OK, You guys are right. I used a bad example. I guess this country’s tort law system is just FINE.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OK, You guys are right. I used a bad example. I guess this country’s tort law system is just FINE.[/quote]
Is it just me or does the word Tort piss anyone else off? It’s like the word itself is has no fucking responsibility. The way it sounds, what was that, did you mean to say TOT? Yes i’d love some tater tots. What? you are suing me? FUCK!
See instant 180 from awsome to very bad. I hate you tort, you sound like a bag full of bullshit.
V
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OK, You guys are right. I used a bad example. I guess this country’s tort law system is just FINE.[/quote]
No no no. I agree with you, just not on that case.
It’s like the woman that is suing because she fell asleep on the plane and didn’t wake up until three or four hours after it had landed and everyone else had gotten off. That to me seems crazy.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OK, You guys are right. I used a bad example. I guess this country’s tort law system is just FINE.[/quote]
Is it just me or does the word Tort piss anyone else off? It’s like the word itself is has no fucking responsibility. The way it sounds, what was that, did you mean to say TOT? Yes i’d love some tater tots. What? you are suing me? FUCK!
See instant 180 from awsome to very bad. I hate you tort, you sound like a bag full of bullshit.
V[/quote]
King of torts by Grisham is pretty good. If your think tort is bad mass tort law is even worse.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OK, You guys are right. I used a bad example. I guess this country’s tort law system is just FINE.[/quote]
Is it just me or does the word Tort piss anyone else off? It’s like the word itself is has no fucking responsibility. The way it sounds, what was that, did you mean to say TOT? Yes i’d love some tater tots. What? you are suing me? FUCK!
See instant 180 from awsome to very bad. I hate you tort, you sound like a bag full of bullshit.
V[/quote]
King of torts by Grisham is pretty good. If your think tort is bad mass tort law is even worse.[/quote]
Massachusets Tort? You mean two of the things I hate the most are combined into one thing? Holy fuck! My life now has a purpose, to kill off this thing that calls itself “Massachusets Tort”.
V
Torts was a helluva lot of fun, mainly because our first semester professor was a genius social retard with a combover that started at the left ear and finished (using hair clips) past the right ear, and our second semester professor was the Dean of the College and had the best war stories.
The problem with the “tort law system” is that when you kick out the idiot suing Google, you also kick out the people with legitimate gripes who can’t afford to sue in any other kind of system. Anyway. Personal policy and my workload dictate that I refrain from engaging in a tort reform discussion.
And FWIW, I don’t do any tort work at all.
Thanks Wol…I was hoping someone would do that
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Personal responsibility is dead.
…and my fingers ache from typing that so you are ALL being sued for making me do it.[/quote]
What? She sued. Anyone can sue for anything. Hold off on the melodrama at least until a verdict is in. 
[quote]polo77j wrote:
If I were google I’d give her directions right off a fucking cliff[/quote]
Best response right here. Lmao
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Gotta luv tort law in this country
This is almost as bad as the person who sued McDonalds for coffee being hot (and won).[/quote]
The attorney for that lawsuit spoke at my college in my Civil Procedures class. She had every right to sue. She had asked for a medium coffee in a large cup because she has palsy. They gave her a large cup of coffee filled to the brim. It was also served at a temperature that was 180 degrees. She suffered third degree burns in less than 20 seconds.
And all she had requested from McDonalds was $800 to pay for her medical bills. McDonalds denied her, so the lawsuit proceeded. Although she was awarded money by the Court, when the attorney spoke at our class she hadn’t received anything yet and that was about 9 years ago and years after the incident.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm[/quote]
Thanks for this link. Now for the fun…WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving through the McDonalds drive-thru?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle doing ordering a hot coffee from the the drive-thru window?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle doing adding cream and sugar to her coffee while behind the wheel of her car? Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald’s, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks.
Uh oh, what about, “It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don’t drink coffee in the car, at least not hot,” says juror Jack Elliott. There we go. Doesn’t that say it all? This guy, a juror, says this, and then votes to award a large sum to the plaintiff?
So sorry, OG, this link doesn’t swing me the other way. Having said all that McDonalds was foolish for not settling out of court for much less. They should’ve gave her the $800 she initially wanted.[/quote]
She was sitting on the passenger seat and she ordered a medium coffee in a large cup so she wouldn’t spill it. Okay, fine, people at McDonalds get confused by nonstandard orders, but it doesn’t change the fact that the coffee was hot enough to give someone third degree burns and was still sold, in a cup filled to the brim, from the drive-in window.
