NJ driver's GF liable because she texted him? - Page 4 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-25-2012, 12:16 AM   #61
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,370
Total Cats: 1,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitrodann View Post
Savington, If your turbo kit actually makes 240rwhp rather than your claimed 200rwhp, and somebody tries to do a skid surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians, risking possibly hitting the first 2 rows, but instead hits 3 rows of people due to extra power, is it your fault at all?

Dann
It's not the same thing. If I handed someone the keys to their car after installing my turbo kit, and they were expecting 200whp but instead got 500whp because I had installed a GT35R without telling them, and they wrapped the car around a pole 500ft away from my shop, you bet your ---- that I'm liable for their injuries. They were expecting a specific level of risk, and I didn't inform them of the unreasonable danger above and beyond what a reasonable person would expect, and I am therefore liable.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 12:24 AM   #62
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitrodann View Post
Its a hard case,
However I truly do think that if someone risks injuring themselves intentionally, and they find that they injure themselves more than they had planned to risk, its hardly fair to blame it on somebody else.
The .22slr reference isnt true, the guy loads the bullets in, he knows its not a BB gun.
Coffee is made with boiling or near boiling water, if I choose to risk minor injury, and instead manage to get a major injury thats not someone elses fault.

Savington, If your turbo kit actually makes 240rwhp rather than your claimed 200rwhp, and somebody tries to do a skid surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians, risking possibly hitting the first 2 rows, but instead hits 3 rows of people due to extra power, is it your fault at all?

Dann
Attached Thumbnails
NJ driver's GF liable because she texted him?-i-cant-believe-palin-political-poster-1272940561.jpg  
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 09:16 AM   #63
Junior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 462
Total Cats: 3
Default

I don't get the argument here. You should expect your coffee to be skin-burning hot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by National Coffee Association
Water Temperature During Brewing
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by National Coffee Association
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes.
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71


So, let me get this straight. Since a company followed what could only be logically considered reasonable procedure to brew a cup of coffee, and a customer mishandled it, the company should be liable?

I didn't realize we had so many nanny-state idiots in here, I thought the DIY nature of this forum lent itself to more "no ---- sherlock" type of people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rharris19 View Post
The reasonable expectation for coffee is to get it at around 135*, which would not cause the need to skin graphs if spilled.
Says who? Source?

Show me a coffee maker that doesn't get the water to a boil before brewing.
BradC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 10:25 AM   #64
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,579
Total Cats: 155
Default

I have to agree with Brad. I have never heard of coffee at temperatures between 135 and 140, atleast not good coffee. I sure as hell know when I am holding a cup of coffee and it feels like it is scalding hot I reasonably assume it will cause serious burns if I spill it on myself. Usually this means I take steps to avoid injury instead of something that is obviously ignorant like open the lid of a wax paper cup between my knees while I am in a car whether it is moving or not. McDonald's coffee may have even been hotter then normal but I don't see 185-190* as being out of the range of acceptable.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 10:34 AM   #65
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,899
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

why are we arguing this? a jury of her peers awarded her...that was 12 people that thought she deserved compensation. the end.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 10:41 AM   #66
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
I have to agree with Brad. I have never heard of coffee at temperatures between 135 and 140, atleast not good coffee. I sure as hell know when I am holding a cup of coffee and it feels like it is scalding hot I reasonably assume it will cause serious burns if I spill it on myself. Usually this means I take steps to avoid injury instead of something that is obviously ignorant like open the lid of a wax paper cup between my knees while I am in a car whether it is moving or not. McDonald's coffee may have even been hotter then normal but I don't see 185-190* as being out of the range of acceptable.
Brewing temp and serving temp are now two different things. The water must be ~ boiling hot when you brew or the coffee will be weak as hell.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:13 AM   #67
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

This BeanFruit Coffee I'm drinking right now is delicious and hot.

In other news, McDonald's apparently didn't really give a ----.

Quote:
McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 8090 C (176194 F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.
For Savington, Blaen, et al -- it's odd that you guys keep referencing how clear cut the legal case is -- why didn't you mention that dozens of other cases built on the same premise (that 190ish F coffee is dangerous) have been dismissed repeatedly, mostly on these grounds (hah, I kill myself):

Quote:
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous".

