TOPICS:
NOV 24, 2004 08:16 AM
twigtech
Atlanta, GA
September 2004
NOV 24, 2004 08:21 AM
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot... 
NOV 24, 2004 08:21 AM
NOV 24, 2004 08:49 AM
twigtech said:
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot...
I'm betting you don't know the whole story on this. You can find the actual legal stance of this case here.
Basically, these are the real facts:
- The woman, while her car was stopped, attempted to remove the lid of her coffee, which spilled, giving her third degree burns over 6% of her body (thighs and genital area). She was hospitalized for 8 days, requiring several surgeries for skin grafting and tissue removal.
- Prior to this, there were more than 700 claims that McDonalds coffee was dangerously hot.
- Coffee served in other establishments, or that made in a home coffee maker, is approximately 135 degrees. McDonalds had a policy of keeping theirs at 180-190 degrees.
- The woman offered to settle the suit for $20,000, just enough to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds refused.
- The woman was actually found to be partially at fault (20%), and thus the jury reduced her compensatory damages from $200,000 to $160,000. They also awarded her $2,7 million in putative damages (equal to about 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales), which was later reduced to $480,000.
Please don't bitch about the out-of-control tort system without knowing the facts. And please don't demonize lawyers based on urban myths.
-
NOV 24, 2004 09:04 AM
NOV 24, 2004 09:05 AM
NOV 24, 2004 10:14 AM
EnfantTerrible said:
MissTyrios said:
EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!
THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.
Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.
Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.
Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.
It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.
HAHA! Still in law school? All of the lawyers that I know(granted it isn't THAT many, but I can say 100% of those) have either bent, skewed, or left behind that sense of idealism after practicing for a few years. I'm just operating on what I know from personal experience, what I hear from trusted friends and family secondhand, and what I see in the public eye.(See Also: "Great Attorney" Mark Geragos or Garegos...I forget) Sure some good is done by lawyers, and sure I might need one some day, but that doesn't mean that most are passing up the opportunity at profitting immensely and that many don't take that profiteering to an extreme with only winning or greed as their prime motivator. Volunteer, pro bono work, or public civil servant work is the exception from what I see.
I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours. 
If clients were honest, nobody would need lawyers.
NOV 24, 2004 10:28 AM
EnfantTerrible said:
MissTyrios said:
EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!
THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.
Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.
Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.
Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.
It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.
HAHA! Still in law school? All of the lawyers that I know(granted it isn't THAT many, but I can say 100% of those) have either bent, skewed, or left behind that sense of idealism after practicing for a few years. I'm just operating on what I know from personal experience, what I hear from trusted friends and family secondhand, and what I see in the public eye.(See Also: "Great Attorney" Mark Geragos or Garegos...I forget) Sure some good is done by lawyers, and sure I might need one some day, but that doesn't mean that most are passing up the opportunity at profitting immensely and that many don't take that profiteering to an extreme with only winning or greed as their prime motivator. Volunteer, pro bono work, or public civil servant work is the exception from what I see.
I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours.
wow, congratulations on the most over generalized, uninformed, and grossly unqualified "opinion" of the day (thus far; it's still early). i'm guessing you have next to no legal experience, and even less knowledge of what most lawyers actually do - aside from what you have seen on "law and order," and bizarro cases like this. funny, most lawyers i know are the polar opposite of what you have described. i can only guess it is the same for misstyrios and other SG legal people. i'll take actual knowledge and experience over your second hand "knowledge" and "experience" any day of the week.
[Edited on Nov 24, 2004 by dead_ringer]
Idjit
HOPEFUL
I'm lost
NOV 24, 2004 10:33 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:24 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:29 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:31 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:32 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:37 AM
What about the chiropractor? What about a possible pre-existing condition that he may not have known that he had?
He also happened to be in the fur business. What if it's a conspiracy?
I'm curious why the family didn't just leave after the first or second time that the food was flung? That sentence just hurt my brain. 
NOV 24, 2004 11:38 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:41 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:44 AM
NOV 24, 2004 11:45 AM
NOV 24, 2004 12:03 PM
bean said:
reprobate said:
souljacker said:
Will there be throwing of turkey parts at the reprobate Thanksgiving gathering? If so, I would consult with legal counsel in advance and have all those shady SGLAers sign a release before entering the premises.
Consenting to be in my immediate vicinity has been found by the courts to be the very soul of assumption of risk.
I can vouch for the veracity of this statement.
Well, look who's awake.
NOV 24, 2004 12:07 PM
EnfantTerrible said:
reprobate said:
If clients were honest, nobody would need lawyers.
