Lawsuits

[eternity]

I find these to be complete and udder bullshit.

For example, I'm going to apply at "Pet Value", right? So, I ask them "why aren't there any cats or other animals running around?" The lady says "Oh, we don't do that anymore. We got sued because some guy got scratched from a cat."

WHAT THE FUCK!? Dude, it's his own fault! He probably pissed off the cat, to get scratched. Why the fuck would he fucking sue if it's his own fucking fault?! It's really bullshit. It doesn't make any sense.

There is also that one time where some guy spilled McDonald's coffee because he put it in his lap, and won. What the fuck?! Honestly, to me lawsuits are another way of saying "Do something fucking stupid, get over a million dollars!"

I just bet I could buy a knife at home hardware, and "accidentally" cut myself, and sue them, and win. That's what bullshit. Something stupid from your own problem, can get you over 1,000,000,000 dollars. [Don't know if that's a million, but you get the point.]

Now I have two questions:

1. What are your opinions on these bullshit lawsuits?
2. Is there any way I can get them to put the cats back? I want to tell the person who sued the store that's it's their own fucking fault. Is this possible?

[mystra]

don't forget the moron burglar who fell through someones skylight, hurt himself on a knife and effectively sued the house owner. that's my fave

[HolyShadow]

Lawsuits are a good thing. It's stupid, greedy people that corrupt them, just like anything else.

[Insane]

1) I could buy a knife at home hardware, and "accidentally" cut myself, and sue them, and win. Off you go then

2) Yes. it's their own fucking fault

[Fat1Fared]

OK I cannot talk about Tort law in USA, so this is more for British users. Here there are lot of misunderstandings around Tort law, now it is far from perfect and things like medical tortations/defamation really need some reform

however on whole it does an important task, IE when someone drives into side of your car and breaks your leg, they should cover your lose. It does work on idea of cost falls at person who is at fault, and infact lot of time this actually makes harder to use tort law.

Another thing which need to remember is, that its payments are to cover loss, not make people rich IE In one case, a mans car was damaged, and so when some else drove into it (he was unlucky) he could only claim further damages, not all damages which were already there, even if they would have come from crush normally.

and is very hard thing to actually win at, with many different restrictions on things such as pay outs, in one case, someone was unable to claim for medical negligence, simply because only 49% chance that his blindness was caused by it 0.o (that is 1% less than needed limit to prove causesation

Now with examples this post makes, with McDonalds one, if one thinking of that wasn't like papers reported it, it was because the coffee's temperature was over a safety limit, which was what caused his injures and with the burglar through roof, well in Britain that cannot happen and that case again was lot more complaitcated than papers made out. But generally if your on someones land without their permission, unless you can prove unintentual permission (which is almost impossible) you cannot claim for any negligence on their part

With knife one, again not sure about USA, but here no couldn't, unless it was because of a defect in the product which meant the manufactors of it breached their duty of care (IE, the knifes protective layer was too fin and in that case you would only win a token payment, which would equal about ?1)

[eternity]

tl;dr.

[killshot]

tl;dr.

Why bother making a thread if you don't care what anyone has to say?

[eternity]

I'm not reading something that long when I don't want to. I read everyone else's posts.

[darkarcher]

There is also that one time where some guy spilled McDonald's coffee because he put it in his lap, and won.

If I recall correctly, the coffee was both overheated and placed in a normal drink cup (as opposed to the styrofoam coffee cups). In such a case, it was not the man's fault.

However, there are several cases where lawsuits are indeed stupid.

[HolyShadow]

If I recall correctly, the coffee was both overheated and placed in a normal drink cup (as opposed to the styrofoam coffee cups). In such a case, it was not the man's fault.

However, there are several cases where lawsuits are indeed stupid.
A: Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot. If it's TOO hot, BLOW on the damn thing to cool it down.

B: Who CARES what cup it's in? Blow on it to cool it down, drink it, and be done with it.

C: He put it in his lap. If it was really that damn hot, then he should've known that.

It's not that hard a concept. Hot = Hurt. Cool down the hot and it won't hurt. While hot, prevent pain. It's basically programmed in our brains. PREVENT pain.

[JesusRocks]

This one time when I was in austria, some american dude wiped out my aunt's friend on the slope by accident. She got back up again, and he was practically begging her for forgiveness.

Thing is, he didn't have insurance, and he was begging her not to sue him.

We all found this very, very strange... no-one else in their right mind would even consider suing someone for an accident while skiing. On the slope, you get knocked over, you crash, it's difficult to find a patch of piste where there is no-one around you. At some point you are bound to lose control either because of a collision, or prior to a collision, that's just the way it is.

You know what we also found strange? The fact that the man was freaking out because he didn't have insurance. Apparently not just health insurance, but some different kind of insurance for skiing... insurance? for skiing? HOW COMPLETELY PREPOSTEROUS THAT IS. The single most idiotic thing I have ever come across in my lifetime is the concept of insurance for accidents on the slope. Before this guy had mentioned it, none of us had even heard of it... so naturally we never had any of this strange insurance either.

But I chocked it down to him being AMERICAN and therefore he comes from a culture where you practically need insurance to walk out the door without being sued >:V

In short, American litigation goes completely beyond any form of sense. If the cases mentioned above had come before a judge in England, the claimants would have been laughed out of the courtroom!

[mystra]

@JesusRocks: that's typical american culture. we're raised with that type of shit in our heads.

[JesusRocks]

@JesusRocks: that's typical american culture. we're raised with that type of shit in our heads.

Sounds contagious ... can't you like... have it surgically removed or something :V

[Fat1Fared]

If I recall correctly, the coffee was both overheated and placed in a normal drink cup (as opposed to the styrofoam coffee cups). In such a case, it was not the man's fault.

However, there are several cases where lawsuits are indeed stupid.

pretty much what I put, if etun bothered to read it, and tried to understand what he was talking about (I even say there are flawes in system, but like holy they come from poeple, not system itself)

A: Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot. If it's TOO hot, BLOW on the damn thing to cool it down.

B: Who CARES what cup it's in? Blow on it to cool it down, drink it, and be done with it.

C: He put it in his lap. If it was really that damn hot, then he should've known that.

It's not that hard a concept. Hot = Hurt. Cool down the hot and it won't hurt. While hot, prevent pain. It's basically programmed in our brains. PREVENT pain.

Yes I agreed putting it in his lap, probably wasn't smartest thing in world, however point is, if it had been at right temperature in right form of cup, this wouldn't have happened, maybe is silly in your eyes, but that is way it is looked at

This one time when I was in austria, some american dude wiped out my aunt's friend on the slope by accident. She got back up again, and he was practically begging her for forgiveness.

Thing is, he didn't have insurance, and he was begging her not to sue him.

We all found this very, very strange... no-one else in their right mind would even consider suing someone for an accident while skiing. On the slope, you get knocked over, you crash, it's difficult to find a patch of piste where there is no-one around you. At some point you are bound to lose control either because of a collision, or prior to a collision, that's just the way it is.

You know what we also found strange? The fact that the man was freaking out because he didn't have insurance. Apparently not just health insurance, but some different kind of insurance for skiing... insurance? for skiing? HOW COMPLETELY PREPOSTEROUS THAT IS. The single most idiotic thing I have ever come across in my lifetime is the concept of insurance for accidents on the slope. Before this guy had mentioned it, none of us had even heard of it... so naturally we never had any of this strange insurance either.

But I chocked it down to him being AMERICAN and therefore he comes from a culture where you practically need insurance to walk out the door without being sued >:V

In short, American litigation goes completely beyond any form of sense. If the cases mentioned above had come before a judge in England, the claimants would have been laughed out of the courtroom!

