| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2011 01:35:41 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Yes. I bought some potted herbs, basil and such like, and they all had warnings attached. Do not eat roots or potting mix! I kid you not. |
What about the pot? You may have a case there! |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 02:35:32 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
Originally posted by jomari:
Yes. I bought some potted herbs, basil and such like, and they all had warnings attached. Do not eat roots or potting mix! I kid you not. |
What about the pot? You may have a case there! |
LOL. I might have eaten the warnings themselves, too.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2011 05:06:41 AM · #53 |
For years we've wanted to put 'Children At Play' signs around our estate, to encourage drivers to slow down a bit.
The local council keep denying us. They say there's a public liability issue in case the signs fall on someone's head.
Although, I'm sure it could be fixed with a 'Beware Falling Signs' sign. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 01:05:28 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by JH:
For years we've wanted to put 'Children At Play' signs around our estate, to encourage drivers to slow down a bit.
The local council keep denying us. They say there's a public liability issue in case the signs fall on someone's head.
Although, I'm sure it could be fixed with a 'Beware Falling Signs' sign. |
Perhaps they can also remove all the "No Parking" signs too ...
BTW: In the "McDonald's coffee" case, I think that part of the issue was that the coffee was dispensed at a higher-than-normal serving temperature, leading to significant burns, not just that the victim was completely ignorant. Also, AFAIK that case was decided by a jury -- not by lawyers or politicians or insurance agents -- presumably there was evidence we haven't seen which led those people to decide unanimously that there was reasonable cause to assess liability. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 01:34:51 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
For years we've wanted to put 'Children At Play' signs around our estate, to encourage drivers to slow down a bit.
The local council keep denying us. They say there's a public liability issue in case the signs fall on someone's head.
Although, I'm sure it could be fixed with a 'Beware Falling Signs' sign. |
Perhaps they can also remove all the "No Parking" signs too ...
BTW: In the "McDonald's coffee" case, I think that part of the issue was that the coffee was dispensed at a higher-than-normal serving temperature, leading to significant burns, not just that the victim was completely ignorant. Also, AFAIK that case was decided by a jury -- not by lawyers or politicians or insurance agents -- presumably there was evidence we haven't seen which led those people to decide unanimously that there was reasonable cause to assess liability. |
In the McDonald's case, the corporation kept the coffee at ludicrous temps to avoid refills and decrease rebrew times. For Money. Proven on the stand, and the jury didn't like that. And the woman burned her Labia and needed skin grafting on her most holy of holies.
So you see, the typical penalty for spilling coffee on yourself while the car is stopped and you are adding cream and sugar into it in the passenger seat is- possibly some redness on the lap, and a ruined or sticky outfit. Not the need for genital reconstruction.
Lets steer this ship away from the rocks, away from a bunch of bullshit spewing fools crying for "personal responsibility." Everybody wants tort reform and "personal responsibility" until its their family that is hurt by a doctor or corporation, and the insurance company fails to pay them. Sorry for the rant.
Oh yeah- and the world became stupid when its started believing friend of a friend stories and urban legends on the internet. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 01:48:37 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Lets steer this ship away from the rocks, away from a bunch of bullshit spewing fools crying for "personal responsibility." Everybody wants tort reform and "personal responsibility" until its their family that is hurt by a doctor or corporation, and the insurance company fails to pay them. Sorry for the rant. |
I heard Ron Paul on the radio the other day, and someone asked him about whether government should enforce pollution regulation. He basically said that "private property rights" generally were able to take care of things, essentially that "your right to pollute ends at my property" ...
Now, as I understand it, private property rights are enforced by the civil courts. So, I take it that Mr. Paul is saying that if someone (e.g. Chevron) is spewing out pollution, rather than the EPA enforcing some standards, 90,000 residents should file suit in the local courts.
Yeah, sure sounds like a plan for tort reform to me ... |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 05:36:24 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Lets steer this ship away from the rocks, away from a bunch of bullshit spewing fools crying for "personal responsibility." Everybody wants tort reform and "personal responsibility" until its their family that is hurt by a doctor or corporation, and the insurance company fails to pay them. Sorry for the rant. |
I heard Ron Paul on the radio the other day, and someone asked him about whether government should enforce pollution regulation. He basically said that "private property rights" generally were able to take care of things, essentially that "your right to pollute ends at my property" ...
