Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Lady Falls in Fountain - Suing for an Apology


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#31 BackInBlack

BackInBlack

    Fisher Price DSL

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2011 - 01:44 AM



And he admitted he fell into a fountain at a mall in the episode as well. Ladies and gentlemen, we have us a real life Michael Scott.



haha! This episode was the first thing I thought of when I entered the thread.
StarCraft 2 - Roses

#32 thegreek

thegreek

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2011 - 04:05 AM

This, she went public, now everyone knows she's a boob...


This dumb twat is going to become rich off this, you watch.

#33 Cage017

Cage017

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2011 - 04:41 AM

I hope she wins so we can prove how fucked up the justice system is here.


As far as I'm concerned, it happened years ago when that one woman received millions of dollars for spilling Mcdonald's coffee on herself.

Link


Thanks for the link. The author is the first person I've seen to refer to her as "girl". She's no spring chicken.

This dumb twat is going to become rich off this, you watch.


I wouldn't be surprised if she appears in a reality show based on her house arrest.

gallery_474050_8161_3173.jpg

"Designed By Lilchiji"


#34 thirdrose

thirdrose

    MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2011 - 11:07 AM

Jerry Seinfeld would beg to differ...

Elaine, George, Kramer, and Jerry were sentenced to 1 year of jail for not helping someone in need. Good Samaritan Law...


Ha, that's exactly what I thought of when I read this story. Still dunno how I feel about that finale though.

#35 Will

Will

    Official CAG Asshole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:41 PM

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=12685189

http://www.cheapassg...trade-gone-bad/

Heroes.jpg
I dont trade out of the US anymore!!!!!!!


#36 crunchb3rry

crunchb3rry

Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:13 AM

If shit like this happens to you while texting, you deserved it. If they're passing laws preventing people from texting while driving so they don't Fuck somebody else up, I hope the judge that hears this case tells this lady to "GTFO!"

#37 Ced

Ced

    Monster Hustler

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:49 AM

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=12685189


Entertaining the media spotlight looking for money and/or sympathy is certainly backfiring in her face badly. By not accepting mea culpa, she went from unknown to well-known terrible decision maker in a matter of days.
Posted Image

#38 mr_burnzz

mr_burnzz

Posted 27 January 2011 - 12:55 AM

LMAO! Everything she did was dumb. Texting while walking. Falling into fountain. Going public with a lawyer. This is one stupid woman.

#39 Gden

Gden

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:20 AM

http://en.wikipedia..../Duty_to_rescue
This is the closest thing to what she's claiming, and for those of you who don't know the Good Samaritan's law protects the people who come to other's rescue nothing more.
I'm not changing my signature until Busou Renkin, and Trizenon get licensed.
FC: Pokemon Pearl - 1160-6253-4611
Posted Image

#40 cheapfrag

cheapfrag

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:00 PM

As far as I'm concerned, it happened years ago when that one woman received millions of dollars for spilling Mcdonald's coffee on herself.


That woman did not RECEIVE millions of dollars. A jury AWARDED millions of dollars but the judge reduced the amount to $640,000 and they settled out of court for less. I'm sure her lawyer will get 50% of that final amount.

#41 tcrash247

tcrash247

    ghosts.nin.com

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:15 PM

The mall should sue her for illegal water displacement.

#42 kburns10

kburns10

    You Gots to Chill

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:16 PM

She even admitted it was funny. *Sigh* her crying during the interview just pissed me off more. You decided to text and walk. You paid the consequences. No one is safe from the internet if you do something stupid!

#43 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 02:11 AM

she should have been a member of congress. They can win any frivolous lawsuit.

#44 AquaKnight

AquaKnight

    Defender of the Seas

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 05:29 PM

this lady is the most hilarious thing i've heard about since the year started.
Defending the seas 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

#45 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:08 PM

As far as I'm concerned, it happened years ago when that one woman received millions of dollars for spilling Mcdonald's coffee on herself.


This is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood legal cases of all time and is often used to degrade our profession. I would encourage anyone to actually read the facts of the case. The women received 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for several days, followed by a few years of medical treatment. From what I've read she attempted to settle for only her actual medical losses, which mcdonalds refused- so she got an attorney. There was evidence introduced indicating Mcdonalds may have kept there coffee hotter than industry standards, which made it take less time to receive burns. There were also several other past instances of accidents. After the verdict, Mcdonals lowered the temperature of the coffee.

