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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |