Re: OT Humour, The Stella Awards


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:119voq74fd1eob5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bill wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Stella was holding the coffee. No one else. She had control of the container
> of coffee. She was careless. Period.
>

She was careless or perhaps clumsey. But it is not a period. McD was also
found to be wrong.

>> 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
>
> And McD's had lousy lawyers who were too stupid to find out how 3rd degree
> burns happen and at what temperatures. That 135-140°F you're so fond of
> quoting could also produce 3rd degree burns. And the "danger is open and
> obvious."
>

Yes but not to such an extent. It was clear that the standard at this McD was
about 185 degrees. Do you disagree with that?

>>>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.
>
> The circumstances are that people stupid enough to spill coffee on
> themselves have no one but themselves to blame because the "danger is open
> and obvious." Both judgements rely on the clear idea that coffee is served
> hot enough to burn and people should handle it carefully.
>

No you have said you disagree with the Jury verdict. What determines the
correctness or incorrectness of that is what the law says. Not your feeling of
right or wrong. Clearly British law does not apply. And the law in this case
allows the Jury to assign various degrees of liability. There is a point at
which the coffee becomes too hot. The Jury found the McDs exceeded that point.
The quality control person from McD agreed. There was testimony that coffee at
home is served typically at 140 or below and other places keep coffee at a
lower temp. The judge apparently agreed with the jury since he did not reverse
the verdict. The award was lowered on appeal but the decision was not changed.

So you blame the jury, the judge, the defense lawyers, etc. What is the basis
for your claim that there was not joint liability?

>> And in one of your examples, you are drawing on the law of a different
>> country. Why can't you understand that?
>
> Not the *law* but the judgement of a judge. Clearly you can't understand
> that.
>

No I don't. It is the law that determines whether or not a verdict is correct
or not. A judge must follow the law - not his feelings.



> > 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.
>
> Learn to read.

I do know how to read. Or else I would not have been able to respond to your
posts.

>Both those opinions are predicated on the fact that coffee is served hot and
>people should exercise care in dealing with it. Do you think that when
>lawyers look for precedents that the cases have to be exact duplicates before
>they can be applied?

No but they have to be from the same juristicsion. Which neither of these
were.


>
>> The temperatures may have been different.
>
> And the moon *may* have been made of green cheese. That *may* *** is a
> lousy substitute for information.


>If you don't know, don't bring it up

Why? The point is that your cases don't serve as a precedent because you did
not show that the temperatures were about the same.

> and don't offer conjecture and guesswork. Notice that no specific
> temperature indication is offered in either judgement because *all* coffee
> is presumed to be served hot enough to warrant caution.
>
>> To put it simply. 185 degrees is negligent because it can cause 3rd degree
>> burns, 160 is probably not.
>
> You only look more stupid when you guess and fumble like this.

I'm really not fumbling and as to my appearence. Why do you care?

> More guesswork. You do homework as badly as the lousy lawyers that McD's
> had.

Ok. But not as quickly and not as severe. Do you disagree with that? And you
previously made the point that the temp. drops over time.

> 160°F is plenty hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Y0u can't argue with
> *may* and *probably* in the face of facts.
>
>>>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?
>
> It still depends. And all the tortured examples you try to construct won't
> get you off the hook you've hung yourself on.

I'm really not. If you provide a good argument, I'll agree with you. So far
you have not convinced me that joint liability is not a reasonable finding.
That is 180 degrees + was not too hot. Particularly in a drive thru.

>To sue or not depends on lots of factors. Your examples are all too
>transparent and too unconditional.
>
>>>>(Also do you see the how this is germane now?)
>>>
>>>No. Since it isn't.
>>
>> I've been trying to show you.
>
> And failing. It still isn't germane.
>

You argued originally that because Stella was stupid etc. she should be held
responsible. I'm trying to introduce you to the concept of joint liability,
which I think you are beginning to accept.

Bill

> Pastorio


.

Quantcast