Now, as I understand it, private property rights are enforced by the civil courts. So, I take it that Mr. Paul is saying that if someone (e.g. Chevron) is spewing out pollution, rather than the EPA enforcing some standards, 90,000 residents should file suit in the local courts.
Yeah, sure sounds like a plan for tort reform to me ... |
although, I will say that not all lawyers have walking around smarts. One time, in a meeting discussing the aspects of a products liability case against a boat manufacturer- ( a horrific tale of volunteers backing up a boat into novice skiers, chopping them up somewhat) one of the lawyers I used to work with proposed that speedboat manufacturers might have been required to place signs indicating that there were propellers below the water- to which I snidely remarked " what would people think moves the boat through the water-magic?
But for the most part products have been made much safer through this here country's civil jury trial system. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 05:44:47 PM · #58 |
Two current ones to add from Australia:
1) a couple of days ago, a surfer was killed by a shark. The surfer decided to frolic in the water on an overcast day near a seal colony! Now the hunt is on for the shark that is "responsible". What are they going to do? Check every shark's ID and give them the third degree re their whereabouts at that time?
2) every spring our magpies nest and some of them get VERY protective about their young.
We Aussies know to expect this, and we all know which local magpies and areas to be careful of. It is easy to protect yourself (hat, umbrella, etc).
This time, a girl was attacked on the Gold Coast and the magpie hit her head hard enough to draw blood. Now authorities are preparing to shoot the bird.
For so many years we have managed to deal with this just fine, now suddenly we need to kill them?
Edited to fix typo.
Message edited by author 2011-09-06 18:42:22. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 05:47:29 PM · #59 |
| I would sentence the magpie to death by shark. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 06:41:08 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
But for the most part products have been made much safer through this here country's civil jury trial system. |
I'm in favor of (effective) civil courts, but not to deal with problems like corporate pollution, especially when those in favor of "private property rights" also seem hostile to class-action ... |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 06:42:44 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would sentence the magpie to death by shark. |
...methinks Art is confusing sharks with flying fish... :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 06:44:22 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would sentence the magpie to death by shark. |
But the shark killed..... the magpie just pecked.
Maybe we should sentence the shark to a prolonged magpie pecking, and then let the shark eat the magpie.
I want to know where to sign up to have all the darn mosquitoes shot that keep biting me all summer. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 06:46:34 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would sentence the magpie to death by shark. |
But the shark killed..... the magpie just pecked.
Maybe we should sentence the shark to a prolonged magpie pecking, and then let the shark eat the magpie.
I want to know where to sign up to have all the darn mosquitoes shot that keep biting me all summer. |
It's the female mosquitoes that suck on your blood...not unlike...Mfffffffffffffffftt I forget now. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 07:03:11 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 07:42:53 PM · #65 |
I sure don't miss these. I don't know what was so fun about taking turns smashing your manhood and then nearly flipping over the handlebars and landing on your collarbone.
However, I was one hell of a monkey bar fighter. My god, if I found a competitor somewhere local, I'd totally be down for organizing fight-night-twenty-eleven. The General's local, but I don't think he'd be down for the challenge. :P
|
|
|
|
09/06/2011 07:57:39 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I want to know where to sign up to have all the darn mosquitoes shot that keep biting me all summer. |
Maybe we need to put up a "Don't Feed the Mosquitoes" sign at your place. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 08:12:36 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jamesgoss:
|
if this is your first time at monkey bar fight club....you have to monkey bar fight. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 08:19:12 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by jamesgoss:
I sure don't miss these. I don't know what was so fun about taking turns smashing your manhood and then nearly flipping over the handlebars and landing on your collarbone.
However, I was one hell of a monkey bar fighter. My god, if I found a competitor somewhere local, I'd totally be down for organizing fight-night-twenty-eleven. The General's local, but I don't think he'd be down for the challenge. :P |
I never had a problem with smashing my manhood... |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 08:24:26 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I never had a problem with smashing my manhood... |
or maybe, your manhood was a casualty :D |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 08:31:05 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by jamesgoss:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I never had a problem with smashing my manhood... |
or maybe, your manhood was a casualty :D |
My husband will be incredibly surprised! :P |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 09:23:53 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
For years we've wanted to put 'Children At Play' signs around our estate, to encourage drivers to slow down a bit.
