User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 171

  1. #111
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Take this case to a different judge and the results can be very different. Why do you think the plaintiff's layer recommended a settlement? Only a fool would settle if victory was assured

    Screaming does not enhance the validity of your argument. Regardless of the merit of the original suit, the arguments YOU presented were very poor.
    If your argument were valid, then McDonald's would have prevailed. They have great lawyers. You are just some guy. Actually, you didn't present any arguments. You just said, in essence, that I'm wrong without presenting case histories or any body of evidence, personal or otherwise. You just said patronizing things, and that I wasn't thinking, which is basically saying the same thing as saying I'm stupid.

    I find the principles you presented in this thread to be very naive and short sighted. You only see the situation directly in front of you. You totally failed to consider the potential consequences of your principles if they were applied in future scenarios.
    What I wanted happened, so we can see what historically happened. We don't have to speculate. Thus, in hindsight, what consequences occurred? What was the bad result you mentioned?

    Torts out of control?

    People purposefully burning themselves with third degree burns?

    McDonald's taking coffee out of their restaurants?

    McDonald's going bankrupt?

    What was the bad thing that really happened?

    My naive opinion is what the jury and judges (plural) agreed with. They got something I'd be satisfied with. Heck, I'd just be satisfied with medical care, which is all I believe they wanted to begin with. Maybe I'm just a fool for trying to be fair, but I'd be satisfied with medical care.

    So they got what I feel was a good result.

    So what doomsday scenario of yours actually occurred in fact? Don't just say I'm stupid. Don't just patronize me and say I'm naive. Come up with some facts of what happened after the satisfying result. Prove how that satisfaction of my naive point of view led to the tragic consequences you believe. Prove it. Don't just attack my character or position with empty statements. Put some meat on your argument.



    Just read up on what is required to prevail in court. Hint: gut feel doesn't cut it.
    Sure, I know. They did EXACTLY what I would do. I'd measure relative coffee temperatures. I'd talk about the cup and how shitty it was and all kinds of stuff. I read the Grsham novels. I watched "My cousin Vinny". I believe in actual court, you'd be toast. I'd bring in expert testimony like the engineering guy.

    You just keep repeating "fault has not been proven" or some shit, and you'd be blown completely away by my enormous evidence.

    Of course, I'm not likely to be an attorney Nor would I want to be one, so the issue is sort of moot.


    Incorrect. Fairness is fundamental to a functioning society.

    The system I briefly described was fair. Explain to me why it is not. In the system I mentioned, the whole idea of torts is a completely irrelevant idea. There's no need to sue because medicine is already covered. Of course, I'm an idealist, and the world is full of evil, greedy bastards so it's not likely to work.

    The thing I describe is what is fair. Life isn't fair. What's fair in a unfair system doesn't mean it's really fair. It just means that according to the unfair system, things are flowing unfairly like they are supposed to flow.

    Unfortunately for your opinion, things flowed more to my concept of fair than yours. Why is that? Is it because I'm naive and stupid? Was it because McDonald's corporation was stupid? Was it because the judge and jury were naive?

    Can you come up with better arguments than "fault has not been proven" or "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't say such a stupid thing"? Just because you say an a point of view is stupid doesn't make it so. I'm not intimidated by your opinion of me or my arguments. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't even make an argument by comparison.

    Imagining it is not the same as successfully implementing it. Resources are not unlimited.
    True that. That's why no person should have more resources than they possibly can consume. That would be more fair, if you want to get REALLY fair.

  2. #112

    Default

    This back and forth between you two is so lopsided that I can't believe it's still going on.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  3. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    If your argument were valid, then McDonald's would have prevailed. They have great lawyers.
    If the ruling was so certain, why did they settle?

    What was the bad result you mentioned?
    http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/stories/

  4. #114
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    If the ruling was so certain, why did they settle?
    A sense of fairness? An unwillingness to put up with the struggle against someone with limitless resources? Foolishness and stupidity after winning? Not sure. We don't even know the settlement amount. Of course, I already explained why, but you missed it.

    It's the same with arguing the case. I can't argue it like a legal case. That would require me getting in McDonald's business with thermometers and tape measures. I would require me going through the scene with the victim, asking questions.