Quote:
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150160 F [6671 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.
Interesting that even in Great Britain, land of pantywaists and milquetoasts, a similar lawsuit was rejected.

Quote:
"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonalds were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:15 AM   #68
Hear me Meow
iTrader: (3)
 
skidude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Outside Portland Maine
Posts: 1,994
Total Cats: 13
Default

So on the original topic, what is the basis of their charges? I would like to think it wouldn't stick, but I feel like it can't be more ridiculous than the woman winning after she sued a store for tripping over her own kid.

Are they saying this woman knew her boyfriend was driving and continued to text him anyway? That is a stretch at BEST, and the only thing I can think of even worth trying.
skidude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:24 AM   #69
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,899
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidude View Post
So on the original topic, what is the basis of their charges? I would like to think it wouldn't stick, but I feel like it can't be more ridiculous than the woman winning after she sued a store for tripping over her own kid.

Are they saying this woman knew her boyfriend was driving and continued to text him anyway? That is a stretch at BEST, and the only thing I can think of even worth trying.
yeah it's a stretch, but it's totally normal for a victim to try to get compensation from anyone possible in any sort of odd relation to the incident. it'll get thrown out and that will be the end of it. that would be like me suing kayne west, his record label, and his produciton company for getting mugged at his concert, along with my actual attackers.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:28 AM   #70
Hear me Meow
iTrader: (3)
 
skidude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Outside Portland Maine
Posts: 1,994
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
that would be like me suing kayne west, his record label, and his produciton company for getting mugged at his concert, along with my actual attackers.
That one actually seems more reasonable. Not that it's actually reasonable, but it sounds a lot like some other suits that have been won in the past just because you happen to be there when ---- went down. Like some woman who sued a diner because she slipped on spilled soda that she had thrown at her boyfriend immediately before. The store had NOTHING to do with that, but still lost that suit; somehow.
skidude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:48 AM   #71
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,899
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

I've been looking at houses, some happen to have pools; we've already discussed the nessecity for waviors.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 01:01 PM   #72
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
yeah it's a stretch, but it's totally normal for a victim to try to get compensation from anyone possible in any sort of odd relation to the incident. it'll get thrown out and that will be the end of it. that would be like me suing kayne west, his record label, and his produciton company for getting mugged at his concert, along with my actual attackers.
Office lotto-pool winners are the best. "The money for participation was improperly competitive, I didn't play, I should receive some cash".
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 01:02 PM   #73
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
This BeanFruit Coffee I'm drinking right now is delicious and hot.

In other news, McDonald's apparently didn't really give a ----.



For Savington, Blaen, et al -- it's odd that you guys keep referencing how clear cut the legal case is -- why didn't you mention that dozens of other cases built on the same premise (that 190ish F coffee is dangerous) have been dismissed repeatedly, mostly on these grounds (hah, I kill myself):



Interesting that even in Great Britain, land of pantywaists and milquetoasts, a similar lawsuit was rejected.
MGeofffff, like a muthafuckin bauce!
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 02:26 PM   #74
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
MGeofffff, like a muthafuckin bauce!
Explaining legal concepts such as "Contributory Negligence", "restitutio in integrum", interpretation of willful intent nor any of the other nuanced legal positions involved in the various cases to Mg is an exercise in masochism I'll leave to Sav. If it contradicts what he wants to believe, I learned long ago it's more effective to go smash my ***** with a hammer then try to get Mg to understand nuances in a position - especially considering a quick google search answers his question for him in as much depth as he could ever want, but I cannot recall a time where I have seen him bother to engage in research that opposes his desired view on a topic. It's the same crap Jarednumbers pulls on here all the time. There are huge differences in Bunn-O-Matic and McDonald's that took me all of a few minutes to get a list of elaborating on. Related:



My advice to everyone that is curious about the answer would be to watch the Hot Coffee documentary. It covers this in as much detail as you'd want and then some - as a nice bonus, it makes the whole topic nice, glitzy, and somewhat easily digestible. Did I mention that you don't have to have an in-depth understanding of certain legal concepts? Or that Corporations spent millions on PR for the McDonald's case? Yes, they spent substantially more on PR than even Liebeck was awarded in court.