The local council keep denying us. They say there's a public liability issue in case the signs fall on someone's head.
Although, I'm sure it could be fixed with a 'Beware Falling Signs' sign. |
Perhaps they can also remove all the "No Parking" signs too ...
BTW: In the "McDonald's coffee" case, I think that part of the issue was that the coffee was dispensed at a higher-than-normal serving temperature, leading to significant burns, not just that the victim was completely ignorant. Also, AFAIK that case was decided by a jury -- not by lawyers or politicians or insurance agents -- presumably there was evidence we haven't seen which led those people to decide unanimously that there was reasonable cause to assess liability. |
While this case has entered the public consciousness as a symbol of everything that's wrong with our tort system in America, it actually was a righteous lawsuit.
Plaintiff was a 79-year old grandmother. She was in the passenger seat of a parked vehicle, trying to take the lid off her coffee when it spilled in her lap. The coffee was at 180 degrees, and she suffered 3rd-degree burns over 16% of her body, her lap and thighs. She was hospitalized 8 days, she had to have skin grafts, was disabled for 2 years, and permanently scarred. Her physician testified it was one of the worst cases of scalding he'd ever seen.
At the time, McDonalds corporate specifications required coffee to be served at between 180 and 190 degrees. That was, and is, an insane temperature at which to serve a drink. Liquid at that temperature causes 3rd-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of contact with skin. Coffee at home is typically served at 135 degrees or so. 180 degrees is beyond undrinkable, it's dangerous.
In discovery for the trial, McDonalds had to produce corporate documents that showed more than 700 claims for similar burns had been made against the company.
Plaintiff offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000, and only took the case to trial after McDonalds offered her only $800 (!) in compensation.
R. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 11:04:07 PM · #72 |
Bear, you're missing the point. The invisible hand of the market would have corrected this problem. After hundreds or thousands of burn victims another company would have surely emerged offering a new brand of cooler coffee that promised fewer reconstructive surgeries. So you see, you're robbing the corporate world of it's cash cow maker.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2011 11:09:13 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Bear, you're missing the point. The invisible hand of the market would have corrected this problem. After hundreds or thousands of burn victims another company would have surely emerged offering a new brand of cooler coffee that promised fewer reconstructive surgeries. So you see, you're robbing the corporate world of it's cash cow maker. |
Yup, "righteous lawsuit" :-)
R. |
|
|
|
09/06/2011 11:31:45 PM · #74 |
I wonder how long it will be before someone files a suit about a Mc D's iced coffee freezing their nads off?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2011 11:33:48 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
While this case has entered the public consciousness as a symbol of everything that's wrong with our tort system in America, it actually was a righteous lawsuit.
Plaintiff was a 79-year old grandmother. She was in the passenger seat of a parked vehicle, trying to take the lid off her coffee when it spilled in her lap. The coffee was at 180 degrees, and she suffered 3rd-degree burns over 16% of her body, her lap and thighs. She was hospitalized 8 days, she had to have skin grafts, was disabled for 2 years, and permanently scarred. Her physician testified it was one of the worst cases of scalding he'd ever seen.
At the time, McDonalds corporate specifications required coffee to be served at between 180 and 190 degrees. That was, and is, an insane temperature at which to serve a drink. Liquid at that temperature causes 3rd-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of contact with skin. Coffee at home is typically served at 135 degrees or so. 180 degrees is beyond undrinkable, it's dangerous.
In discovery for the trial, McDonalds had to produce corporate documents that showed more than 700 claims for similar burns had been made against the company.
Plaintiff offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000, and only took the case to trial after McDonalds offered her only $800 (!) in compensation.
R. |
Totally agree. Sadly though, the lawsuit did much more damage than good to the actual court system since it was used over and over as the shining example of a "frivilous lawsuit" to enable tort reform. There is an excellent documentary called Hot Coffee about this issue.
It is really sad when you hear of the multitude of cases where people who actually voted for tort reform at the state level were denied fair compensation when they were wronged. What noone seemed to realize is that there is legally no such thing as a "frivilous" lawsuit. So caps on damages apply to every case.
Message edited by author 2011-09-06 23:34:20. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:07:16 PM EDT.
