So acording to your theory Dustin, now companies should have to label knives as “not real sharp” and “real sharp” and “sharp as hell” or maybe “not as sharp as our competitors” etc. etc.
Or how about gun manufacturers: just a little bitty hole, big hole, and “this will knock the suckers off their feet”.
And if the BJ employee is successful, I think her fellow employees should sue her for emotional distress. After all she knew the guy was crazy and hanging out at the store so she should have left. No, on second thought, then there’d be a whole new set of legal fees to hand out.
We won’t solve things until the juries stand up to the courts and say, “We are the law today in this case” and give the bad ones the boot.
I was not agreeing in whole with the McDonald’s case, but merely showing that those who talk about it don’t necessarily know the whole situation. Someone told Curious that “you liberals are all the same by talking about things not knowing all the facts.” The irony there was the accuser did not seem to know the case either.
I believe that the ability to cut things or blow holes through things are inherent in the nature of knives and guns, although the degree to which they are sharp, etc. can vary. It is reasonable to assume that a knife or gun can hurt you right out of the box.
In this case, McDonald’s knew that the coffee was too hot as others had 3rd degree burns. To me, they were on notice. They also knew that people buy coffee to DRINK IT! While I think the woman was an idiot for placing the coffee in her lap, I think McDonalds was partially liable for having coffee that could cause 3rd degree burns. Just my 2 cents, though I am sure others will take issue with it.
i agree to a certain point. but after reading the statement you pointed out – would you not say, that more than 20% is the blame of opening the lid? and then more by placing it between the legs? shucks, anything is going to spill if i have an open lid and driving a vehicle? afterall, we all know that its a hot item to drink. do we sue, because i burnt my mouth on a hot apple pie? this is where we have to stop and draw the line. just because the corporations and businesses appear to have money, does not give you the right to sue because you don’t want to take the blame/responsiblity of your, and i repeat, your actions! we all want the simple life and if we get the money, we don’t have to work anymore. juries, need to stop thinking oh, they have money and surely it must be their fault. not the actual person. good example is that lawsuit about the seatbelt where the kid almost got wrenched by the belt – yet the whole incident happened due to a drunk driver (which she was a passenger in), lost control and wrapped the vehicle around the pole. now, the judge felt that the pole had a contributable factor to the accident — whoa! first of all, if that guy was not drunk they would not have been in that situation. secondly, that seatbelt probably saved her life since that car got wrapped around the pole. lastly, i have never heard of a pole growing legs and jumping into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
these situations need to end NOW! this is was boggles courts up and takes time to resolve. frivilous lawsuits that need to be sent back to the responsible part and all time wasted by the courts should be passed to the lawyer not the person because he wanted to make a quick buck for himself.
Acutally, she wasn’t driving. Her grandson parked the car. Again, this is not I burnt my mouth on that, but I had to have surgery and skin grafts.
What would your opinion be if the person sat down in McDonald’s and the cup spilled while opening the lid. The only difference between the 2 is placing the coffee in the lap. Still 3rd degree burns and everything? I would say there is a difference in the comparative negligence, but I would still say McD is partially to blame for serving magma.
Again, there is a difference between this coffee is hot (coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, but still drinkable)and this coffee cinged my nerve endings and now I have to get a skin graft.
The moron here is curious. Couldn’t care less if McDonald’s offer $8, $800, $8,000 or $80,000 to that stupid woman. She NEVER should have put a cup of HOT coffee between her legs. She was a stupid moron for doing so and we shouldn’t reward stupidity be throwing money at them. She cause her own loss, period. End of story.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
[Middle English, ignorant person, from Old French idiote, from Latin idiōta, from Greek idiōtēs, private person, layman, from idios, own, private.]
I wish people calling jurors idiots would refrain from the insults. Just because you do not agree with a verdict does not mean the jurors are stupid or foolish.
While following this case of blog edification, I use that term extremely loosely, I did some research into this criminal case, the evidence & ramifications – post wit and found that the stores management & the assailant had numerous prior relationships over the course of the womans 12 yr. employment with the store … his being an extreme narcissist with borderline (if there is such a thing) psychopathic personality disorder,(when you figure that one out, let me know). Managers witnessed his demeanor enough times towards the assailed and themselves, got involved by having him removed & banned, on her behalf, from the store because of his demeanor & actions, only to allow him to return & repeat the audacity of his intimidations and assaults upon the assailed, never following through with a court order of no trespassing, to wit, gross negligence.
True, in the most general case a property owner is not liable for the actions of a criminal against a third party, but even case law specifies that the specifics of the incident can change this. For example, if the criminal is an employee of the property owner, the burden shifts. In this case, the victim was an employee, and we have to ask whether her employer required her to sign any sort of “safe workplace” pledge promising to surrender her right to carry items for her own self-defense while on the property. If so, it can easily be argued that the employer thereby assumed all responsibility for defending her life.
I am not surprize at this! The BJ’s Wholesale Club in my town got into trouble for selling out of date goods like meat and milk. Plus a friend of my was fire from BJ’s for standing up rights when managers tried to give him a hard time. This Company do not give a dam about their associates.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
So acording to your theory Dustin, now companies should have to label knives as “not real sharp” and “real sharp” and “sharp as hell” or maybe “not as sharp as our competitors” etc. etc.
