Crown

Carlos from Spain:

 

Kitchen knives are expected to be sharp, but "hot" coffee is supposed to be... luke warm. Makes total sense 

"Hot" coffee is not expected to be so hot that drinking it causes internal injuries. And, I know you know that makes sense.

apias:

Carlos from Spain:

 

Kitchen knives are expected to be sharp, but "hot" coffee is supposed to be... luke warm. Makes total sense 

"Hot" coffee is not expected to be so hot that drinking it causes internal injuries. And, I know you know that makes sense.

If I buy something that is hotter than what other establishments sell, then yes, I should be told. Luke warm is 120F. If it is at a temperature that I can get 3rd degree burns, than yes, it make perfect sense. McDonald's knew about the problem and choose to take a gamble with it. McDonald's is not stupid, they knew what percentage of people would get burned and decided it was cheaper to pay the occasional lawsuit. It was a business decision on McDonald's part.

Whoopsy:

apias:

 

All it is proof of is that McDonald's has made a calculated business decision that they will make more money selling dangerously hot coffee and injuring some number of people a year than if they sell it at a safe, and more appropriate temperature. The only failure of the tort system here is that it is failing to dissuade them from knowingly causing injuries to people, because damage awards have not been high enough to exceed their calculated profits that result.

The SCAA are idiots. Coffee held for any length of time after brewing above 165°F suffers serious and rapid flavor degradation.

 

Dude, if you brew your own coffee at home, then you spilled it and hurt yourself, who do you sue? Yourself? The coffee maker's company? Or the company that makes the glass? Or your wife cause she didn't warn you about the hot coffee?

Common sense man, common sense. Which these stupid lawsuits has zero. A normal sane judge anywhere in the world would have thrown out these hot coffee lawsuits before even reach his desk, then would give a lecture to the lawyers involved about ethnics. 

Wrong! Taking on a product liability case is very expensive. Plaintiff lawyers are very wary of taking these cases on because they are very expensive particularly automobile cases. Depending on the size of the law firm, many often borrow money to finance the litigation. If they lose they eat the costs not the client.

The problem most of you have is your biased by the facts after the case is settled. What you fail to recognize that reasonable people usual act reasonably. If in dosing so a product injuries them one must act if the person acted reasonably in using the product but nevertheless was hurt then one must act was the product safe.

Now some might say well driving 90mph in a 35 mile speed zone is acting unreasonably. But let's say that while at that speed there is a suspension failure and the car loses control hurting the driver. Should the driver collect anything? 

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

nberry:

Whoopsy:

apias:

 

All it is proof of is that McDonald's has made a calculated business decision that they will make more money selling dangerously hot coffee and injuring some number of people a year than if they sell it at a safe, and more appropriate temperature. The only failure of the tort system here is that it is failing to dissuade them from knowingly causing injuries to people, because damage awards have not been high enough to exceed their calculated profits that result.

The SCAA are idiots. Coffee held for any length of time after brewing above 165°F suffers serious and rapid flavor degradation.

 

Dude, if you brew your own coffee at home, then you spilled it and hurt yourself, who do you sue? Yourself? The coffee maker's company? Or the company that makes the glass? Or your wife cause she didn't warn you about the hot coffee?

Common sense man, common sense. Which these stupid lawsuits has zero. A normal sane judge anywhere in the world would have thrown out these hot coffee lawsuits before even reach his desk, then would give a lecture to the lawyers involved about ethnics. 

Wrong! Taking on a product liability case is very expensive. Plaintiff lawyers are very wary of taking these cases on because they are very expensive particularly automobile cases. Depending on the size of the law firm, many often borrow money to finance the litigation. If they lose they eat the costs not the client.

Hey, Nick, I don't think anyone actually suggested that these lawyers eat their clients if they can't earn a fee from them.  

The problem most of you have is your biased by the facts after the case is settled. What you fail to recognize that reasonable people usual act reasonably. If in dosing so a product injuries them one must act if the person acted reasonably in using the product but nevertheless was hurt then one must act was the product safe.

So, was this guy acting reasonably or does he have a case against the manufacturers of the lighter, the match, the cardboard, or even the builder of the apartment he set alight? :

http://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/web/a17656/watch-a-guy-burn-his-house-down-because-he-was-showing-off-a-lighter/?mag=pop...