    When the driver was killed, we went with the lawyer, and he asked our driver some questions. The truck was where exactly? Which direction were you driving? Etc.

    Likewise, during my deposition when I was sued at age 19, my lawyer (from the insurance company) explained it, and then the opposite lawyer asked me questions for a while.

    "Did you see her brake lights?", he said.

    "No, maybe her brake lights were out. I must have seen her stop because of the length of the skid marks.", I'd say.

    As I pointed out to you, her lawsuit against me was frivolous. Did I really cause her so much psychological trauma that she was out of work for six months with numerous psychiatric bills? At the time of the accident, she was consoling me and I went to work that same day. She was not physically injured except for ordinary muscle, not spinal.

    My consequences were that I was dropped by my insurance company.

    Yet, even though I was sued in a frivolous lawsuit, I still think McDonald's was correctly sued in this case.

    Congratulations are producing the first item of meaningful dialogue on your side. This link is the very first and only real piece you've made.

    As I pointed out, even though I was the victim of a frivolous lawsuit (or my insurance company was), I still think McDonald's should be sued. Your link has no bearing upon the merits of the McDonald's case. Nor does it prove that the McDonald's case resulted in these suits.

    Further I only watched a few of them. They were frivolous. They were ridiculous. I would not sue in those cases. How crazy! I've been in some of those types of situations, and usually I can talk my way out of it.

    Yet, if the opening post of this were these lawsuits, I'd have had a different opinion of the frivolity of the case. These are exclusive events. That is, everything is decided on a case by case basis, and you have not proven causality.

    Take the first case with the San Francisco coffee vendor, and the space on the counter. It's absolutely ridiculous. Unfortunately that is the way THE LAW is written. So unfortunately, even though feeling agrees, he did not have "what it takes to prevail in court" as you say. In this case, I think the counter law is ridiculous.

    I also watched the one where the roller blading girl was run over by the cyclist. In that case, the plaintiff got no money, so the legal system worked. (The girl was sued.)

    But again, you've not proven causality that the McDonald's caused these suits. And it's Okay. This is not court. However, these seem somewhat unrelated to McDonald's.

    I understand your point of view, having been sued a few times. Yet, the cases on this link are not the ones we are discussing. Thus, a billion cases could be frivolous, but the McDonald's lawsuit would still be valid.

  5. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    Congratulations are producing the first item of meaningful dialogue on your side. This link is the very first and only real piece you've made.
    Just because you lack the capacity to follow rational discourse does not mean that none were presented. Your position might have agreed with that particular judge's ruling, but the arguments you presented were atrocious. They amounted to nothing more than emotional assertions of your personal biases. If juries make decisions the way you do, it's not hard to understand why so many outrageous judgements are awarded.

  6. #116
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Just because you lack the capacity to follow rational discourse does not mean that none were presented.
    Personal insult. Personal attack.


    Your position might have agreed with that particular judge's ruling, but the arguments you presented were atrocious.

    Personal attack.


    They amounted to nothing more than emotional assertions of your personal biases. If juries make decisions the way you do, it's not hard to understand why so many outrageous judgements are awarded.


    Personal attack. Misanthropic bitching.

  7. #117
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Just because someone was severely injured does not automatically mean that they are entitled to compensation. There has to be proof that their injury was the result of another person's negligence. Did that apply in this case? I don't think the answer is so clear cut.

    Patronizing. Asking a question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    Her case wasn't going great until the smoking gun memo showed up. There was an internal document that showed that McDonalds knew it was almost certain that more people WOULD be badly injured by keeping the coffee that hot. They did an analysis and found it would be more profitable to keep the coffee hot and pay off any claims. They had had upwards of 700 burn/injury cases to do with the coffee before this ever happened.

    I think if it hadn't been for that memo, things would have turned out much differently.

    Patches completely answered you, reducing the validity of your point of view. This maybe why the jury found McDonald's 80% at fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Can't the same be said of many things? Booze, fast cars, used cars, guns, knives, etc. Do we stop selling things that people want, simply because they are known to cause injuries?

    You restate your point of view even though it is weakened. Also, McDonald's didn't stop selling even though they knew the risks as stated in the confidential memo. You don't expect coffee to give third degree burns. Besides, they never stopped selling it. No choices were limited.


