Jump to content

Another stupid lawsuit!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, guys, I just want to point out, that in lawsuits, we have multiple avenues for disposing of frivolous suits. The judge can do it before it even gets in front of a jury. The jury can do it by finding against the plaintiff if the case is no good.

If the jury "flew the coop," the judge can do it after the verdict in a motion for new trial or in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

And if the judge is wrong in allowing the jury's verdict to stand, there is the court of appeals.

And if the court of appeals is wrong, there is the supreme court of the state.

And if the supreme court of the state is wrong, there is the U.S. Supreme Court.

I think if a jury's verdict holds up despite all these possible stop-gaps, there's probably reason that it should. Oh, but the news crew didn't tell you that, did they?

What's a more catchy headline?

(1) "Verdict Sends Message to McDonalds that Coffee Does Not Need to Be Super-heated," or

(2) "Somehow, a Dumba$$ Broad Spilled Hot Coffee on Herself, and She Got Millions out of McDonald's?"

Which one would you more likely pass over and not read?

These articles are written to involve emotions. They filter out the dull stuff to get you excited. Only editing like that makes them incomplete so that they bias the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, no offense taken, see page 24 of the prettiest girl on the planet.

Yes, I remember now. I was just kidding around since my lapse in grammar made my sentence capable of misunderstanding. Rather than secretly correct it, I thought it would be humorous to expose the funny side of my goof.

BTW: Are you saying you're into finance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I like to "do battle" on these issues with non-lawyers is because it helps to get the old cogs turning. In my practice, I have seen from time to time where people thought, and were even told by other lawyers, that even though harm was done to them, they had no viable legal remedies.

The perfect, most-recent example was my defective shingle case I mentioned earlier. The folks were rejected by another lawyer once the lawyer saw the manufacturer's limitation of remedies that said the manufacturer was not liable beyond mere shingle replacement if their shi**y shingles ruined their house.

Despite that, my clients were compensated very well, and so was I.

I like to explore this stuff with non-lawyers because I believe the people deserve to know as much as is reasonably available to them about their legal rights in the big scheme of things. No doubt, there are many people who have great cases and who deserve remedies but fail to pursue them for unfortunate reasons.

I often wonder how many other people got shi**y shingles from that same manufacturing batch and who failed to get a decent remedy because it "seemed" the odds were against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, yes I have a MBA in finance from UNT. On top of a Bachelor's in Music Education from TCU. No one ever understood me in grad school when I told them that when I finally got it, that the Black-Scholes model for option pricing "sings."

You can be my financial expert on business cases. That one went over my head....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now, if the vehicle cannot handle well at let's say mildly excessive

speeds (which we all drive at from time to time, if not daily), that's

different. That's why the rollover design cases were not only

lucrative for attorneys, they caused the manufacturers to make SUV's

that handled better. And aren't you glad they did? I hope

you are."

Nope. I've owned a couple of Jeep CJ-5's. They were much better off

road vehicles than the current lawsuit-designed Wrangler. If you drive

one like a Camaro, you're gonna get hurt. My daughter drives a

Wrangler, and yes, they do handle better (not hers, with a lift kit and

33" tires).

If you go around a 35 MPH corner at 50 in a CJ-5, you'll most likely

have a bad day. You'll probably get away with it in a Wrangler.

I prefer to be able to purchase a product that was built to excel at

it's intended purpose, and not a lawsuit-driven design compromise. If I

want a Wrangler that will perform as well off road as a CJ, it's gonna

cost me thousands to modify it for that purpose. Why? Because "Tort

law" determines that someone should not be held responsible for their

own actions.

If I want a Discman that will drive my Sennheisers to a decent level, I have to buy an external amplifier. Why? "Tort law."

If I want a lawnmower that does not shut off when I need to pick up a

stick in front of it, I've got to modify it. Why? "Tort law."

Basically, I'm paying a premium in money or inconvenience due to a legal system that piggybacks on the stupidity of others.

Gimme the good old days. Lightweight lawn mowers, cars that'll start up

in gear, headlights that I decide to turn on, electric fans with

minimal guards around the blades, boat motors that don't need a safety

lanyard, cars with beautiful little bumpers, 3-wheel all terrain

cycles, darts with points on 'em, Jarts for the yard.

Bring back personal responsibility, and reward stupidity with a "Darwin award" - not a settlement.

Man, this is a lotta fun, but I really need to go to bed! [:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! It's not rocket science, except in this case it pretty much is. The math that eventually begot the formula is rocket science, the actual formula is not.

Okay, now, you've got to jot it all out from the original formula and its application in aeronautics through to it's application in purchasing options. I'll look for Lesson 1 tomorrow (later today).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah, those little ones are a lot of fun. I once had a Spitfire, and 70

MPH sure felt a lot faster that close to the ground. Only car I ever

owned that I could turn over the engine by moving the fan. Real handy

for valve adjustments.

I almost bought a Spider in '79. Remember going for a test drive. It

had an optional skid plate under the engine (to protect a beautiful

finned cast aluminum oil pan). Think I bottomed it out 2 or 3 times - I

know I made the salesman pretty nervous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It surprises me that you don't see responsibility as a 2-way obligation.

If you're driving down the road, and a person walks out in front of you (not having the right of way), are you going to keep driving because the person is obviously negligent? No. You have her in sight, and you will stop. It is your duty if you have a reasonable chance to prevent injury to a person who is him/herself being negligent.

Why would you not extend the same courtesy when passing super-heated liquids through a drive-thru when you already know those super-heated liquids have caused serious injuries to negligent people in the past?

Why don't you tell yourself "Sometimes I hand stuff to people that are negligent, and like Jack-n-the-Crack and Whataburger, I could serve coffee that is plenty hot without superheating it so that if there is an accident, my super-heated stuff won't make it even worse than it should be?"

Common sense, man! That's all it is. Not theory. Not pie in the sky. Just plain old common sense. If you don't have it, you don't deserve to be in business. Just stay being the guy who puts "secret sauce" on the Big Macs and let your employer have the duty to use common sense. [;)]

I am back Jeff,

Two way obligation,please.When the woman opens a very hot drink in her lap she probably consulted YOU and YOU knew the judge and had a jury ready. Like I said she deserves FREE coupons for more HOT coffee for a week.

To bad she did not open an extra large,extra hot,extra boiling coffee and make sure procreation is a no no later.

Jeff you convined nobody with your pity case.Only that some people are IRRESPONSIBLE and lack proper judgment,plus minimum intelligence to not open HOT coffee in their lap.If she purchased a coffe and had no perception of cold or heat in her hands and ASKED for mildly hot (50C and less) coffed and they gave her boiling coffee and she burn herself.Now here we have a solid case for payback.

And one more thing Jeff,better bring better reasons to the table to convince the Klipsch jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...