Now some might say well driving 90mph in a 35 mile speed zone is acting unreasonably. But let's say that while at that speed there is a suspension failure and the car loses control hurting the driver. Should the driver collect anything? 

That is the point, Nick. Nobody is claiming in this instance that there was a suspension failure or indeed any other kind of failure of the car which, after nine years of use and lack of maintenance, could reasonably be attributed to a design or production fault. 

fritz

fritz:

I guess that what it boils down to is that product liability cases frequently get a serious hearing in US courts where most people would think that running the claims through a "common-sense filter" up front should get them thrown out before they ever get to be a full-blown court procedure. 
Whereas in many legal jurisdictions the claimants lawyers would for their own protection advise them against starting expensive proceedings on the basis of a very poor case, there appear to be lawyers in the USA who positively encourage clients to proceed under those circumstances.    

Fritz, my response was to the above quote.

Regarding the lighter fluid, clearly he was not acting reasonably and a jury would have no problem arriving at that conclusion. I will go one step further. I would wager that if he had homeowner or tenant insurance the insurer of the apartment building will sue him to collect whatever than can from him.

The attorney taking the Walker case will be spending a lot of money proving their case. There must be something she/her expert have found giving them a glimmer of hope that a jury will find in their favor. The damages could be enormous given Walker's profile and earnings.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

Out of pocket, law firms doesn't have a lot of immediate expenses, yeah some filling and stuff, the majority of the cost will be labour cost and the staffs are always on the payroll whether they are working on this case or another case. 

The lawyers recovered the labour cost from the billings later. 

nberry:

fritz:

I guess that what it boils down to is that product liability cases frequently get a serious hearing in US courts where most people would think that running the claims through a "common-sense filter" up front should get them thrown out before they ever get to be a full-blown court procedure. 
Whereas in many legal jurisdictions the claimants lawyers would for their own protection advise them against starting expensive proceedings on the basis of a very poor case, there appear to be lawyers in the USA who positively encourage clients to proceed under those circumstances.    

Fritz, my response was to the above quote.

Regarding the lighter fluid, clearly he was not acting reasonably and a jury would have no problem arriving at that conclusion. I will go one step further. I would wager that if he had homeowner or tenant insurance the insurer of the apartment building will sue him to collect whatever than can from him.

I just watched that video after posting the link to it and I suspect that, in fact, its a fake made to cash in on the advertising fees a viral video can earn. The kid in the foreground whose voice you can hear would otherwise have been coughing itself to death due to smoke inhalation long before the end.   

The attorney taking the Walker case will be spending a lot of money proving their case. There must be something she/her expert have found giving them a glimmer of hope that a jury will find in their favor. The damages could be enormous given Walker's profile and earnings.

That's just what somebody is counting on. 

fritz

Whoopsy:

Out of pocket, law firms doesn't have a lot of immediate expenses, yeah some filling and stuff, the majority of the cost will be labour cost and the staffs are always on the payroll whether they are working on this case or another case. 

The lawyers recovered the labour cost from the billings later. 

Nick, generally in tort cases the law firm only takes a percentage of the settlement and recovery of cost. Some cases can take several years to resolve. Filing fees and support staff don't amount to much when compared to deposition costs, expert costs, technical testing and so on. These cost can easily exceed $100,000.

Transactional cases are billed either hourly (billed monthly) or flat fee (often up front).

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

Reasonable people with common sense, this is what seems to be lacking from many of these cases.

Example: During our stay at the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas two years ago, we were lying at the hotel pool, the kids ordered a couple of sandwiches. My daughter bit in one of the sandwiches and sensed something weird. She took it out and it was a quite long...rusty nail. No kidding. She could have hurt herself badly. I showed it to the waitress, she apologized and brought a new sandwich. I asked her to make sure that the kitchen knows what happened, so nobody gets hurt. 

This is what a reasonable person does, shit happens. I could have taken a lawyer and try to milk them for money. I didn't. I had photos, every evidence. There was a strike going on at the hotel at that time and in retrospect, I actually think that someone planted the nail inside the sandwich, so the hotel would get sued. Just a wild guess though.

If my daughter would have been hurt, I do not know what I would have done but I am pretty sure that I wouldn't have been that reasonable, this is for sure.