#46 Mr Unoriginal

Mr Unoriginal

    Cheap Amish Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:14 PM

This is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood legal cases of all time and is often used to degrade our profession. I would encourage anyone to actually read the facts of the case. The women received 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for several days, followed by a few years of medical treatment. From what I've read she attempted to settle for only her actual medical losses, which mcdonalds refused- so she got an attorney. There was evidence introduced indicating Mcdonalds may have kept there coffee hotter than industry standards, which made it take less time to receive burns. There were also several other past instances of accidents. After the verdict, Mcdonals lowered the temperature of the coffee.


So you're saying the she sued because McDonald's hot coffee is hot and can cause burns? Yup, sounds about right, totally misrepresented.

Its too bad you're still a prick with a stupid gimmick.


#47 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:21 PM

So you're saying the she sued because McDonald's hot coffee is hot and can cause burns? Yup, sounds about right, totally misrepresented.


no I am saying that it was arguably unnecessarily hot, which made it take less time to cause 3rd degree burns. Mcdonald's changed the temperature of the coffee after the incident, which made it arguably safer for all consumers. Pretty much everyone I have ever talked to about this case didn't know much about the facts. Obviously, you can still disagree with the verdict, but most people don't realize the extent of her injuries or the fact that the coffee in question was arguably hotter than it needed to be.

#48 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:21 PM

This is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood legal cases of all time and is often used to degrade our profession. I would encourage anyone to actually read the facts of the case. The women received 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for several days, followed by a few years of medical treatment. From what I've read she attempted to settle for only her actual medical losses, which mcdonalds refused- so she got an attorney. There was evidence introduced indicating Mcdonalds may have kept there coffee hotter than industry standards, which made it take less time to receive burns. There were also several other past instances of accidents. After the verdict, Mcdonals lowered the temperature of the coffee.


Don't bother, people are going to hate the legal system and lawyers no matter what. The saddest part is the courts and legal system protect an individual's rights much more than the either executive or legislative branch ever does. Call it misinterpretation or just a basic ignorance of civics but at the end of the day people's opinions of lawyers just won't change.

I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about torts and her perception of the legal system only being a way for people to get paid with frivolous lawsuits. Then I proceeded to ask her how an individual's rights are protected when the person who wronged them committed an act which wasn't criminal in nature. People never think of it that way, they only see the courts as being a way for lawyers to get rich (even though most aren't) not as an opportunity for someone to have their rights protected.

So you're saying the she sued because McDonald's hot coffee is hot and can cause burns? Yup, sounds about right, totally misrepresented.


No, what he's saying is that coffee should never be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization. McDonalds wasn't following the industry standard for the temperature of coffee, plain and simple.

#49 Mr Unoriginal

Mr Unoriginal

    Cheap Amish Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:21 PM

no I am saying that it was arguably unnecessarily hot, which made it take less time to cause 3rd degree burns. Mcdonald's changed the temperature of the coffee after the incident, which made it arguably safer for all consumers.


I'm sure lawyers pat themselves on the back all day long as they come up with phrases like 'arguably unncessarily hot' but I assure you that you sound like assholes to the rest of us.

Its too bad you're still a prick with a stupid gimmick.


#50 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:26 PM

I'm sure lawyers pat themselves on the back all day long as they come up with phrases like 'arguably unncessarily hot' but I assure you that you sound like assholes to the rest of us.


First of all, I am not a Tort lawyer. But, I am using "arguably" because I don't think the issue is very cut and try and that reasonable people could disagree about whether making coffee hotter than industry standards, that you should know is being used by people driving cars, creates an unnecessary risk. Not all coffee causes third degree burns in a matter of seconds. I don't think you are wrong to think that it's still the woman's own problem, I am just suggesting people should read the facts about the case- because its not as ridiculous and cut and dry as they may have thought.

#51 Mr Unoriginal

Mr Unoriginal

    Cheap Amish Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:32 PM

First of all, I am not a Tort lawyer. But, I am using "arguably" because I don't think the issue is very cut and try and that reasonable people could disagree about whether making coffee hotter than industry standards, that you should know is being used by people driving cars, creates an unnecessary risk. Not all coffee causes third degree burns in a matter of seconds. I don't think you are wrong to think that it's still the woman's own problem, I am just suggesting people should read the facts about the case- because its not as ridiculous and cut and dry as they may have thought.


