If Anybody's Intereted in Lawsuits

[mishele]

Get your asses over to my 80's dance party!!

 

[unpopular]

Well. Their has to be negligence involved.

If you printed the image on paper which was well known to cause paper cuts then you could be held liable for an amputee. The fact that amputations as a result of paper cuts is unusual is not important, what is important is that you sold a product which is unsafe.

See this:

"But for" Rule legal definition of "But for" Rule. "But for" Rule synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

So even if the amputee was sitting in a pile of manure when the paper cut occurred doesn't matter because the reason the papercut happened in the first place was because you willingly and knowingly sold him a paper cut prone print.

"But For" also applies to the hot coffee case.

However selling the print alone would not make you negligent, even if it were on paper cut prone paper provided that you were not aware the paper was paper cut prone (at least as far as I understand it). Negligence requires that a reasonable person would assume that the conduct is dangerous, and there are several specific criteria which makes negligence:

negligence legal definition of negligence. negligence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that I am not an attorney and that the above is intended only as conjecture. What was posted nor the above citation is legal advice and should not be nor is intended to be applied to any specific circumstance.

 

[Ballistics]

Ok so by that, how is a bat manufacturer negligent in this case?

 

[mjhoward]

Well. Their has to be negligence involved.

If you printed the image on paper which was well known to cause paper cuts then you could be held liable for an amputee. The fact that amputations as a result of paper cuts is unusual is not important, what is important is that you sold a product which is unsafe.

See this:

"But for" Rule legal definition of "But for" Rule. "But for" Rule synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

So even if the amputee was sitting in a pile of manure when the paper cut occurred doesn't matter because the reason the papercut happened in the first place was because you willingly and knowingly sold him a paper cut prone print.

"But For" also applies to the hot coffee case.

However selling the print alone would not make you negligent, even if it were on paper cut prone paper provided that you were not aware the paper was paper cut prone (at least as far as I understand it). Negligence requires that a reasonable person would assume that the conduct is dangerous, and there are several specific criteria which makes negligence:

negligence legal definition of negligence. negligence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You couldn't have picked a more appropriate avatar.

 

[usayit]

Give up unpopular... people just don't want to read and educate themselves. We are a society of 5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.

I already pointed out that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was not what it seems... several pages back. No one actually took the time to read the details I presume.

 

[usayit]

Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?

But - All gods were created by humans.

Oh my gods!!!! Love this comment!

 

[unpopular]

You couldn't have picked a more appropriate avatar.

:facepalm:

 

[sapper6fd]

Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.

Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know about the case than you, having watched some A&E documentary.

I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.

Look. The moral of this story is, she should have named Ford in the lawsuit for failing to warn her putting coffee between your legs in a vehicle that is moving or stationary can result in burns. This is what the back seat is provided for. Please use the cup holder.

She could have doubled her settlement to make 1.6 million.

 

[Ballistics]

Give up unpopular... people just don't want to read and educate themselves. We are a society of 5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.

I already pointed out that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was not what it seems... several pages back. No one actually took the time to read the details I presume.

The hot coffee documentary was an unbiased hour and a half long documentary that gave both sides and was exclusively about Tort Reform. Longer than 5 minutes. Now, if you want to keep insulting the intelligence of others, that's fine. However, the fact of the matter is, the evidence shown does not make me believe that McDonald's is at fault. Not at least to be paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, the jury ruled her 20% at fault, and initially awarded her 2.9 million dollars, which is 2 days worth of revenue from coffee sales, for both compensation and punitive damages. However, it was later appealed and they settled out of court for an undisclosed number under $600,000. So therefore, she was found to be at fault somewhat. That 20% of fault, came from the fact that she spilled the coffee. It was said that if the coffee was no extremely hot, she would not have been burned. The counter argument would be, if she didn't open her coffee and attempt to stabilize the coffee with her legs, she wouldn't have been burned.

WARNING: Graphic.
http://truecrimejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/6a00d8341c716c53ef0105367f1793970b-pi.jpg
http://truecrimejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/burn.jpg

Here are the images of the plaintiffs thighs and foot after third degree burns. These wounds are unfortunate, but not the fault of anyone but the dummy who decides to knowingly put scolding hot fluid in between their thighs, and then removing the lid in a vehicle with no cup holders. You know what, I'm surprised she didn't sue Ford for the Probe not having cup holders.


