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

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:55:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Only in this case, it really might have been McD's fault. Coffee should
> be served at a drinkable temperature, maybe a bit warmer to keep it warm
> in the cup for a while. That temperature would not have resulted in the
> burns the woman got. The coffee had to be at a much higher temperature,
> in which case someone at McD's had either fiddled with the machine or
> ignored it's maintenance. If she had sipped it instead of spilling it
> first, she would have got burns through her mouth and throat instead.

Except that she would have sipped it and realised before liquid even hit 
her lips that it was very hot.

She was in a car that was moving.  Moving cars sometimes have to stop 
quickly.  It is sheer idiocy that anyone would think "hey, I've got a hot 
cup of coffee here, what could possibly happen to cause me to get burned?"

IMNSHO, she's got nobody to blame but herself.  She didn't *think* before 
putting the coffee between her knees.  If she hadn't done that, she 
wouldn't have gotten burned.  McD's didn't FORCE her to put the coffee 
there, she CHOSE to do so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:44:48 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> Aren't their any preliminary hearings where a judge can read the case
> and essentially say "Don't be so ****ing stupid"? Thus saving everyone
> (apart
>  from the lawyers) money.

I believe there is, but it's not always so clear-cut once you get lawyers 
involved.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:02:47 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, lots of stories like that.  Guy breaks into a house, gets himself
>> locked in the garage with only some dog food to eat.  For a week,
>> because the homeowners were on vacation.  Sues the homeowners (and IIRC
>> wins) because they failed to provide him an escape route and he nearly
>> starved to death.
> 
> What the O_O

Yeah, that was my reaction. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:04:51 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though. If
> you make it so that doctors are not liable for more then lets say
> 100grand, what happens to the person that they really screw up? 

Sure, there are legitimate cases where there is negligence on the part of 
the doctor.  I don't think there's anywhere near as many cases of it as 
are heard (or won), though.  For the insurance companies and the doctors, 
it's often cheaper to settle than to litigate.  Except that that's what 
drives the premiums up.

> My
> cousin is suing a doctor, it's been in the local paper several times so
> I don't mind mentioning it, because he royally screwed up. Other doctors
> looked at his notes, said they were wrong, they checked the surgical
> site and pointed out all he did wrong. She had a good job, and the jury
> found that, between lost wages and further treatment, with minimal pain
> and suffering, they awarded over 3 million. The state doesn't allow for
> that much. So, instead of taking the money from the doctor, she gets to
> take it from the state in the form of state health care and subsidies:
> also called taxes.

I would agree that the state was in the wrong here by limiting a 
reasonable award.

> Anyone disabled puts a sink on the economy, in some way. It's mitigated
> by various means. But the current trend of limiting state health care
> due to malpractice while at the same time limiting malpractice law suits
> is just asking for trouble.

I would agree with that.  The problem is that there are many cases where 
awards are given that are far in excess of what is "reasonable".  
Punitive damages against a doctor who engages in willful misconduct are 
not called for; suspension of the doctor's license is.

> I mean, what do you call the student who graduated last of their class
> from med school?

"Doctor".  Yeah, I know that one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:54:29 +0200, Rafal wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I was reading a story the other day (have to see if it's online
>> somewhere) about a guy who fell off a ladder in spite of having taken
>> "ladder training" that explained that there were ways in which it was
>> inappropriate to use the ladder.  He was standing on the very top
>> (against the training) and was only found to be 25% at fault in the
>> accident.  The result is that he'll collect something like £37,500 on
>> his claim of £50,000.
> 
> That was in the usa, wasn't it?

Nope, it was in the UK IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Except that she would have sipped it and realised before liquid even hit 
> her lips that it was very hot.

Yep. She couldn't tell with the paper cup in her hand that it was hot? 
Or, if not, there's a reason there's a bunch of insulation around it?

> putting the coffee between her knees.  

And I don't think I've seen in 15 years a car without cupholders.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:51:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Except that she would have sipped it and realised before liquid even
>> hit her lips that it was very hot.
> 
> Yep. She couldn't tell with the paper cup in her hand that it was hot?
> Or, if not, there's a reason there's a bunch of insulation around it?

Yeah, there is also that angle as well.

>> putting the coffee between her knees.
> 
> And I don't think I've seen in 15 years a car without cupholders.

Same here.  I think my '74 Duster didn't have cupholders.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

>> That was in the usa, wasn't it?
> Nope, it was in the UK IIRC.

Yeah thats what I thought writting that "it must USA. Well ok, or UK".

Is UK the USA of EU or something?

- military operations
- crazy law
- spying on citizens
- fat people

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:53 +0200, Rafal wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> That was in the usa, wasn't it?
>> Nope, it was in the UK IIRC.
> 
> Yeah thats what I thought writting that "it must USA. Well ok, or UK".
> 
> Is UK the USA of EU or something?

Nope.  If it were, I wouldn't consider moving there.

But there's a reason I wrote the monetary figures as '£' - if I'd meant 
US dollars, I would've written it appropriately. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message