The problem with tort law in this case is that it doesn’t stipulate fining people for being jackasses, so the only way to punish McDonalds’ jackassery was to award the plaintiff a larger sum than it would have cost them not to be jackasses. And, lo and behold, the moral of the story is: Don’t be a jackass about paying for damages caused by your screwup.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Gotta luv tort law in this country
This is almost as bad as the person who sued McDonalds for coffee being hot (and won).[/quote]
The attorney for that lawsuit spoke at my college in my Civil Procedures class. She had every right to sue. She had asked for a medium coffee in a large cup because she has palsy. They gave her a large cup of coffee filled to the brim. It was also served at a temperature that was 180 degrees. She suffered third degree burns in less than 20 seconds.
And all she had requested from McDonalds was $800 to pay for her medical bills. McDonalds denied her, so the lawsuit proceeded. Although she was awarded money by the Court, when the attorney spoke at our class she hadn’t received anything yet and that was about 9 years ago and years after the incident.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm[/quote]
Thanks for this link. Now for the fun…WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving through the McDonalds drive-thru?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle doing ordering a hot coffee from the the drive-thru window?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle doing adding cream and sugar to her coffee while behind the wheel of her car? Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald’s, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks.
Uh oh, what about, “It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don’t drink coffee in the car, at least not hot,” says juror Jack Elliott. There we go. Doesn’t that say it all? This guy, a juror, says this, and then votes to award a large sum to the plaintiff?
So sorry, OG, this link doesn’t swing me the other way. Having said all that McDonalds was foolish for not settling out of court for much less. They should’ve gave her the $800 she initially wanted.[/quote]
Read my link - it clearly states that she was in the passenger seat and the driver pulled over so she could add the cream and sugar.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Gotta luv tort law in this country
This is almost as bad as the person who sued McDonalds for coffee being hot (and won).[/quote]
The attorney for that lawsuit spoke at my college in my Civil Procedures class. She had every right to sue. She had asked for a medium coffee in a large cup because she has palsy. They gave her a large cup of coffee filled to the brim. It was also served at a temperature that was 180 degrees. She suffered third degree burns in less than 20 seconds.
And all she had requested from McDonalds was $800 to pay for her medical bills. McDonalds denied her, so the lawsuit proceeded. Although she was awarded money by the Court, when the attorney spoke at our class she hadn’t received anything yet and that was about 9 years ago and years after the incident.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm[/quote]
Thanks for this link. Now for the fun…WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving through the McDonalds drive-thru?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle doing ordering a hot coffee from the the drive-thru window?
WTF is an 81 year old woman with palsy doing driving a motor vehicle doing adding cream and sugar to her coffee while behind the wheel of her car? Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald’s, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks.
Uh oh, what about, “It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don’t drink coffee in the car, at least not hot,” says juror Jack Elliott. There we go. Doesn’t that say it all? This guy, a juror, says this, and then votes to award a large sum to the plaintiff?
So sorry, OG, this link doesn’t swing me the other way. Having said all that McDonalds was foolish for not settling out of court for much less. They should’ve gave her the $800 she initially wanted.[/quote]
She wasn’t driving. She was a passenger being driven by her grandson.
Good questions that you are right, were not covered in the article.
Here you go, thanks Lanky, I think you had a better link, but this one is also pretty good.
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
The woman had every right to sue.
In regards to the woman who was using Google, it does seem that common sense would tell yah not to walk on a highway with poor lighting and no sidewalks. She was actually hit while crossing the street to get to a sidewalk. She also cannot remember if she was paying attention to the road or if she was looking at her GPS when she was in the road so she may not have been looking out for cars when she stepped into traffic.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Here you go, thanks Lanky, I think you had a better link, but this one is also pretty good.
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
The woman had every right to sue.[/quote]
The article sites the National Coffee Association recommending an optimal serving temperature of >185 degrees. I guess mentioning that helps make third degree burns justifiable.
[quote]kross001 wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Here you go, thanks Lanky, I think you had a better link, but this one is also pretty good.
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
The woman had every right to sue.[/quote]
The article sites the National Coffee Association recommending an optimal serving temperature of >185 degrees. I guess mentioning that helps make third degree burns justifiable. [/quote]
The article I posted mentions there is no benefit to keeping coffee that hot, so like always, there are a multitude of opinions to choose from.