Other example: My (before I married) girlfriend walked with me through a Publix supermarket in Miami and a glass fell down from a raft, cutting her slightly in her leg. She was seriously bleeding but nothing serious. A woman there put some H2O2 on it and the bleeding was gone in a couple of minutes. The shop manager apologized, case closed. They even gave us some patches, bandages and disinfectant for free. Should we have sued them? Shit happens, my girlfriend was OK.
 

Reasonable people...this is all it takes.

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

RC:

Reasonable people with common sense, this is what seems to be lacking from many of these cases.

.............

Reasonable people...this is all it takes.

What's the point of being reasonable when being unreasonable is so potentially rewarding?  Unreasonableness is the mothers milk of tort.  Without unreasonableness, there would be nothing left to argue.

Mike

918 Spyder + Tesla Roadster 1.5 & Model S + Panamera Turbo +  BMW Z8 + BMW 3.0 CSi + Bentley Arnage T

Our legal system is not perfect and never will be. Keep this in mind; juries composed of people like yourselves decide not only whether there was legal responsibility but the amount to be awarded.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

Well the primary problem is that the juries are all Americans and basically they are all drinking from the same fountain and thinks some of the more silly liability lawsuits are just the norm.

Had juries been selected from people from other countries, then you Americans might have a big shocker as to our views of these silly lawsuits. 

There's not actually a real problem there, except a propaganda problem from people who want to gut our tort system. "Frivolous" lawsuits, excessive damage awards, negative impact on the economy; none of these things are actually real problems, they are just talking points from people with ulterior motives, and "reports" on them are exaggerations and/or fabrications.

From a year ago:

Jury Awards $23.6 Billion in Florida Smoking Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/business/jury-awards-23-6-billion-in-florida-smoking-case.html?_r=0

Although the award was likely dropped substantially, it's stuff like this that make the whole process seem ridiculous.

An Alabama jury also awarded the plaintiffs in their case $500+ million for some satellite dish financing issue.

Yes, the judge reduced the tobacco verdict to $17 Million, and the Whirlpool satellite financing award was reduced to $300 million, almost all of which was awarded as punitive damages. These cases actually indicate that the system works as it should, not that it has run wild.

Just because they involve large dollar amounts doesn't mean they are unjust verdicts. As well, cherry picking a few notable cases does not make a case for a broken system.

apias:

Yes, the judge reduced the tobacco verdict to $17 Million, and the Whirlpool satellite financing award was reduced to $300 million, almost all of which was awarded as punitive damages. These cases actually indicate that the system works as it should, not that it has run wild.

Just because they involve large dollar amounts doesn't mean they are unjust verdicts.

Awards of $300 million in punitive damages devalues the system. It's ridiculous. I say good luck to Volkswagen after the class action lawyers are done with them.

No it doesn't. Again, if you arbitrarily limit awards, you make the case for bad behavior simply a business decision. It only has effective deterrent power if awards are unpredictable, and occasionally shockingly large. Also, if you limit awards, there's the, "in for a penny, in for a pound," problem -- if you make the business decision to do something wrong because the calculated cost is less than the profits, you might as well go all the way and act as wrongly as possible to maximize the profits, because at that point it won't cost you any more.

Despite all the kvetching about torts, no one has ever shown any real damages caused to the economy and no one has ever presented a workable alternative that solves all the problems and addresses all the evils that the current system does. So, I say again, it's the worst system except for all the others.

So you don't buy that the ridiculously high premiums for malpractice insurance increase the cost of health care for all Americans for example? What evidence is there is that awarding arbitrary punitive damages prevents safety issues? As you pointed out, McDonald's is still selling death in a coffee cup to unsuspecting customers. 

a) There is no evidence to support the claim that high malpractice premiums are the result of malpractice awards. Not even insurance companies have been able to present such evidence. All there are are a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this regard from proponents of tort reform (which, no surprise, includes insurance companies) who would like to maximize their profits by limiting payouts however possible. Insurance companies have many expenses, though, not all of them related to settlements and litigation awards.

b) McDonald's didn't end up paying large punitive damages for serving death in a cup to unsuspecting customers, so that point is irrelevant.

c) If you don't believe in the deterrence benefits of punishments, I don't see how I can convince you with any evidence that punishment has a deterring effect. Frankly, I'd be all in favor of applying harsh criminal punishments in place of large damage awards, but most proponents of so called "tort reform" don't seem to be in favor of that, they just want a free pass.

W8MM:

RC:

Reasonable people with common sense, this is what seems to be lacking from many of these cases.

