A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old August 20th 15, 08:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)


you clearly don't understand that lawsuit at *all*.

basically, mcdonald's knowingly sold foot that was unfit for human
consumption and had a callous disregard for human safety.

at the trial, mcdonald's own testimony showed that the temperature at
which the coffee was served can cause 3rd degree burns within seconds,
that customers were not warned of the risks, that over 700 other people
including children had been burned in the previous ten years with some
as serious as ms. leibeck (roughly one incident every 5 days), that
mcdonald's considered 700 burn victims out of millions of cups of
coffee to be no big deal, that mcdonald's intentionally served it as
hot as they did because the aroma generated more sales and that
mcdonald's did not give a **** and had no intention of changing
anything.

that's why they lost.
  #292  
Old August 20th 15, 03:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 8/20/2015 2:38 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 8/18/15 PDT 8:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:40:59 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:29:12 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 8/15/15 PDT 5:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/15/2015 7:52 PM, nospam wrote:

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.


Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

Yes, they can, but that doesn't mean there'd be an actual basis for
a suit.

Of course you do, John. A civil lawsuit is a claim for redress. The
suing party has to state what has been done that gives cause for
redress. That is the basis of the suit.

The defending party can claim the suit is without merit (which are
usually the first words out of the attorney for the defense's mouth),
that no harm has been incurred, and that action is frivolous, but that
doesn't mean that any of these claims are any more true than claim
brought by the bringer of the case.

The defense can ask for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient
basis, or for other reasons, but if the judge allows the case to go
forward there must be basis.

But on occasion the judge will throw the case out.

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)


I think the proper word for that lawsuit is disgusting.


--
PeterN
  #293  
Old August 20th 15, 04:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 8/20/2015 3:12 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)


you clearly don't understand that lawsuit at *all*.

basically, mcdonald's knowingly sold foot that was unfit for human
consumption and had a callous disregard for human safety.

at the trial, mcdonald's own testimony showed that the temperature at
which the coffee was served can cause 3rd degree burns within seconds,
that customers were not warned of the risks, that over 700 other people
including children had been burned in the previous ten years with some
as serious as ms. leibeck (roughly one incident every 5 days), that
mcdonald's considered 700 burn victims out of millions of cups of
coffee to be no big deal, that mcdonald's intentionally served it as
hot as they did because the aroma generated more sales and that
mcdonald's did not give a **** and had no intention of changing
anything.

that's why they lost.


Nope. They lost because of arrogance. Read the case in Arizona where a
cockroach was found in a bottle of Pepsi. Pepsi defended on the grounds
that a cockroach is edible and not deleterious under Arizona law. To
prove it, the brilliant defense attorney then swallowed one. The whole
jury got sick and Pepsi lost. the point is arrogance.

--
PeterN
  #294  
Old August 20th 15, 05:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article , PeterN
wrote:


I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)


I think the proper word for that lawsuit is disgusting.


the lawsuit itself was not disgusting.

however, what mcdonald's did that prompted the lawsuit as well as their
testimony at the trial definitely was.
  #295  
Old August 20th 15, 05:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article , PeterN
wrote:

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)


you clearly don't understand that lawsuit at *all*.

basically, mcdonald's knowingly sold foot that was unfit for human
consumption and had a callous disregard for human safety.

at the trial, mcdonald's own testimony showed that the temperature at
which the coffee was served can cause 3rd degree burns within seconds,
that customers were not warned of the risks, that over 700 other people
including children had been burned in the previous ten years with some
as serious as ms. leibeck (roughly one incident every 5 days), that
mcdonald's considered 700 burn victims out of millions of cups of
coffee to be no big deal, that mcdonald's intentionally served it as
hot as they did because the aroma generated more sales and that
mcdonald's did not give a **** and had no intention of changing
anything.

that's why they lost.


Nope. They lost because of arrogance.


nope.

mcdonald's lost because they admitted that they knowingly sold food
that was unfit for human consumption and didn't give a **** that it
caused injuries to patrons.

even the judge said that mcdonald's conduct was willful, wanton,
reckless and callous.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and
nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the
company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the
pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified
that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140
degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at
which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption
because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance
manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds
had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the
extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases
exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155
degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a
serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own
research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own
research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her
medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald¹s never offered more
than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to
be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for
her injuries accordingly. But the jury¹s punitive damages award made
headlines ‹ upset by McDonald¹s unwillingness to correct a policy
despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck
the equivalent of two days¹ worth of revenue from coffee sales for
the restaurant chain. That wasn¹t, however, the end of it. The
original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80
percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years
of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald¹s later reached a confidential
settlement.