Well, I think that is where lawyer world and the rest of the world disagree and it's why people dislike lawyers. A lawyer would think it is not cut and dry that a woman who is drinking hot coffee and driving and who spills that coffee on herself and gets burned is not at fault and that maybe the person who sold her that coffee should be sued. The rest of the world thinks that is crazy.

Its too bad you're still a prick with a stupid gimmick.


#52 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:34 PM

Well, I think that is where lawyer world and the rest of the world disagree and it's why people dislike lawyers. A lawyer would think it is not cut and dry that a woman who is drinking hot coffee and driving and who spills that coffee on herself and gets burned is not at fault and that maybe the person who sold her that coffee should be sued. The rest of the world thinks that is crazy.


but you see a lawyer didn't render the verdict- normal people on a jury did.

#53 Soodmeg

Soodmeg

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:38 PM

I understand what both sides are going for. Its the old discussion of how far does a person/business need to go to protect themselves from common sense. But you both are wrong when you say the problem isnt the Law itself. Because there is no set line (as there shouldnt) today you loose a lawsuit for attacking a burglar in your own house and the next day you win a large sum of money after suing your husband for "hacking" the computer you both own because he suspected you were cheating.....and you were.


Its the vagueness of law itself because each judge/jury is human and therefor will bring different opinions to the table.


Its just how it goes, people will continue to sue for the dumbest reason because they do have a chance of winning and there is enough less than honorable lawyers who will continue to fight for them. But some of the time they do indeed have a good reason to sue.

Those be the breaks.

#54 Mr Unoriginal

Mr Unoriginal

    Cheap Amish Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:47 PM

but you see a lawyer didn't render the verdict- normal people on a jury did.


A sad state our legal system is in, isn't it?

Its too bad you're still a prick with a stupid gimmick.


#55 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 06:58 PM

A sad state our legal system is in, isn't it?


It absolutely is sad to let a jury of our peers decide which person's set of facts should prevail. We should let just 1 person do it, I know, we'll call them King...

#56 KrizB

KrizB

    Flrying into FWEE!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 07:31 PM

It absolutely is sad to let a jury of our peers decide which person's set of facts should prevail. We should let just 1 person do it, I know, we'll call them King...



"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart threw a sword at you."

zantar45.jpg


#57 n8rockerasu

n8rockerasu

    Shhh...I'm Invisible

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 07:40 PM

No, what he's saying is that coffee should never be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization. McDonalds wasn't following the industry standard for the temperature of coffee, plain and simple.


I understand the point you're making, but let's at least acknowledge the reason this was done. It's not like McDonald's just felt compelled to make their coffee hotter. Surely, customers were complaining that their coffee was "cold" and this caused McDonald's to raise the temperature. For all we know, the same woman who got burned could have been one of the one's complaining. THAT'S the world we live in. Can't please anybody...and when you try, they'll sue you for their own negligence.

#58 Sporadic

Sporadic

    done with this site

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 08:13 PM

Well, I think that is where lawyer world and the rest of the world disagree and it's why people dislike lawyers. A lawyer would think it is not cut and dry that a woman who is drinking hot coffee and driving and who spills that coffee on herself and gets burned is not at fault and that maybe the person who sold her that coffee should be sued. The rest of the world thinks that is crazy.


You already have the wrong facts. Plz actually read the wiki on that case.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent 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 nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. 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. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. 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. 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. Two years of medical treatment followed.

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that 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. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, this contradicts the company's own research that showed customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

#59 caltab

caltab

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 08:19 PM

There are very valid arguments to think McDonald's should not be held liable- like that coffee is hot and a person assumes risk when drinking it, or that the outfit she was wearing caused the burns to be more severe, or that the the industry standard is actually the temperature McD's was serving coffee at. I really don't have a problem with someone taking those views. I just think a lot people may have jumped to conclusions about the case without informing themselves of the facts.

#60 Mr Unoriginal

Mr Unoriginal

    Cheap Amish Gamer

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 09:18 PM

You already have the wrong facts. Plz actually read the wiki on that case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants


Ok, she wasn't driving. That hardly changes my opinion.

Its too bad you're still a prick with a stupid gimmick.