That is indeed scary JR, and one of reasons I stayed away from USA law, is because don't know enough about how that works to say if really is like its sterotype or poeple just think it, the point I was making, is that in britain it isn't like its sterotype and apart from few cases like "Shogun finance" (which also pretty complicated, so who am I to disagree with the judges there, though still do agree with the dissenting judgment, rather than proper one lol) there all very hard to win

However believe that was case like the burglar one and unamazingly, he lost lol

[JesusRocks]

There was a tort case where the burlgar was climbing through a window and got hurt by the house owner's pet pirahna... I think he was successful >_> Duty of Care and all that...

Tort Law main case = DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
Also, look at Caparo Industries v Dickman (at least I think that's the name of the case)
There are other cases in the test for the Tort of Negligence which I can't remember...

[Fat1Fared]

There was a tort case where the burlgar was climbing through a window and got hurt by the house owner's pet pirahna... I think he was successful >_> Duty of Care and all that...

Tort Law main case = DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
Also, look at Caparo Industries v Dickman (at least I think that's the name of the case)
There are other cases in the test for the Tort of Negligence which I can't remember...

unless we're looking at different case, I thought he lost because of a case where man broke into council land and fell in ditch which wasn't safely set up. The man lost because council were able to agrue that he shouldn't have been on land anyway, and so as Nuisance trespasser (because we have no real trespass to the land) he lost. because judge said only way Nuisance trespassers can win, is have (believe term) unintended premission. And so the precedent that this set down, meant that burglar lost as well, because he couldn't prove unintended Permission (because that can only be gained by continual unrestricted use of a pecie of land under known consent of lands owner, made by owners continual known lack of protest to use and no court in land would accept that burglar would come under that condistion, because of reasonable man test)

PS, you don't need to tell me Donoghue (Snall case) and Caparo (niglient advise) there about as famous a case as you can get, but damn it, several months of lofting around, have made me forget aboout 100 other case names lol

[JesusRocks]

unless we're looking at different case, I thought he lost because of a case where man broke into council land and fell in ditch which wasn't safely set up. The man lost because council were able to agrue that he shouldn't have been on land anyway, and so as Nuisance trespasser (because we have no real trespass to the land) he lost. because judge said only way Nuisance trespassers can win, is have (believe term) unintended premission. And so the precedent that this set down, meant that burglar lost as well, because he couldn't prove unintended Permission (because that can only be gained by continual unrestricted use of a pecie of land under known consent of lands owner, made by owners continual known lack of protest to use and no court in land would accept that burglar would come under that condistion, because of reasonable man test)

PS, you don't need to tell me Donoghue (Snall case) and Caparo (niglient advise) there about as famous a case as you can get, but damn it, several months of lofting around, have made me forget aboout 100 other case names lol

Eh, several months of dossing about have made me forget most of tort law XD
Good job it's one of my subjects this year :V

haven't done tort law since A-level, so no wonder I'm a little rusty...

[Fat1Fared]

Eh, several months of dossing about have made me forget most of tort law XD
Good job it's one of my subjects this year :V

haven't done tort law since A-level, so no wonder I'm a little rusty...

Yer, I must admit, I cannot wait to get started, though we did tort law in first year at my uni (and I got a 2-1, YAY ME)

[JesusRocks]

Yer, I must admit, I cannot wait to get started, though we did tort law in first year at my uni (and I got a 2-1, YAY ME)

Cool... nice one, first year I did Criminal, Contract, Constitutional and Land Law.

this year I'm doing Tort, Equity and Trusts, Administrative Law, and Commercial Property law

[MrsSallyBakura]

This is a very vague poll question that IMO can't be answered.

Some lawsuits are necessary. It all depends on the situation. If I have a roommate in an apartment and she didn't pay rent for 3 months while her name is on the lease, I could sue her and it would be completely fair; if she signed the lease, whether or not she's living in that apartment anymore, she either needs to pay up or get a sublet. It is illegal to sign a lease and not pay rent, and if lawsuits didn't exist, there would be no way for me to get this money from the girl I signed the lease with.

It's a sad thing that you can sue for just about anything, but if all lawsuits were completely unfair and bullcrappy, then we could probably just get rid of the concept. But they're not. America (and I suppose in eternity's case, Canada) just needs to not be full of greedy whiny babies in order for lawsuits to be fully appreciated for what they are.