.............

Reasonable people...this is all it takes.

What's the point of being reasonable when being unreasonable is so potentially rewarding?  Unreasonableness is the mothers milk of tort.  Without unreasonableness, there would be nothing left to argue.

You have a point here, unfortunately. 

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

Judge rules that Porsche was not at fault in this crash:

The widow of a man driving the Porsche that crashed and killed actor Paul Walker cannot prove the carmaker is responsible for the accident, a federal judge said.

There was not enough evidence in Kristine Rodas' claims that her husband died because the Porsche Carrera GT he was driving lacked several key safety features, U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez ruled Monday.

He said there was no evidence the Porsche's suspension failed before the crash, as Rodas' lawsuit claimed. She also had alleged the rare sports car lacked a crash cage and fuel cell.

"Plaintiff has provided no competent evidence that Rodas' death occurred as a result of any wrongdoing on the part of defendant," Gutierrez wrote.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/walker-porsche-lawsuit-1.3521587

Seems like the correct ruling.

16 Cayman GT4, 73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550, 79 635CSi

Really is death by misadventure. She can now try to sue the county for its road design there.

I think she should sue her dead husband for driving stupidly.

9 year old fucking tires. case closed! Idiots be idiots, sue Darwin 

1991 BMW 535i Granitsilber/White Leather

Ex: '91 BMW 318i, '89 BMW 525i, '74 Mercedes-Benz 280E, '87 BMW 325is, '86 BMW 325e, '05 Ford Focus ZX4 S, '85.5 Porsche 944

Atzporsche:

9 year old fucking tires. case closed! Idiots be idiots, sue Darwin 

This is something I just don't get: Rodas was a driving professional. There is nothing more important than tires (and maybe brakes). I don't understand how he would drive around with 9 years old tires, this just doesn't make sense. I get it, they are expensive but if you cannot afford the tires, just sell the damn car. 

Also, he was too fast (I think this is something nobody denies), so case closed.

I feel sad for Paul Walker and his family, even for Rodas' family but... 

--

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Mini JCW (2015), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

JimFlat6:

....................... She can now try to sue the county for its road design there.

Or maybe the contractors that erected the lamp post that the car hit. 

--

Porsche Boxster GTS Carrara white / Volvo V40 R Design daily drive

I have a rule. I don't give hot rides nor do I want to be a passenger for a hot ride. The same rule regarding airplanes. Several times attorney's offered to fly me to a deposition using their plane which they would pilot. I politely declined.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

Same here, I can't be a passenger in a car period. I always drive everybody in my family. 

Also, 5 years your tires are done! Just get new ones. That's the minimum as rubber is rubber. 

1991 BMW 535i Granitsilber/White Leather

Ex: '91 BMW 318i, '89 BMW 525i, '74 Mercedes-Benz 280E, '87 BMW 325is, '86 BMW 325e, '05 Ford Focus ZX4 S, '85.5 Porsche 944

nberry:

I have a rule. I don't give hot rides nor do I want to be a passenger for a hot ride. The same rule regarding airplanes. Several times attorney's offered to fly me to a deposition using their plane which they would pilot. I politely declined.

 I also do not show off when I have other persons in the car. I once tried to impress my father in law and almost gave him a heart attack. My wife yelled at me for two consecutive days, I learned my lesson. This was over 20 years ago...don't worry.

Took the son (15) of a wife's friend for a ride in the GT500 last year and I had to listen to a complaint that he (the son) wasn't too impressed. What did my wife's friend expect? That I go sideways with her son on a public road?  I am very careful when I have passengers in the car, especially when I drive the GT500 (which is a dangerous car, believe it or not).

I am also a very bad co-passenger, even with professional drivers. The last one was Lars Kern (Porsche test driver) and I know how good he is but he is young and he wanted to impress me, so I cannot say I really felt comfortable. 
 

Flying in a private plane with someone? NEVER!

CR (my RT buddy) owns a helicopter and even offered me a free piloting lesson as a birthday gift once but I respectfully declined. Not my thing, sorry. 

I am so happy my wife hates to drive and really enjoys to be driven (especially by me, she trusts me completely). One of her friends owns a Porsche and never lets her boyfriend drive, which must be very frustrating (for him). I couldn't be with a woman who wants to drive herself, this would be a huge problem for me because I want to drive. 

--

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Mini JCW (2015), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)