Trailer for it.

On a sidenote, and related to the OP now:

In our court system, people have to understand you can sue anyone for anything. That's the basis of our civil legal system - and it would be very, very bad if this were not the case*.

However, the vast majority of frivolous cases are thrown out. The majority of these are simply thrown out pre-trial for simply lacking legal merit**. If a case is truly frivolous, it takes a decent attorney at most a few hours to get it thrown out. This is not to say cases that are frivolous never get into court, however, they must either have some legal basis in order to get into court, or the defense attorney sucks *****. If it is the latter, well, with as much as you guys try to argue for personal responsibility, you'd think someone should be able to take personal responsibility for their choice in attorney's.

I would be extremely surprised if the OP actually progresses anywhere legally. Unless there is substantially more that is not being disclosed to the case, I fail to see how it has any legal merit - if one were to compare it to the Coffee cases, it would be the Bunn-O-Matic case, and not the McDonald's case.

*: It has given rise to certain problems, however, these problems either -also- advantage the people who make the laws, or only advantage them, so good luck getting changes. I cannot recall the last time I read about a law passed that resulted in a substantial legal system change to the detriment of our legislators. I will note however that the same legislators whinging about tort reform were also instrumental in putting tort law in the place it is at right now.
**: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/aboutlaw.html for more basic information on our justice system that you won't see covered in most civics courses.

P.S. Time to GTFO, this post took up way too much of my time.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 02:36 PM   #75
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
I learned long ago it's more effective to go smash my ***** with a hammer then try to get Mg to understand nuances in a position
Really? Because I was under the impression you just -1 my post every time I disagreed with you (or Joe, weirdly).
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 02:50 PM   #76
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,370
Total Cats: 1,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
why are we arguing this? a jury of her peers awarded her...that was 12 people that thought she deserved compensation. the end.
Kill me now, I agree with Scott on something
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 02:50 PM   #77
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,899
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

however, I always brew my coffee with hot water straight out of the tap. just sayin.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 02:53 PM   #78
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,133
Total Cats: 188
Default

I tried to brew my coffee at 210*k once. I couldn't even get the coffee beans wet though...
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:06 PM   #79
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 373
Total Cats: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
I suppose that since I pour boiling water into a coffee press every day, that does not make me a "reasonable person"?
Boiling water is making your french press coffee taste like ****. Try 195F.

Really though, you need to grind your own beans if you want good coffee.

Also, Starbucks coffee sucks because they char the ever living christ out of the beans when they roast them so that it extends the beans' shelf life.

Sorry for the OT.
JKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 12:27 AM   #80
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JKav View Post
Boiling water is making your french press coffee taste like ****. Try 195F.

Really though, you need to grind your own beans if you want good coffee.

Also, Starbucks coffee sucks because they char the ever living christ out of the beans when they roast them so that it extends the beans' shelf life.

Sorry for the OT.
By the time the water hits the beans, its probably dropped 20 degrees. I promise you, fellow brother in coffee, that I am giving the bean the honor it deserves.

Is there a place around who doesn't burn the coffee other than McDonalds? I do coffee from Whole Foods and I'm consistently happy with their beans.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 59 Yesterday 09:00 PM
Raleigh: Fiberglass headlight scope, 1.6L ECU, AFM, Hardtop latches, more bigmackloud Miata parts for sale/trade 13 09-22-2017 01:34 PM
Buzzing from driver side of engine bay? (MS3 install) nick470 MEGAsquirt 7 06-16-2017 02:53 PM
1991 special edition with hard top full part out JC, NJ russian Miata parts for sale/trade 6 10-08-2015 04:01 PM
WTB HPDE miata - Texas Voltwings Cars for sale/trade 0 09-27-2015 07:40 PM


Tags
cognitive dissonance, fox news, texting

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 PM.