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    According to Wikipedia, the case was appealed and eventually settled for an undisclosed amount less than $600K. The question remains.

    Shouldn't it be obvious to customers that hot coffee can be dangerous?

    No. It should not cause such severity of burns.


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Exactly. Severe injuries are very rare. That's why it's not clear that they were evil.


    It would have been nice if they gave her money, but are they ethically or legally obligated to do so if they were not at fault?

    If injuries were very rare, then why should customers expect them?


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    But is that a good thing? The fear of litigation has caused them to stop offering something that many customers want.

    They didn't stop selling coffee.


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Yes, but anyone can accidentally crash a car, cut themselves with a knife or shoot someone with a gun.

    Restatement of the same opinion someone refuted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    McDonald's claimed that their customers tend to be commuters who want it hot so that it will be at the right temperature once they reached their destination.

    Irrelevant to the notion of damage expectation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    All that caffeine can't be healthy. They should be sued for making it more addicting.

    Facetious, irrelevant aside.


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    People do not expect to die from overexertion during athletic competitions neither. Since statistics show that deaths do occur, is it negligent to even hold these competitions?

    Mac or somebody refuted this tangential.



    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    The same can be said of hot drinks. Most people would only suffer minor burns. But the lady's age, slow response and the thick absorbent clothes made the injuries much worse than what one normally expects.

    People are served boiling hot drinks all the time at home. It is reasonable to expected them to be well versed of the potential risks. Even my 8 year old niece knows better.

    In order to prove negligence, it would be necessary to demonstrate that McD ought to have known that skin grafts were the likely outcome of spills and that most customers are unaware of the dangers of hot liquids. The jury made an emotional ruling based mostly on the deep pockets of the defendant. That was why the ruling was overturned on appeal and eventually settled for an amount far less than the jury award.

    If the type of damage is very rare...only 700 cases, maybe, then how would customers expect this type of burning? You suggest that customers should know this when McDonald's didn't even know it? In fact they did know it, and chose to ignore the fact. Yet even though they knew it, they didn't tell customers that their coffee could cause such severe burns. If customers knew that third degree burns were a likely outcome, they would handle the coffee differently.



    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    If a drunk passerby falls severely injure himself on your property should you be required to pay him, just because you have more money than he does?
    Not relevant to the current issue.



    Incorrect. The hot water is never labeled. No power receptacles are labelled as shock hazards. Detergent has no "do not eat" label.

    Good point, largely refuted, but maybe more stuff should be labeled, and this is diversion from the main issue in answer to my diversion.

    Why should they? People are required to take responsibility for themselves too. They can't just do as they please and expect others to accommodate them.

    This was illustrated by Patches on the first page, but you charge on asking the same questions without adding substance or acknowledging the memo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Your point is valid. But handling boiling hot liquid is such a common everyday activity that it is reasonable to expect people to be aware of the dangers. Therefore, buying the product constitutes an implicit acceptance of the risk.

    It's like using a power saw. No one expects to lose fingers, but if it happens, the manufacturer is not automatically liable unless it can be proven that they failed to ensure that the product met accepted levels of safety.

    There appears to be no debate that the coffee was served at 190 degrees and that the coffee caused the burns. So the only question is whether McDonald's was negligent for serving coffee at a temperature that causes severe burns or the plaintiff was negligent for failing to take proper care. Cases like this are all about what it is reasonable to assume. I think it's reasonable to assume that some people will spill coffee, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that spilling coffee on your leg will cause third degree burns.

    Then exactly why would the customer know this result? McDonald's knew it and chose to ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Valid point. However, the risks are well known and people continue to buy. I am not accident prone and would not like to have my choices limited because other people are clumsy.
    You state that McDonald's didn't even know the likely result (even though that is not true), so how would a customer know it?

    Of course, you are just repeating yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    That is exactly why a litigious culture is bad. In order to protect themselves, businesses are forced to play nanny and restrict their customers' choices. Not just businesses, but individuals also. In China, people often do not stop to help others who had accidents, out of fear that they could be sued.

    McDonald's still sells coffee. Choices have increased.



    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Why don't we severely lower speed limits them? Safety trumps all.
    Another irrelevant aside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    That's a straw man. No one is arguing for no legal recourse. Just keep judgments reasonable. Europe is not nearly as litigious, yet people are not dying in the streets from poison toothpaste.


