Natural Selection at work

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm sure the civil court will have something to say.

Civil cases are brought by private citizens. Who's going to sue? The dead man's family? It's the only ones I can see making sense, but I find it hard to believe a court will buy that the guy was pressured into this by his job, judging from his ammosexual history which is easily accessible on Facebook and which, I have no doubt, Burgers and Bullets has now saved to hard drives. Who else? The parents suing for their daughter's trauma seems a little crazy, as they were clearly complicit, seeing as how they videoed the thing.

Though this is America, where our motto is not "In God We Trust" so much as it is, "I'll Sue!". So, you never know. But it's not the state that brings civil cases, though they sometimes partner with private citizens. Usually that is in a case of civil rights violations, but I find it hard to believe there's any grounds for that here.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Who's going to sue? The dead man's family?.

Were the ones I was referring to

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Were the ones I was referring to

I just don't see how they'll have a case. How do you prove negligence when the facility was clearly adhering to state law? I mean, the thing is on video. If there's any negligence, it's personal negligence on the part of Vacca himself.

Best case, the state will tighten rules on age restrictions and weaponry at shooting ranges, but honestly, fat chance that'll happen; the NRA would have a fit. If a classroom full of dead 6-year-olds didn't change anything, one dead Gen-Xer isn't going to, either.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I just don't see how they'll have a case. How do you prove negligence when the facility was clearly adhering to state law? I mean, the thing is on video. If there's any negligence, it's personal negligence on the part of Vacca himself.

Was McDonalds adhering to State law when they served hot coffee?

And wasn't it the woman who spilled the hot coffee on her crotch who was negligent?

You underestimate the ridiculousness of our civil court system.

Did Vacca provide the girl the gun? Buy the property where the gun range was on? Create the range's rules?

Or because Vacca was a gun enthusiast, he's the only one to blame?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Was McDonalds adhering to State law when they served hot coffee?

And wasn't it the woman who spilled the hot coffee on her crotch who was negligent?

You underestimate the ridiculousness of our civil court system.

No, you just don't bother to google anything to make sure you know what you're talking about before you go off about it. Here are some actual facts about the McDonald's Hot Coffee case:

"McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. I'll add, her initial request was for less than $10,000

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."

That, Dell, is how a business loses a civil case. There has to be a pattern of wanton recklessness and disregard for human safety. I just don't see how anyone proves that here. I mean, I have my own opinions about letting kids play with guns, but this place has not, as best I could tell, ever had a fatality or even serious injury.

Although I'm frustrated that untrue tropes get trotted out again and again (like the hot coffee one) I do highly recommend you watch the documentary "Hot Coffee" which is about civil lawsuits against companies and tort reform. I did a quick google search and it's currently available in its entirety on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx7jAop3srA

It's very entertaining and very informative. It also comes down hard on our legal system, but not because people file frivolous suits.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, you just don't bother to google anything to make sure you know what you're talking about before you go off about it.

It's very entertaining and very informative. It also comes down hard on our legal system, but not because people file frivolous suits.

In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.

In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.

In May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph's lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit.

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris's family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn't have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn't like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station's "whimsical tiger logo" with Kellogg's mascot, "Tony the Tiger." It didn't matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg's "Tony."

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn't doing him much good during the ten years he's serving for armed robbery.

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn't earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer's large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like "cement blocks" hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What does any of those examples have to do with the suit against McDonalds?

Oh, right. Nothing. Not to mention, all but two of those cases were thrown out or dismissed, which really doesn't help your argument about frivolous lawsuits, since they were recognized as frivolous. Anyone can file a suit. It's whether they make their case that counts.

Again, a little research before you post will do you wonders.