[roxasabridged]

My Modern Studies teacher once told my class about a case in America where some guy stood on top of his fridge (After lying it on its side of course) and tried to use a loaded shotgun, pointing to the floor, to do something with a fan ceiling thing or something.
He shot himself on the foot, sued the freaking company that made the fridge, and won.

Plus there's those cases on Judge Judy. 'OMG you keyed mah car! SUED!'

Why can't people file lawsuits properly?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Maybe America just needs better defense lawyers.

[JesusRocks]

Maybe America needs smarter claimants :V

[darkarcher]

Maybe America needs smarter people :V

fix'd

[JesusRocks]

fix'd

I was trying to go for some tact and sensitivity... sheesh XD

[Fat1Fared]

JesusRocks, Darkarcher, MrsSallyBakura=Maybe America just needs better defense lawyers AND smarter claimants and poeple AND Better legal sytem :V

Wonder if this is right

PS is starting to go into "are americans stupid thread"

PSS JR, they mix and match things depending on course I did Tort, Contract, Const and legal this year ^_^

[darkarcher]

I was trying to go for some tact and sensitivity... sheesh XD

It's okay. All of the Americans on the site know that we are generally unintelligent...at least in certain areas.

[Kochiha]

tl;dr.

Such an abominational comment does not belong in a serious discussion. If you didn't read it, don't post it. (TLDR's are my biggest internet pet peeve.)

Lawsuits themselves aren't bad. People abuse them for the sake of getting a quick million dollars, but there are situations where they are perfectly legit. A good example would be one of those negligent doctors that seem to be running around most of southern California these days, especially the untrained ones that paid their way through medical school. Suing those guys for some serious malpractice issues is perfectly legit, since they more or less deserve to be stripped of tons of money anyway.
Another good example happened close to home for me: some time ago, a couple of cops came to a house concerning a 911 call placed by a woman about her uncle's drunken rampage. The uncle managed to get out before the police arrived, but when the police did arrive, they literally broke into this woman's house and shot her two dogs because their barking was "threatening to their safety", and thus arrested the woman for "loosing the dogs on them". She was freed when the higher-ups in that town's police department heard about the incident, but she was left with two dead dogs and bullet holes in her living room. She took it upon herself to sue for damages to her home and to her; the case was won rather quickly.
Now, with that said, there are indeed some frivilous lawsuits. Remember that woman and her coffee? And need I say more?

[roxasabridged]

And need I say more?

For lolz sake, yes.

Any way, I can't think of idiotic lawsuits from Scotland... or Britain, for that matter. I bet we have our fair share of idiocy in court though.

[JesusRocks]

For lolz sake, yes.

Any way, I can't think of idiotic lawsuits from Scotland... or Britain, for that matter. I bet we have our fair share of idiocy in court though.

England has some idiotic lawsuits... but not our "fair share" as it were...

Court is actually where all the asshattery happens... the result is usually Just.

[HolyShadow]

Yes I agreed putting it in his lap, probably wasn't smartest thing in world, however point is, if it had been at right temperature in right form of cup, this wouldn't have happened, maybe is silly in your eyes, but that is way it is looked at

Completely preposterous. That's like finding that a hard candy was made a little too big and instead of sucking on it, you put it in your mouth, swallow it, choke on it, survive, and sue the company because you almost died cause you didn't have enough sense to not swallow it. Just ludicrous.

[BryyMiller]

Lawsuits are fair, and required.

People are fucking stupidfucks.

[YG117]

hmm, if lawsuits aren't fair, then i guess it's not fair for me to sue my father for the 17 years of child support he owes us.

:thatface:

[BryyMiller]

In response to this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bomv-6CJSfM

[Rugal]

If I may interject here, there are different types of lawsuits.
1) Lawsuits that involve a valid cause for litigation
2) Frivolous Lawsuits, which have a moot point and are often times based on crazy legal theories.
This thread is basically about number 2, in the fact that all proposed "absurd" lawsuits are frivolous, and we would think nothing to pursue in actual court (and are often times unfair). So, do I think lawsuits are fair? Yes, IF they have a valid cause, and no in the case of the crazy ones that keep surfacing in this thread.
You're in law school, correct JR? You should have more knowledge on this than everyone else in this thread, so feel free to correct me if i'm wrong on this.

[roxasabridged]

I guess the crazy lawsuits keep surfacing because they make the majority of court cases... probably.

[TPishek]

I guess the crazy lawsuits keep surfacing because they make the majority of court cases... probably.

I would say it's not because they're the majority, but rather because they're so ridiculous that people make a lot of noise about them.

[JesusRocks]

If I may interject here, there are different types of lawsuits.
1) Lawsuits that involve a valid cause for litigation
2) Frivolous Lawsuits, which have a moot point and are often times based on crazy legal theories.
This thread is basically about number 2, in the fact that all proposed "absurd" lawsuits are frivolous, and we would think nothing to pursue in actual court (and are often times unfair). So, do I think lawsuits are fair? Yes, IF they have a valid cause, and no in the case of the crazy ones that keep surfacing in this thread.
You're in law school, correct JR? You should have more knowledge on this than everyone else in this thread, so feel free to correct me if i'm wrong on this.

I agree with this. This thread is very obviously about the crazy-asss lawsuits, not the reasonable ones.

Yes, lawsuits are fair. Litigation can provide justice where criminal law cannot. However, these strange cases of people suing other people because... I dunno, their neighbour's dog got stung by a bee when it was behaving like a crazed lunatic and crashed into the defendant's beehive... or something even more thickheaded... are insane, and they go far beyond what is reasonable, and they breed a preposterously unreasonable culture of "why forgive an accident when I can just sue?" or "I don't need to be a reasonable, understanding human being when I can squeeze money out of my opponent's every orifice legally".

In the UK, there is less litigation than the US, but it's still quite a big part of the work for UK lawyers. I can point to many, many litigation cases which are considered building blocks of Common Law, and their result makes sense, it is just/fair/equitable, and it's certainly necessary.
For example:
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Caparo Industries v Dickman
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

and thousands upon thousands more.
I work for a solicitor's firm which deals with a great many litigation cases. I have not yet seen a single one which could be considered "crazy" or "over the top" like the ones we hear about in the media.
The vast majority of UK litigation is sensible, just, fair, and necessary.

I personally believe America's system of litigation is far too open, almost to the point where anyone can sue anyone else for almost anything... in my humble legal opinion, the criteria are far too lax, and their really needs to be a cap on it that prevents so many of the crazy-ass cases.

Yes, the UK does have crazy-ass lawsuits, but the system we have in place does prevent such are large outbreak of these types of cases. America's legal system does need to be more strict, and these over-the-top lawsuits need to be laughed out of courtrooms before they're even heard.

Personally I blame America's system of Judicial Supremacy
It's just asking for this kind of trouble when the US judges can overturn legislation.

I do indeed prefer the UK's system of Legislative Supremacy, or "Parliamentary sovereignty" however eroded it really is.

[Fat1Fared]

I agree with this. This thread is very obviously about the crazy-asss lawsuits, not the reasonable ones.

Yes, lawsuits are fair. Litigation can provide justice where criminal law cannot. However, these strange cases of people suing other people because... I dunno, their neighbour's dog got stung by a bee when it was behaving like a crazed lunatic and crashed into the defendant's beehive... or something even more thickheaded... are insane, and they go far beyond what is reasonable, and they breed a preposterously unreasonable culture of "why forgive an accident when I can just sue?" or "I don't need to be a reasonable, understanding human being when I can squeeze money out of my opponent's every orifice legally".

In the UK, there is less litigation than the US, but it's still quite a big part of the work for UK lawyers. I can point to many, many litigation cases which are considered building blocks of Common Law, and their result makes sense, it is just/fair/equitable, and it's certainly necessary.
For example:
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Caparo Industries v Dickman
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

and thousands upon thousands more.
I work for a solicitor's firm which deals with a great many litigation cases. I have not yet seen a single one which could be considered "crazy" or "over the top" like the ones we hear about in the media.
The vast majority of UK litigation is sensible, just, fair, and necessary.

I personally believe America's system of litigation is far too open, almost to the point where anyone can sue anyone else for almost anything... in my humble legal opinion, the criteria are far too lax, and their really needs to be a cap on it that prevents so many of the crazy-ass cases.

Yes, the UK does have crazy-ass lawsuits, but the system we have in place does prevent such are large outbreak of these types of cases. America's legal system does need to be more strict, and these over-the-top lawsuits need to be laughed out of courtrooms before they're even heard.

Personally I blame America's system of Judicial Supremacy
It's just asking for this kind of trouble when the US judges can overturn legislation.

I do indeed prefer the UK's system of Legislative Supremacy, or "Parliamentary sovereignty" however eroded it really is.

Well, not getting into dicey and the death of "Parliamentary sovereignty", I think is pretty much shows major differences

=I think the main difference having now done little reseach into USA system is what you have said JR, and I think mostly comes down to fact that in British the judges put a lot of thought into "Social Policy!" And how many cases here have failed not because the outcome of that case is just in itself, but because of it further out reaching problems which could arise:-

The best example being Hillbourgh diseaster and cases such as White V Chief of South Yorkshire Police or Alcock V "same name" which set out the Alcock criteria (these are not really thought of in USA)

So when you mix this with the exstreamly high level of proof needed to win a case, of:-

-Forseerable
-Remotness
-Causation
-Duty of Care breach
-Crushing Libability
-Soical Policy

There are best shown in case of "Steveson v Spartan Steel" or Case of "Parsons V Ingram" which both show where someone has only won half of what want as only half is covered by the rules

Also, in Britian you can only claim for damages, why'll in USA you can claim for punishment, which puts their rewards a lot higher than ours, meaning more are willing to do it.

Finally, the terrible legal aid in britian may have one advantage and that is, that because it doesn't cover these cases, means a lot of poeple simply cannot afford to do a case unless they know will win, which removes a lot of more "frivous" cases. Also this coupled with fact that legal firms here can do conditional fee agreements but cannot do over charges, means that legal firms here are lot less likely to take on "frivous" cases because they can only take from winnings, cannot over charge the side and claiment

[HolyShadow]

...You two are making me want to study british law.

[JesusRocks]

...You two are making me want to study british law.

Yeaaaahh we're awesome :V

[roxasabridged]

Yeaaaahh we're awesome :V

Especially the Scottish variety.

[JesusRocks]

Especially the Scottish variety.

Scotland has it's own legal system

it doesn't count :V

[roxasabridged]

Scotland has it's own legal system

it doesn't count :V


That's what makes it awesome.

[Tristan's Voice]

I can think of a few people I would like to sue, I jsut can't because they have things against me as well.

Edit: 300th post

[JesusRocks]

I can think of a few people I would like to sue, I jsut can't because they have things against me as well.

Edit: 300th post

There are plenty of companies I'd like to sue, I just can't because there's no legal reason for it :thatface:

[AsteriskRocks]

A: Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot. If it's TOO hot, BLOW on the damn thing to cool it down.

B: Who CARES what cup it's in? Blow on it to cool it down, drink it, and be done with it.

C: He put it in his lap. If it was really that damn hot, then he should've known that.

It's not that hard a concept. Hot = Hurt. Cool down the hot and it won't hurt. While hot, prevent pain. It's basically programmed in our brains. PREVENT pain.

Standard of Care is the term used for that.

EDIT: Standard of care is the precaution you taken under normal circumstances. It is necessary in order to take a claim of negligence in trial.

Anyways If I could summarize why it was too hot...it would be that....

From article: The evidence at trial indicated that it was 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit when served and that it was between 165 and 170 degrees Fahrenheit when it was spilled. The evidence also showed that the coffee you make at home is usually about 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit.

source: http://www.queensnewyorklawyers.com/CM/Articles/Articles10.asp

Because it was over the average temperature the product was considered defective and because it was considered defective she was able sue for the damage the coffee caused and she supposedly had to pay about $10,000 in medical expenses because of the 3rd degree burns that had been given to her by the coffee on her thighs and buttocks.

