palmtree

iTrader: (4)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/23...ing-boyfriend/

So this girl could be held liable for texting her boyfriend while he was driving?

Anyone else think this is a load of crap? It is completely the boyfriend's responsibility whether or not he answers the text message while he is driving right?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

eh. doubtful it'll stick.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I read this news story last week and it is a load of crap. I think that case was brought on to make a political point. They could never have expected this to stick. That is like charging the passenger for talking to the driver and distracting him before the wreck. The driver has total control over whether they want to listen to the passenger or answer a text. Hell, the point of a text is that is does not have to be answered right away if you are otherwise occupied.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

but when you have no friends like me, youre going to answer a txt no matter what.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I don't understand why motorcle riders get to assume a significantly greater vulnerability in traffic and why car owners are punished for it.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

You don't even answer texts. I am pretty sure you do not even have a texting, and pay an absurd price of like 25 cents a piece.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i have 250 a month hater. and i do too! im like constant in contact with you. i even sing on my way home using voice-to-text to you. you cant deny this.

skidude

iTrader: (3)

I agree with this. Especially when they don't wear a helmet. If you are not wearing a helmet and you get hit by a car and die, that is shitty, but the car driver is not solely responsible for your death. You may have just had bruises if you had worn a helmet, but nobody will ever know. I think not wearing a helmet should waive something, or something. I don't know. It's a tough one, but wear a helmet.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

If I went roller blading through a razor factory and now suffer from lacerations, Gillette is not responsible for my injuries.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

McDonald's is liable for not telling me my coffee was hot and for making me fat. GF should be liable for making her BF run into a motorcycle, and state should be liable for not constructing a divider wall down the middle of every 2-lane road so that this doesn't happen. Lastly, Verizon should be liable for allowing this guy to text with his GF, even if it was an AT&T phone, simply because Verizon is more evil since they use the color red in their logo instead of blue like AT&T or Yellow like Sprint.

And my dog spike is liable for not running out in front of the motorcycle 2 miles earlier to cause the motorcyclist to panic stop which would have changed the timing of the accident thereby preventing it in its entirety.

The cyclists should sue themselves for allowing their lawyer to let them look like complete morons.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Quit whining. It will never stick.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

100% legit case. McD's had hundreds of prior complaints (like 700 over a 10 year period), willingly brewed their coffee way above industry temperatures (industry is ~150, McD's was ~190) and at a temperature that will cause 3rd degree burns within seconds. Industry standard (150) takes 55 seconds to cause 3rd degree burns, 190F fluids cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. The doc who did the skin grafts said he had never seen a case of liquid burns as bad as hers.

The original settlement was $200k for legal and medical (reduced by contributory negligence) and the punitive award ($2.7 million) based on two days worth of McD's coffee revenue. It was kicked down from there to $640k punitive, and then settled from there for a lesser amount.

Don't just assume that every "frivolous" case is frivolous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...al_and_verdict

http://www.mgrlaw.net/mcdonalds.htm

TorqueZombie

iTrader: (6)

"electronically present"?-so if one of you have your phone on, and this club is in the web browser, are we all "present" and responsible for your action? I'll leave my phone on the next time I hop in the pedo van and take you all down with me.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

This is one of the most misunderstood cases in recent history.
Mcdonalds coffee case

Cliff notes:
Coffee was being served at 180-190 degrees, where as a normal machine will put it out at 135. They knew it was giving people 3rd degree burns and did nothing about it. The plantiff suffered 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body and only asked for money to cover her medical costs. Mcdonalds said no and in the end she was awarded 500,000 plus by a jury.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Boy am I glad I don't drink McDonald's coffee.

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

Nobody is willing to take any personal responsibility anymore, Jesus H Christ on Crutches. Spill ANY hot liquid > 98 degrees F on your crotch and expect it might be ------- hot, whether it's 99 degrees of 10,000 degrees! No, McNasties shouldn't have had their coffee so hot, but god dammit... it's FUCKING COFFEE, HOT COFFEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT! I would cite that they probably brewed it at higher temps to keep it warmer longer, so people wouldn't bitch **** and moan about their cold McNasty coffee.

I have no sympathy for her and don't believe McDonalds should have paid ----, even though I hate them more than Walmart and wouldn't have voted to give her ----. Personal responsibility is what it comes down to. Sue tobacco companies for giving you lung cancer when it's been printed for decades that smoking will cause ------- cancer. Sue a gun manufacture because you shot yourself in the face while "cleaning" your gun. Sue a car manufacturer because they didn't limit the speed of it to 10mph and you killed someone going 170mph down public highways.......


I digress:

It's not SPRINT, it's:

That's Trademarked...

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Call me next time you want to cruise in the van.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I don't know man, if I have hot coffee I'm acutely aware that pouring it on my ***** is going to result in an unfortunate sittuation.

Here is my problem with the case:
I drink coffee every day (awesome coffee, thanks for bringing that coffee maker to the race). There is no ------- way in hell I'm taking the lid off the coffee and putting it between my knees while someone is driving. That is fully retarded and that is where I check out of this case.

I am happy McD's dropped the hold-temp of their coffee, I wish they would lower it to 120 so I could drink it immediately.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

They brewed it hot because you get more coffee per bean that way. It was 100% profit driven, and they did not care in the slightest that people were regularly getting burned.

I cannot fathom how you can know the facts of that case and still think that McDonalds did nothing wrong.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Guilty of profitability!!!

One positive from this case is that McDonald's now has awesome coffee. The problem I have is that every coffee spot and restaurant on Earth serves coffee way too hot to drink. However, you don't see me tea-bagging the coffe and going to court over it.