Or how about gun manufacturers: just a little bitty hole, big hole, and “this will knock the suckers off their feet”.
And if the BJ employee is successful, I think her fellow employees should sue her for emotional distress. After all she knew the guy was crazy and hanging out at the store so she should have left. No, on second thought, then there’d be a whole new set of legal fees to hand out.
We won’t solve things until the juries stand up to the courts and say, “We are the law today in this case” and give the bad ones the boot.
I was not agreeing in whole with the McDonald’s case, but merely showing that those who talk about it don’t necessarily know the whole situation. Someone told Curious that “you liberals are all the same by talking about things not knowing all the facts.” The irony there was the accuser did not seem to know the case either.
I believe that the ability to cut things or blow holes through things are inherent in the nature of knives and guns, although the degree to which they are sharp, etc. can vary. It is reasonable to assume that a knife or gun can hurt you right out of the box.
In this case, McDonald’s knew that the coffee was too hot as others had 3rd degree burns. To me, they were on notice. They also knew that people buy coffee to DRINK IT! While I think the woman was an idiot for placing the coffee in her lap, I think McDonalds was partially liable for having coffee that could cause 3rd degree burns. Just my 2 cents, though I am sure others will take issue with it.
Where is this place? I have been paying retail for mine!
i agree to a certain point. but after reading the statement you pointed out – would you not say, that more than 20% is the blame of opening the lid? and then more by placing it between the legs? shucks, anything is going to spill if i have an open lid and driving a vehicle? afterall, we all know that its a hot item to drink. do we sue, because i burnt my mouth on a hot apple pie? this is where we have to stop and draw the line. just because the corporations and businesses appear to have money, does not give you the right to sue because you don’t want to take the blame/responsiblity of your, and i repeat, your actions! we all want the simple life and if we get the money, we don’t have to work anymore. juries, need to stop thinking oh, they have money and surely it must be their fault. not the actual person. good example is that lawsuit about the seatbelt where the kid almost got wrenched by the belt – yet the whole incident happened due to a drunk driver (which she was a passenger in), lost control and wrapped the vehicle around the pole. now, the judge felt that the pole had a contributable factor to the accident — whoa! first of all, if that guy was not drunk they would not have been in that situation. secondly, that seatbelt probably saved her life since that car got wrapped around the pole. lastly, i have never heard of a pole growing legs and jumping into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
these situations need to end NOW! this is was boggles courts up and takes time to resolve. frivilous lawsuits that need to be sent back to the responsible part and all time wasted by the courts should be passed to the lawyer not the person because he wanted to make a quick buck for himself.
Acutally, she wasn’t driving. Her grandson parked the car. Again, this is not I burnt my mouth on that, but I had to have surgery and skin grafts.
What would your opinion be if the person sat down in McDonald’s and the cup spilled while opening the lid. The only difference between the 2 is placing the coffee in the lap. Still 3rd degree burns and everything? I would say there is a difference in the comparative negligence, but I would still say McD is partially to blame for serving magma.
Again, there is a difference between this coffee is hot (coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, but still drinkable)and this coffee cinged my nerve endings and now I have to get a skin graft.
The moron here is curious. Couldn’t care less if McDonald’s offer $8, $800, $8,000 or $80,000 to that stupid woman. She NEVER should have put a cup of HOT coffee between her legs. She was a stupid moron for doing so and we shouldn’t reward stupidity be throwing money at them. She cause her own loss, period. End of story.
A jury of your peers! Wow, what a world.
Definition of idiot per answer.com
A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
[Middle English, ignorant person, from Old French idiote, from Latin idiōta, from Greek idiōtēs, private person, layman, from idios, own, private.]
I wish people calling jurors idiots would refrain from the insults. Just because you do not agree with a verdict does not mean the jurors are stupid or foolish.
While following this case of blog edification, I use that term extremely loosely, I did some research into this criminal case, the evidence & ramifications – post wit and found that the stores management & the assailant had numerous prior relationships over the course of the womans 12 yr. employment with the store … his being an extreme narcissist with borderline (if there is such a thing) psychopathic personality disorder,(when you figure that one out, let me know). Managers witnessed his demeanor enough times towards the assailed and themselves, got involved by having him removed & banned, on her behalf, from the store because of his demeanor & actions, only to allow him to return & repeat the audacity of his intimidations and assaults upon the assailed, never following through with a court order of no trespassing, to wit, gross negligence.
True, in the most general case a property owner is not liable for the actions of a criminal against a third party, but even case law specifies that the specifics of the incident can change this. For example, if the criminal is an employee of the property owner, the burden shifts. In this case, the victim was an employee, and we have to ask whether her employer required her to sign any sort of “safe workplace” pledge promising to surrender her right to carry items for her own self-defense while on the property. If so, it can easily be argued that the employer thereby assumed all responsibility for defending her life.
I am not surprize at this! The BJ’s Wholesale Club in my town got into trouble for selling out of date goods like meat and milk. Plus a friend of my was fire from BJ’s for standing up rights when managers tried to give him a hard time. This Company do not give a dam about their associates.