Natural Selection at work

[GenuineRisk]

Speaking of research, Dell, my curiosity was piqued by the first case listed and I decided to do a little more poking around online about that case. And, not surprisingly, the case is not what you presented. What you presented:

"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."

First off, "troubles" means that one of the two men was burned over 70 percent of his body and lost the tips of all ten of his fingers, along with most of his hearing and eyesight. The other would have escaped with minor injuries, but he went back in to save his friend, who was burning to death, and so ended up seriously injured himself. The explosion was so strong it threw the homeowner through two rooms and out of the front door of her home. It blew out windows and set a neighbor's tree on fire.

The chemical company first argued that that didn't really count as an "explosion." They then argued they shouldn't have to list "explosive" on the packaging, despite the fact that they USED TO list it on an earlier version of the product.

http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryC...7780/Page1.htm

(This is the document denying Para Chem an appeal. It's a judge making the determination to deny appeal, not a jury)

"Frivolous lawsuits" is a favorite of the Right to trot out ever so often, because limiting damages benefits Big Business, basically giving them more freedom to market unsafe products without fear of liability. And in this case, there were no punitive damages awarded against Para Chem; just compensatory damages. If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?

Pretty sure I'd never have an open can of flammable anything near my water heater or my refrigerator. I don't even leave my clothes dryer on when I leave the house. Mind as well asked me what I'd like for dinner when I visit the moon.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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

I stubbed my toe this w/e and it still really hurts. Wonder if I should sue Cobalt, the pier owner, the pier installer or the State of Wisconsin for leaving a 'dangerous' lake open without warning signs?

Seriously, I made a decent living for almost 20 years off 'frivolous/fraudulent' lawsuits, not by filing them but by exposing them.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Pretty sure I'd never have an open can of flammable anything near my water heater or my refrigerator. I don't even leave my clothes dryer on when I leave the house. Mind as well asked me what I'd like for dinner when I visit the moon.





I stubbed my toe this w/e and it still really hurts. Wonder if I should sue Cobalt, the pier owner, the pier installer or the State of Wisconsin for leaving a 'dangerous' lake open without warning signs?

Seriously, I made a decent living for almost 20 years off 'frivolous/fraudulent' lawsuits, not by filing them but by exposing them.

First, actually read the judge's statement on the Para Chem case and get back to me. It's not enough to say "flammable" on a label anymore.

Second, again, none of what you've said has anything to do with the McDonald's case.

Speaking of getting back from tangents, here's more on the shooting range death:

http://gawker.com/9-year-old-shootin...gic-1629808348

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

First, actually read the judge's statement on the Para Chem case and get back to me. It's not enough to say "flammable" on a label anymore.

That's because 'stupidity' instead of common sense is presumed nowadays

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Second, again, none of what you've said has anything to do with the McDonald's case.

The McDonald case was an example of a frivolous suit. This thread never was about McDonald's despite your yearning to make it so.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Speaking of getting back from tangents, here's more on the shooting range death:

http://gawker.com/9-year-old-shootin...gic-1629808348

Wow it would be ironic if the family of the little girl, who shot the instructor, filed a lawsuit.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The McDonald case was an example of a frivolous suit. This thread never was about McDonald's despite your yearning to make it so.

Explain what about the suit was frivolous. Let me remind you of McFact number 5 from my earlier post. Actually, I'm probably minding you of it, as I doubt you bothered to read any of the facts of the case in the earlier post. Nevertheless:

"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."

I also suggest you google images of the women's burns. Or hell, just watch the documentary. It's all in there. There was nothing frivolous about that lawsuit. And if McDonald's had just been willing to pay for her hospital bill in the first place, they'd never have been sued. They brought it on themselves by negligence and then greed.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Explain what about the suit was frivolous. Let me remind you of McFact number 5 from my earlier post. Actually, I'm probably minding you of it, as I doubt you bothered to read any of the facts of the case in the earlier post. Nevertheless:

"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."

I also suggest you google images of the women's burns. Or hell, just watch the documentary. It's all in there. There was nothing frivolous about that lawsuit. And if McDonald's had just been willing to pay for her hospital bill in the first place, they'd never have been sued. They brought it on themselves by negligence and then greed.

I guess I'm just in the minority of the customers the McDonald's quality assurance manager speaks of in thinking that spilling hot coffee on one's self can and will cause severe burns. Especially when you can barely hold onto the cup with one of those cardboard holders without feeling your fingers burning.

I also believe the woman's age and steadiness of hand or lack of it likely was a contributing factor. Although McD's does contribute to this situation by offering seniors free coffee refills.

And shouldn't the McD's employee who served her bear some blame for participating in an obviously dangerous action, you know like the gun range instructor (was blamed)?

[dellinger63]

A more recent example of a frivolous suit

http://www.suntimes.com/29663828-761...l#.VAet2fYg_mQ