On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:14:15 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> Well if the media publicise the 'Judge orders company to pay $X in
> compensation" over the "Judge clears company in court case" then what
> anyone expect?

Ah, well, that gets into my second big pet peeve - the news media....

>>  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.
> 
> Darren talked about this in a much earlier thread. He pointed out that
> McDs knew the coffee was over temperature and did nothing about it, but
> that the only way this was discovered was because Stella sued and got
> hold of the literature documenting this.

Even still, if she hadn't put the damned cup of coffee *between her 
legs*, she wouldn't have gotten burned.  She was in a moving *car* for 
crying out loud.

>>> 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.
> 
> Running around waving my hands in the air type of emergency rather then
> staying quiet and fearing for my life type of emergency.

I'm thinking of situations where the school has a ZT policy on weapons 
and then doesn't enforce it when a teacher brings a pistol to school, but 
does when a student *who's on the rifle team* gets suspended because he 
brought his rifle to school but left it in his car *unloaded*.

(As an example).

Jim

Post a reply to this message