|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:35:16 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient. At least here in the US, it
>> still has to be somebody's *fault*.
>
> Yep - your own :-P
I wish more people would realise this. But the trend over the last
several years has been to blame someone else in order to hit the
"jackpot" with a sizable judgment. The most famous was Stella, who won a
judgment against McDonald's because she put a hot cup of coffee between
her legs and got burned.
All things about the proper temperature to serve coffee at and whatnot
aside, *she* decided to put a cup of hot liquid there. McDonald's didn't
make her do that.
(The judgment she won was reduced significantly upon appeal - that fact's
not often discussed by people who site this case).
I'm not a big fan of McD's, but the result was that they also had to put
a warning on the cup that states that the contents are hot. As if it was
impossible to tell that.
>> Yeah, but that requires thinking on the part of the school
>> administration, and we can't have *that* going on in our schools....
>
> Two independent thought alarms in one day! But yeah that would require
> making a judgment call for which you can be sued later.
LOL
>> But there's also (in some schools) a double-standard. Students have ZT
>> applied to them, but let a staffer do something that is a *fireable*
>> offense and those same non-thinking administration people are willing
>> to overlook it.
>
> But we both know that the normal rules are suspended in times of
> emergency, just look at all the laws both our governments have been
> ramming through the system. "We think you've got drugs on your person.
> Strip down while I put on this rubber glove"
Yeah, that's true enough. But a staffer doing something (as opposed to a
student) doesn't really qualify in my book as an "emergency" of any sort.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |