Re: OT Humour, The Stella Awards


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:119u1qb6ibocn40@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bill wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:119sv728qscl9d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:119nht9aifgun63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes. Just like *every* restaurant does. Just like your home coffee
>>>>>>>>maker makes. Just like coffee drinkers demand. As for "full knowledge
>>>>>>>>that some would get burned," how on earth could anyone predict what
>>>>>>>>would happen? When you boil water at home, do you make it "with full
>>>>>>>>knowledge that some would get burned?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I take a shower most days with the full knowledge that people slip in
>>>>>>>tubs every day, some resulting in very serious injuries. I go swimming
>>>>>>>in the summer with the full knowledge that there is a very small risk
>>>>>>>of having a seizure and drowning. And I go in the car every day with
>>>>>>>the full knowledge that there will be around 115 people dying in car
>>>>>>>crashes on a given day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Risk is a part of life. And getting burned by coffee is a risk of
>>>>>>>drinking coffee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So your argument is that if you get hit by a drunk driver who is
>>>>>>negligent that "Risk is part of life. And getting one's family killed
>>>>>>while driving is a risk of driving," Correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. Falls under the category "*** happens." Any more questions?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you about to launch your tired, old "That's not how it should be"
>>>>>diatribe?
>>>>>
>>>>>Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>OK. So you would not sue in that situation, correct?
>>>
>>>I answered your question.
>>>
>>>This one about suing is a different one not at all germane to whether risk
>>>is a part of living and is stupidly, belligerently loaded rather than any
>>>real effort to get information. I'll answer it anyway just to see how
>>>you're going to disagreeably disagree. Would I sue? It would depend on lots
>>>of factors which any police officer or insurance salesperson can explain to
>>>you.
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>
>> No you have not answered the question.
>
> Sure I did, Bill. You just don;t like my answers.
>
> I answered this question:
> "And getting one's family killed while driving is a risk of driving,"
> Correct?"
>
> It's answered. The answer is "yes." Period.
>
> > But I take it the answer is sometimes.
>
> The answer about suing is also clear. Your density is simply stunning. The
> answer, clearly delineated - about suing - is *sometimes*. Just like I
> explicitly indicated.
>
>> This leads to the point. You have said that both the coffee incident and
>> being hit by a drunk driver fall under the catagory of "*** Happens." And
>> you dismissed her award on that basis - that risk is a part of life.
>
> No, Bill. You either absolutely don't understand the issue differences or
> are deliberately being dishonest. I dismissed her award on the basis that
> *she* was in control of her situation and stupidly put a hot cup of coffee
> between her legs.> She had control of it all.

That is not true. The jury found both she and McD were liable. She for being
careless. McD for serving coffee at a temperature which would cause 3rd degree
burns. Based on the joint liability they came up with the award and added a
penalty because of multiple past occurrences

> It's not a case of "*** happens," it's a case of she spilled coffee on
> herself. And, to remind you that intelligent people agree with my take,
> here's what other such cases have resulted in:
>
> Here are a couple legal opinions that disagree with you.
>
No they don't. Because they have nothing to do with this case. The
circumstances are different. And in one of your examples, you are drawing on
the law of a different country. Why can't you understand that? For example,
there is no statement that 3rd degree burns were suffered over 6% of anyone's
body so that makes the cases different and any conclusion about how they
compare different. The temperatures may have been different.

To put it simply. 185 degrees is negligent because it can cause 3rd degree
burns, 160 is probably not.


> July 18 -- "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary". It makes a
> contrast to the famed McDonald's case: the Nevada Supreme Court, upholding a
> lower court's decision, has dismissed a lawsuit against a restaurant and its
> suppliers alleging negligent failure to warn about the dangers of hot
> coffee. Lane Burns had sued the Turtle Stop restaurant after spilling
> coffee on his leg and suffering burns, but District Judge Gene Porter ruled
> that the "danger is open and obvious." That differs from the sentiments of
> the judge and jury in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where octogenarian Stella
> Liebeck won a $2.9 million judgment against the fast-food chain, which was
> later reduced to $480,000 and settled for an undisclosed sum. (Cy Ryan,
> "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary", Las Vegas Sun, July 11).
> <http://overlawyered.com/archives/00july2.html>
>
> March 29-31 -- British judge rejects hot-drink suits. U.K. lawyers had
> hoped to replicate the success of the celebrated American case in which a
> jury voted Stella Liebeck $2.7 million (later reduced to just under
> $500,000, and settled out of court) after she spilled coffee in her lap.
> However, on Mar. 27 High Court Justice Richard Field ruled against lawsuits
> by 36 patrons whose lawyers had claimed that the burger chain failed to warn
> of risks of scalding, "served drinks that were too hot, [or] used inadequate
> cups ... 'I am quite satisfied that McDonald's was entitled to assume that
> the consumer would know that the drink was hot and there are numerous
> commonplace ways of speeding up cooling, such as stirring and blowing,' the
> judge said." ("British Judge Rules McDonald's Not Liable for Hot Drinks
> That Scald", AP/TBO, Mar. 28; "Judge rules against McDonald's scalding
> victims", Daily Telegraph, Mar. 27).
> <http://overlawyered.com/archives/02/mar3.html>
>
>> If you would sue, in some cases, in the later situation why should she not
>> in the former?
>
> Because in the former, she had command of her situation and was careless in
> injuring herself. In the latter, the drunk driver was a variable that no one
> had control over and was a case of causing injury in the course of other
> illegal activity and demonstrable negligence.

Let's take your family out of it. Suppose the person who had been hit by the
drunk driver was partly responsible. Say he had parked at night on the side
off the highway but did not have any lights, flashers, etc. on. So
responsibility was divided. (Or make up your own example, if you don't like
that one.) Would you then sue?

Bill

>
>> (Also do you see the how this is germane now?)
>
> No. Since it isn't.
>

I've been trying to show you.

> Pastorio


.

Quantcast