Agreed
dead_ringer said:
EnfantTerrible said:
*other stuff ending with...*
I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours.
wow, congratulations on the most over generalized, uninformed, and grossly unqualified "opinion" of the day (thus far; it's still early). i'm guessing you have next to no legal experience, and even less knowledge of what most lawyers actually do - aside from what you have seen on "law and order," and bizarro cases like this. funny, most lawyers i know are the polar opposite of what you have described. i can only guess it is the same for misstyrios and other SG legal people. i'll take actual knowledge and experience over your second hand "knowledge" and "experience" any day of the week.
[Edited on Nov 24, 2004 by dead_ringer]
I will go with my personal experiences, to form my OPINIONS, and don't need somebody elses permission to do so.
No, but when you post your "OPINIONS" (ps: your caps lock is sticking) to a "discussion" board, other people are going to tell you what they think of them. When you start your opinion with a smug insult, chances are people are going to assume you're a dick and frame their responses accordingly.
NOV 24, 2004 01:39 PM
MissTyrios said:
twigtech said:
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot...
I'm betting you don't know the whole story on this. You can find the actual legal stance of this case here.
Basically, these are the real facts:
- The woman, while her car was stopped, attempted to remove the lid of her coffee, which spilled, giving her third degree burns over 6% of her body (thighs and genital area). She was hospitalized for 8 days, requiring several surgeries for skin grafting and tissue removal.
- Prior to this, there were more than 700 claims that McDonalds coffee was dangerously hot.
- Coffee served in other establishments, or that made in a home coffee maker, is approximately 135 degrees. McDonalds had a policy of keeping theirs at 180-190 degrees.
- The woman offered to settle the suit for $20,000, just enough to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds refused.
- The woman was actually found to be partially at fault (20%), and thus the jury reduced her compensatory damages from $200,000 to $160,000. They also awarded her $2,7 million in putative damages (equal to about 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales), which was later reduced to $480,000.
Please don't bitch about the out-of-control tort system without knowing the facts. And please don't demonize lawyers based on urban myths.
-
Damn you beat me too this. I regularly find myself giving people the full facts on this case. Nicely done.
NOV 24, 2004 01:41 PM
EnfantTerrible said:
MissTyrios said:
EnfantTerrible said:
O MY Fucking GAWD!!!
THAT is precisely why I say lawyers(most) SUCK!!!
Any lawyer that takes that case with a straight face is a stupid fuck, and unfortunately I believe there are ALOT of lawyers that would take a case just that(see also: litigation against McDonald's for making people fat)......frivilous isn't even the word for it. Insert your own word for it, if you like.
Again, please don't characterize the entire profession based on what you feel are a few frivilous, albeit widely publicized, cases.
Chances are, you're going to need legal help sometime in your life.
Most of us are good people. Most of us aren't money grubbers. Most of us love the law and the legal profession.
It really isn't fair to lash out at a profession based on your skewed views of what we are.
HAHA! Still in law school? All of the lawyers that I know(granted it isn't THAT many, but I can say 100% of those) have either bent, skewed, or left behind that sense of idealism after practicing for a few years. I'm just operating on what I know from personal experience, what I hear from trusted friends and family secondhand, and what I see in the public eye.(See Also: "Great Attorney" Mark Geragos or Garegos...I forget) Sure some good is done by lawyers, and sure I might need one some day, but that doesn't mean that most are passing up the opportunity at profitting immensely and that many don't take that profiteering to an extreme with only winning or greed as their prime motivator. Volunteer, pro bono work, or public civil servant work is the exception from what I see.
I'll stick to my own OPINION. You are welcome to yours.
Not all the lawyers you know have left their idealism behind. At least one of em decided to leave the profession behind instead.
Or at least that is my current plan,
NOV 24, 2004 01:44 PM
EnfantTerrible said:
thejuanupsman said:
MissTyrios said:
twigtech said:
if mcdonalds loses because their coffee was hot...
I'm betting you don't know the whole story on this. You can find the actual legal stance of this case here.
Basically, these are the real facts:
- The woman, while her car was stopped, attempted to remove the lid of her coffee, which spilled, giving her third degree burns over 6% of her body (thighs and genital area). She was hospitalized for 8 days, requiring several surgeries for skin grafting and tissue removal.
- Prior to this, there were more than 700 claims that McDonalds coffee was dangerously hot.
- Coffee served in other establishments, or that made in a home coffee maker, is approximately 135 degrees. McDonalds had a policy of keeping theirs at 180-190 degrees.
- The woman offered to settle the suit for $20,000, just enough to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds refused.
- The woman was actually found to be partially at fault (20%), and thus the jury reduced her compensatory damages from $200,000 to $160,000. They also awarded her $2,7 million in putative damages (equal to about 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales), which was later reduced to $480,000.
Please don't bitch about the out-of-control tort system without knowing the facts. And please don't demonize lawyers based on urban myths.
-
Damn you beat me too this. I regularly find myself giving people the full facts on this case. Nicely done.
pissssssh...you suck too... 
Please. You know you love me. 
PointBlank
New York, NY
November 2004
NOV 24, 2004 08:09 AM