If Anybody's Intereted in Lawsuits

[IByte]

I believe the lawsuit was totally unwarranted. However, we have not considered here that this was the company's way of donating to a cause that they felt for.
I am guessing a portion of that lawsuit or all of it is covered by some type of insurance-we preach insurance in here for this very reason.
So... Who is to say that the guy who made the call on this lawsuit said, "you know what? This kid needs any help he can get for the rest of his life. Let's come to a settlement and give a little back to a kid who got injured playing the game?"

Sounds like borderline extortion to me.

 

[unpopular]

Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?

Semantics aside and all the other irrelevant crap like "would you trade places", why should there be a lawsuit in the first place?

Did you ever wonder why McDonalds coffee cups say "Caution! Contents Hot!"? Its because oneone pilt it on themself and sued McDonalds becuase they werent warned the contents were hot.

Again. The woman who spilt that coffee cup experienced second degree burns that required medical treatment. After the lawsuit, McDonalds admitted that the coffee she was served was too hot to drink, stating that they served overly hot coffee so that it would remain hot during transport. McDonalds was not sued because they did not warn the coffee was hot, but rather because the coffee was so hot that it caused injury. Mcdonalds even had in the past received complaints about burns prior to the lawsuit from other customers.

You also can't just put a warning up and be void from any lawsuit, and I do not believe that simply saying "Caution: Hot Coffee" will protect you if the coffee is unusually and dangerously hot. If anything, that would suggest that you knew the coffee was dangerous and served it regardless.

My wife's paralegal instructor, who is an attorney, often said that it is not advisable to post "Beware of Dog" signs, as this can be used to say the same thing: that you have knowledge the dog was dangerous and when it bit someone you neglected to properly prevent injury.

 

[unpopular]

If I read the story correctly, 3 entities were sued and will share in paying the award, making one wonder about some previously made comments.

...lawsuit against the bat manufacturer, Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain....
.......Domalewski was playing in a Police Athletic League game, but Little League was sued because the group certifies that specific metal bats are approved for - and safe for - use in games involving children

Rick Redman, a spokesman for Hillerich and Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger brand bat, confirmed a settlement had been reached, but declined further comment.

An attorney representing The Sports Authority, the national sporting goods retailer, did not immediately return calls seeking comment....

I don't know how to read that. The statement really only confirms that the manufacturer had settled and the retailer had not provided a statement. IMO the manufacturer is the only liable party. They manufactured a [presumably children's size] bat which the store bought and sold to the baseball club who used it in a game under good faith was safe for use with children.

If it is or not hasn't really been determined, and I don't really have enough details about the bat to decide.

It's not uncommon to sue several parties, knowing that only one will be held liable. I don't really understand the rationale about this. Just snaky lawyer behavior I guess.

 

[Ballistics]

Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?

Semantics aside and all the other irrelevant crap like "would you trade places", why should there be a lawsuit in the first place?

Did you ever wonder why McDonalds coffee cups say "Caution! Contents Hot!"? Its because oneone pilt it on themself and sued McDonalds becuase they werent warned the contents were hot. Yes its a given, but unless there is a warning label on the product warning of every thing that ***might happen***, you probably have a case on your hands. The next batch of bats from this manufacturer will probably have a label that states "WARNING! Do not stand in front ball after struck by bat".

Sueing for burning yourself on coffee is ridiculous, but the coffee burned the individual. The bat did not injure this person.

 

[unpopular]

I swear to god, people will believe anything they read.

 

[Ballistics]

I swear to god, people will believe anything they read.

Meaning what exactly.

 

[unpopular]

read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.

 

[Ron Evers]

Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?

But - All gods were created by humans.

 

[Ballistics]

read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.

I read your post, doesn't make it any less ridiculous. It's still someone suing for being burned by something that she knew was hot, especially how she were burned. She put a hot cup of coffee between her thighs and spilled the coffee onto her lap while trying to open it to add cream and sugar. And she experienced 3rd degree burns, not 2nd.

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

"Hey the hot coffee you ordered? It's hot. Don't pour it on yourself."

 

[unpopular]

Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?

But - All gods were created by humans.

holy hell.

this thread is going to get super awesome now!

 

[unpopular]

read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.

I read your post, doesn't make it any less ridiculous. It's still someone suing for being burned by something that she knew was hot, especially how she were burned. She put a hot cup of coffee between her thighs and spilled the coffee onto her lap while trying to open it to add cream and sugar. And she experienced 3rd degree burns, not 2nd.

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

And if the coffee was not excessively hot, then spilling the coffee would have sucked real bad, but would not have resulted in injury. We've all spilled coffee on ourselves from time to time, experiencing medical treatment is not a reasonable thing to expect.

This lawsuit is not about the spill itself, and how it spilled is completely irrelevant, it's about the coffee being dangerously and excessively hot - and more precisely, it's about McDonalds having known that this product has in the past resulted in burns, yet having failed to address the problem.

 

[unpopular]

Oh, and also, law is based on evidence and procedure, not opinions.

 

[Ballistics]

read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.

I read your post, doesn't make it any less ridiculous. It's still someone suing for being burned by something that she knew was hot, especially how she were burned. She put a hot cup of coffee between her thighs and spilled the coffee onto her lap while trying to open it to add cream and sugar. And she experienced 3rd degree burns, not 2nd.

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

And if the coffee was not excessively hot, then spilling the coffee would have sucked real bad, but would not have resulted in injury. We've all spilled coffee on ourselves from time to time, experiencing medical treatment is not a reasonable thing to expect.

This lawsuit is not about the spill itself, and how it spilled is completely irrelevant, it's about the coffee being dangerously and excessively hot - and more precisely, it's about McDonalds having known that this product has in the past resulted in burns, yet having failed to address the problem.

Yeah, which is ridiculous. Her damages including medical fees and loss of work were around $20,000 and the settlement was somewhere around $600,000.
To me, her medical bills shouldn't even be paid for, for putting hot coffee in between her legs in a moving vehicle. You are buying hot coffee. Coffee is brewed at
boiling temperatures and served that way.

The lawsuit did not result in McDonald's serving the coffee at a lower temperature, but to now have warning labels and foam cups telling people that it's hot.
It's silly to me.

 

[Ballistics]

Oh, and also, law is based on evidence and procedure, not opinions.

That's false. A verdict is an opinion based on facts and evidence.

 

[unpopular]

You are clearly not familiar with the case. The car was not moving, she was not even the driver. In fact she was in the back seat. As far as the coffee temperature being decreased, I am unsure about that, but I find that very hard to believe. Being that McDonalds has self-serve coffee I especially have my doubts.

this case was specifically about the TEMPERATURE of the coffee, not that she did not receive notice or warning. It wouldn't make sense to simply add a warning when the lawsuit was whether the coffee was excessively hot.

My wife studied this case pretty closely in school, and she had read a lot of the actual court material (which I don't currently have access to). When we hear about these cases we have a certain idea about how the circumstances played out, and that's exactly the problem.