How's that for details and being educated.

You can tell me all day how the media twisted and manipulated the facts and painted an ugly picture and blah blah blah, but the fact is, unless the woman had her coffee delivered to her via the barrel of a cannon at the drive through, McDonald's is not at fault for providing super hot coffee, imho. That's where I stand. Unless you can shine the light onto something I don't know, since documentaries, wikipedia and the media have it all wrong. What am I missing that would change my mind?

A side note: There's a lot of high horse riding and belittling on this forum lately. Keep in mind, that there are educated and intelligent people who have the ability to disagree.

 

[Ballistics]

As for the child who is now severely brain damaged - It's horrifying. I have 2 little boys, one of which who plays on a little league team. He's 5. If anything like this happened to him, I would be in shambles.
However, while a settlement isn't an admission of guilt, someone not responsible is still paying for the damages. Asking rhetorical questions like "would you trade places with him" is cheap and a cop out and doesn't say anything. Of course no one would trade places. That doesn't make suing the bat company moral, o.k., ethical, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that people find this outrageous?

 

[usayit]

Yo.. read again... and again.... just for kickers READ AGAIN (if you consider this an insult to your intelligence... then its your problem)

How many times do I have say that I do not think the lawsuit has merit but pure fact is that there was a settlement in this case. The issue I have is lumping this case with the other frivolous cases that plague our system. If you actually read my "trade places comments" in the context they were written, you would have known they are directed towards lumping this injured child with those greedy "conniving" (OPs term) individuals that file lawsuit as a purely for profiteering.

The settlement doesn't mean this kid and family will be buying a mansion and living the good life... quite the opposite.

As for McDonalds incident, here is my comment:

As for quoting the incident when a lady sued McDonalds for hot coffee... the media failed to inform the public of the details of the lawsuit. They did so to drive up emotions in their readership without regard to presenting the facts fairly. You should read it in detail.. it may change your mind.

The key is ... you should read in detail.... it MAY change your mind. In other words, its not a clear and cut case that it is made out to be. Lawsuits have winners and losers, neither of the outcomes in this case has anything to do with this discussion... but simply whether or not it is another example of a frivolous case that it has been perpetuated by the public.

Now excuse me Ballistic... since you simply just skimmed this thread.. I think any further response to you is a waste of time.

 

[Ballistics]

They didn't win the case... it was a settlement.

Well they sure as hell didn't lose the case with 14.5M in their pocket!

I bet 14.5M won't be enough to cover this kids lifetime medical expenses.... You guys make it sound like this kid is going to be living the life of luxury.. that is far from the reality they are facing. Would you trade shoes with this kid? If not, reconsider your position.

That's the issue, the fact that I didn't skim the thread brought me to this conclusion. You quoted MJHoward about who said he won the case, and then asked if you would trade places, and then went on to say that a settlement is saying that they were not found liable. That's not the point, now is it. It's not taking it out of context, I'm using it in the context you gave in the context of the conversation between yourself and MJ. The fact is, they sued the bat company. My question was, how is the act of suing remotely justifiable.



First you say:

Give up unpopular... people just don't want to read and educate themselves. We are a society of 5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.

I already pointed out that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was not what it seems... several pages back. No one actually took the time to read the details I presume.

Then you say:

The key is ... you should read in detail.... it MAY change your mind. In other words, its not a clear and cut case that it is made out to be. Lawsuits have winners and losers, neither of the outcomes in this case has anything to do with this discussion... but simply whether or not it is another example of a frivolous case that it has been perpetuated by the public.

That's one hell of a back pedal. The key is, I read about the case from multiple sources, watched the documentary. You keep repeating an obscure phrase "read in detail". The insult to my intelligence is specifically:

people just don't want to read and educate themselves. We are a society of 5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.

You're telling someone to give up, as in he is well educated and I am not. The important detail is that he said she had 2nd degree burns, meanwhile if he had known so much about the case, he would have at least seen the graphic pictures of 3rd degree deep thickness burns. That's not a matter of semantics, that's a pretty big deal and was the main factor in her winning the case.

That's what people resort too, you don't have a direct line of information to support your argument, so you resort to derogatory remarks like that. You keep telling people to "read in detail", so what am I not seeing? What about anything I said about the McDonalds case am I missing?