€ McDonald¹s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had
repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other
claims and suits.
€ At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought
the company wasn¹t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate
restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed
relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served.
But, the juror noted, ³there was a person behind every number and I
don¹t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.²
€ McDonald¹s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald¹s
coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam
cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and
throat.
€ McDonald¹s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the
extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at
McDonald¹s then-required temperature.
€ McDonald¹s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and
extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did
not.

In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict
was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the
trial he came to realize the case was about ³callous disregard for
the safety of the people.² Another juror said ³the facts were so
overwhelmingly against the company.²

Read the case in Arizona where a
cockroach was found in a bottle of Pepsi. Pepsi defended on the grounds
that a cockroach is edible and not deleterious under Arizona law. To
prove it, the brilliant defense attorney then swallowed one. The whole
jury got sick and Pepsi lost. the point is arrogance.


not the same situation.
  #296  
Old August 20th 15, 06:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 8/20/2015 12:14 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)

you clearly don't understand that lawsuit at *all*.

basically, mcdonald's knowingly sold foot that was unfit for human
consumption and had a callous disregard for human safety.

at the trial, mcdonald's own testimony showed that the temperature at
which the coffee was served can cause 3rd degree burns within seconds,
that customers were not warned of the risks, that over 700 other people
including children had been burned in the previous ten years with some
as serious as ms. leibeck (roughly one incident every 5 days), that
mcdonald's considered 700 burn victims out of millions of cups of
coffee to be no big deal, that mcdonald's intentionally served it as
hot as they did because the aroma generated more sales and that
mcdonald's did not give a **** and had no intention of changing
anything.

that's why they lost.


Nope. They lost because of arrogance.


nope.

mcdonald's lost because they admitted that they knowingly sold food
that was unfit for human consumption and didn't give a **** that it
caused injuries to patrons.

even the judge said that mcdonald's conduct was willful, wanton,
reckless and callous.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and
nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the
company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the
pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified
that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140
degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at
which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption
because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance
manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds
had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the
extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases
exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155
degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a
serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own
research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own
research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her
medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald¹s never offered more
than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to
be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for
her injuries accordingly. But the jury¹s punitive damages award made
headlines ‹ upset by McDonald¹s unwillingness to correct a policy
despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck
the equivalent of two days¹ worth of revenue from coffee sales for
the restaurant chain. That wasn¹t, however, the end of it. The
original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80
percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years
of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald¹s later reached a confidential
settlement.

€ McDonald¹s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had
repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other
claims and suits.
€ At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought
the company wasn¹t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate
restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed
relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served.
But, the juror noted, ³there was a person behind every number and I
don¹t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.²
€ McDonald¹s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald¹s
coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam
cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and
throat.
€ McDonald¹s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the
extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at
McDonald¹s then-required temperature.
€ McDonald¹s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and
extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did
not.

In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict
was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the
trial he came to realize the case was about ³callous disregard for
the safety of the people.² Another juror said ³the facts were so
overwhelmingly against the company.²

Read the case in Arizona where a
cockroach was found in a bottle of Pepsi. Pepsi defended on the grounds
that a cockroach is edible and not deleterious under Arizona law. To
prove it, the brilliant defense attorney then swallowed one. The whole
jury got sick and Pepsi lost. the point is arrogance.


not the same situation.


Do try to know what y0u are talking about before posting. The point is
defendant arrogance. Now ARROGANCE is a word I thought you, of all
people would understand. Unless, of course, you are blind to it.

--
PeterN
  #297  
Old August 20th 15, 07:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 8/20/2015 1:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


...and some of those have been Fire Captains and arson investigators.
The case of John Orr comes to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr


One of my friends is a retired ADA. He told me that a lot of those guys
get caught because someone notices their arousal and a look of
detachment during a fire.




--
PeterN
  #298  
Old August 20th 15, 07:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones)what would you choose?

On 8/20/15 PDT 12:12 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)


you clearly don't understand that lawsuit at *all*.

basically, mcdonald's knowingly sold foot that was unfit for human
consumption and had a callous disregard for human safety.

at the trial, mcdonald's own testimony showed that the temperature at
which the coffee was served can cause 3rd degree burns within seconds,
that customers were not warned of the risks, that over 700 other people
including children had been burned in the previous ten years with some
as serious as ms. leibeck (roughly one incident every 5 days), that
mcdonald's considered 700 burn victims out of millions of cups of
coffee to be no big deal, that mcdonald's intentionally served it as
hot as they did because the aroma generated more sales and that
mcdonald's did not give a **** and had no intention of changing
anything.

that's why they lost.


I understand the suit, and various permutations around it. But I didn't
bring it up to talk about that lawsuit, rather my whimsical derivative
suit.

O.K.?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What kind of camera? Matt Digital SLR Cameras 3 August 21st 07 07:15 PM
Looking for a monopod - what kind of head do I choose ? Philippe Lauwers Medium Format Photography Equipment 8 June 12th 04 08:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.