EDIT: If this was already mentioned....I didn't read what was beyond that coffee case being mentioned.

[eternity]

Ba-dumb-bump.

[roxasabridged]

When bumping serious discussions, it helps to add relevant stuff :/

[JesusRocks]

*wonders if Eternity has actually been reading our responses*

[Cocyta]

There is also that one time where some guy spilled McDonald's coffee because he put it in his lap, and won. What the fuck?! Honestly, to me lawsuits are another way of saying "Do something fucking stupid, get over a million dollars!"

I heard that it was a woman who spilled the coffee, and that the coffee was over the legal temperature for hot drinks.

When the coffee was spilled, she got third degree burns on her privates, as well as the places AsteriskRocks' mentioned.

Finally, McDonald's had previously received legal warnings about the temperature of the coffee.

Yes, the woman did something stupid... of course, McDonald's should have listened to those warnings and lowered the temperature of the coffee.

Anyway, that's how it was explained by my Law professor. (more or less)

:: shrugs ::

[Fat1Fared]

I heard that it was a woman who spilled the coffee, and that the coffee was over the legal temperature for hot drinks.

When the coffee was spilled, she got third degree burns on her privates, as well as the places AsteriskRocks' mentioned.

Finally, McDonald's had previously received legal warnings about the temperature of the coffee.

Yes, the woman did something stupid... of course, McDonald's should have listened to those warnings and lowered the temperature of the coffee.

Anyway, that's how it was explained by my Law professor. (more or less)

:: shrugs ::

Coc, why bother telling him this, I said this straight away and he just made stupid comment back, why'll ignoring it

JR said this and he ignored it

Dark said this and he ignored it

Asterisks Said this and he ignored it

(think there is a pattern here lol)

[roxasabridged]

My English teacher says we're getting more Americanised with our lawsuits D:

Funniest ones I've heard tend to be from Judge Judy.
Seriously, who sues because someone scrathes your car?

[Cocyta]

Because I'm the first to say the plaintiff was female, and even if Eternity ignores my post,
somebody else will respond. :smile:

[Fat1Fared]

My English teacher says we're getting more Americanised with our lawsuits D:

Funniest ones I've heard tend to be from Judge Judy.
Seriously, who sues because someone scrathes your car?

all I will say to this is, it is a show called JUDGE JUDY, what did you expect?

and for english teacher, he barely even deverses my condescending Indeed :squintyface: (^_-)

Because I'm the first to say the plaintiff was female, and even if Eternity ignores my post,
somebody else will respond. :smile:

You know, I didn't even think about that 0o and think your right it was woman,

but at same time does that really make a different to class at hand, legally diff no (well unless her injures were effect by her being woman IE stopped ability to gave birth to kids, something a man doesn't worry to much about) and even socially no, well unless say should treat man and woman differently in these cases, but do woman really need speical care or something? lol (sorry winding you up ^_-)

And yer someone will reply, but who???? (oh...wait ^_^)

[darkarcher]

Funniest ones I've heard tend to be from Judge Judy.
Seriously, who sues because someone scrathes your car?

Judge Judy isn't actually a judge.

[roxasabridged]

I figured as much... The opening narrator is a liar! D:

[AsteriskRocks]

Seriously, who sues because someone scratches your car?

That's considered Vandalism.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Ba-dumb-bump.

Mature moderator thing ta do thar, bub.

Judge Judy isn't actually a judge.

Wait, what? O-o

[HolyShadow]

Why is this topic still going? D:

[JesusRocks]

Every time I look at this thread, I dream sorrowful dreams... dreams of seeing "banned" under eternity's name, and knowing that I was the one to deal this blow. But alas, I am impotent in this regard ._.

This thread sucked from the very beginning, and it was bumped with irrelevant bumpage.
Therefore I'm locking it.