trained is an irrelevance for 99.9% of gmyusers.
If gym-owners adhered or were forced to adhere to basic safety rules, then accidents like the one above won’t happen.
If you really think his quads wouldn’t have grown as well with free bar squats,
you are more Bonehead than Bonez. Plus people won’t be crippled by a pathetic piece of gear than takes the space where a powerrack(S) should be.[/quote]
So you didnt reply or refute anything I said. Excellent logic/debate skills. And Im certainly not going to explain to you why Yates didnt barbell squat.
Bring your strawman arguments somewhere else. Ignorant fools these days…
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The truth about the McDonald’s coffee case:
In short, they were aware of the hazard to their customers, were on notice of previous incidents, did not have a good reason for their decision and ignored the hazard in the interest of what they believed “tasted” better. In sum, they were clearly negligent, and willfully negligent at that. Furthermore, the jury properly considered the plaintiff’s comparative fault and the award was reduced accordingly. The McDonald’s case was an instance of justice. [/quote]
Okay, I read the link. Couple of things. Coffee at home only 140 degrees? I think not. My Keurig brews at 192 degrees, but I’m not sure about the usual drip style coffee makers. And seriously, even though they put out hot coffee, what dumbass opens the cup between their legs? Shouldn’t common sense tell you that coffee is hot? Don’t most people blow on it to cool it off initially and should infer that perhaps it will burn your ass? Before this lawsuit, I coulda told you not to pour coffee onto your lap.[/quote]
I’m not going to argue this with you. I provided the reference, and if you don’t “get it”, no response by me is going to change your mind. But a few quick points: How you make your coffee at home is irrelevant. McDonald’s is a business and much of that business is providing coffee to customers thru the DRIVE THRU. You are also forgetting that other people were burned AND McDonald’s was aware of the prior incidents. Nonetheless, fully informed of the danger and risk, they did not make changes to make the coffee safer. Your coffee maker may brew at 190 degrees but you certainly don’t drink it at that temperature. And it is certainly not wise to serve coffee at that temperature to customers in their cars where spills are entirely foreseeable and likely. [/quote]
Oh I “get it”, but it doesn’t mean I agree with how things work in this country. Yes, McD’s was retarded for not taking action before this lady burned her self in light of the other complaints they received. What I don’t understand is why anyone would open a cup of coffee balanced on their knees no matter where they got it. Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot?[/quote]
Well the part you’re not processing is you’re limiting your thought process to merely “hot”. Coffee served hot but at a relatively “safe” temperture is different than coffee served at 185 degrees. What is the different you ask? Both are “hot”. The difference is one causes minor burns, the other causes 3rd degree full thickness burns that are serious, prone to infection and require skin grafts.
And by the way, it’s a drive thru. EVERYONE is opening thier coffee in their cars, in various ways, and McDonalds knows it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
EVERYONE is opening thier coffee in their cars, in various ways, and McDonalds knows it.
[/quote]
And I forgot to mention; given that the part of this incident that troubles you so much is her opening the coffee in her lap, keep in mind that the jury did find her 20% comparatively negligent for her injuries. That issue was not ignored, and her award was reduced accordingly.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The truth about the McDonald’s coffee case:
In short, they were aware of the hazard to their customers, were on notice of previous incidents, did not have a good reason for their decision and ignored the hazard in the interest of what they believed “tasted” better. In sum, they were clearly negligent, and willfully negligent at that. Furthermore, the jury properly considered the plaintiff’s comparative fault and the award was reduced accordingly. The McDonald’s case was an instance of justice. [/quote]
Okay, I read the link. Couple of things. Coffee at home only 140 degrees? I think not. My Keurig brews at 192 degrees, but I’m not sure about the usual drip style coffee makers. And seriously, even though they put out hot coffee, what dumbass opens the cup between their legs? Shouldn’t common sense tell you that coffee is hot? Don’t most people blow on it to cool it off initially and should infer that perhaps it will burn your ass? Before this lawsuit, I coulda told you not to pour coffee onto your lap.[/quote]
I’m not going to argue this with you. I provided the reference, and if you don’t “get it”, no response by me is going to change your mind. But a few quick points: How you make your coffee at home is irrelevant. McDonald’s is a business and much of that business is providing coffee to customers thru the DRIVE THRU. You are also forgetting that other people were burned AND McDonald’s was aware of the prior incidents. Nonetheless, fully informed of the danger and risk, they did not make changes to make the coffee safer. Your coffee maker may brew at 190 degrees but you certainly don’t drink it at that temperature. And it is certainly not wise to serve coffee at that temperature to customers in their cars where spills are entirely foreseeable and likely. [/quote]
Oh I “get it”, but it doesn’t mean I agree with how things work in this country. Yes, McD’s was retarded for not taking action before this lady burned her self in light of the other complaints they received. What I don’t understand is why anyone would open a cup of coffee balanced on their knees no matter where they got it. Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot?[/quote]
We had one of the attorneys that worked the beginning of that case speak in our Civil Procedures class.
The woman had asked for a medium coffee served in a large cup so the liquid contents would not fill up to the rim. She has palsy and her hand shakes which is why she asked for it to be served that way.
Her first request for damages was only $800 to cover her out of pocket medical costs and she was denied. That is why it went to trial.
There’s more but if you want to actually know it is all out there on the net.