    Before you say there is no litigation in China, read up on this story:
    http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid...r-protect.aspx


    Obviously, you were joking. But that's irrelevant. The problem exist.


    Incorrect.


    Strawman again. No one was advocating we do away with all regulations.

    My post answering these statements was great, but here's your answer:



    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    You are repeating previous arguments. My previous comments stand. You are also debating several minor details unrelated to the point of contention. But I think the quoted statement is especially interesting. Your personal feelings provides guidance for your decisions, but it does not provide a relevant framework for consensus when others don't share those feelings. If agreement is desired, principles of fairness need to be considered.

    At this point almost every post by you was a repeat of the previous in a different form.



    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Yes, obviously a certain percentage will spill. But out of tens of millions sold, only a few hundred people complained. Should vendors not supply a product customers want, simply because there is a miniscule chance that someone will suffer injury? If you say "yes", then where do you draw the line? So many products would be prohibited. There has to be a balance between safety and choice.

    If so few got third degree burns, then how could people know it was a risk? You are repeating again too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming that you would take on such an indefensible position. Compensation implies fault. That has not been established. It is ridiculous to hold someone responsible just because they have the ability to pay. That would lead to parasitic behavior.

    You also miss the big picture. 1M might be trivial, but it can encourage thousands of others to file claims for a quick buck.

    This just a personal attack. Up to this point you've presented ridiculous asides from the main point, and asked the same refuted questions over and over.

    Patches and others explained why the position was defensible, but you attack me for presenting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    The potential risk of hot liquids is well known even to children.
    Those who choose to purchase the product know or ought to know of the risks.


    Accidents happen all the time for various reason. Negligence is not automatically the cause.
    The degree of injury does not have any relevance on whether the other party is responsible.
    The wealth of the other party doe not have any relevance on guilt.
    In this case, the woman's age and type of clothing made the injury much more serious than normal.

    More repetition of the same contradictory facts. You assert differing things which contradict multiple times. (1.) McDonald's can be sued only if they know third degree burns could result, but it is so rare, so how could they be held responsible? (2.) Everyone even children knows the risk, so they people are responsible when they buy the product. These are contradictory statements. Further we see from the case that McDonald's confidentially did know third degree burns could result, but based on your logic, the customer should not be expected to know. You condemn your argument by your own logic. Who is more likely to know, McDonald's who serves billions of cups of coffee, or the customer?



    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    If hot coffee was not expected to cause serious injuries, then there was no duty for Mcd to take extraordinary measures to protect the customers. A Styrofoam cup with a cap is arguably sufficient. Because there was no negligence, Mcd cannot be held liable for the customer's own clumsiness. Without establishing liability, the severity of the injury is completely irrelevant.

    You ought to read up on tort liability. You are presenting a huge volume of irrelevant points.


    Absolutely not. It would be nice or charitable for a person to help the less fortunate, but it is not a moral requirement under typical Western secular beliefs.


    No. I ignored them because they were irrelevant. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming that your position was based on a trivially easy to refute foundation.

    More personal attacks, but this argument is condemned by your own logic. You continue to repeat the same assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Just because you lack the capacity to follow rational discourse does not mean that none were presented. Your position might have agreed with that particular judge's ruling, but the arguments you presented were atrocious. They amounted to nothing more than emotional assertions of your personal biases. If juries make decisions the way you do, it's not hard to understand why so many outrageous judgements are awarded.
    Now it just boils down to personal attacks.

  8. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Arbitrarily dismissing an argument is not the same as rationally refuting it.

    I am not attacking you. I am simply giving you a taste of your own medicine.

  9. #119
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Arbitrarily dismissing an argument is not the same as rationally refuting it.


    What argument?

    You refute yourself.



    I am not attacking you. I am simply giving you a taste of your own medicine.
    There's a difference between saying someone's moral standards are different that your own and saying they don't capacity for rational thought.

  10. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    What argument?
    As I said.....

    There's a difference between saying someone's moral standards are different that your own and saying they don't capacity for rational thought.
    If my arguments were faulty, you should be able to point out the inconsistencies. But you didn't even appear to recognize that arguments were presented. You simply react emotionally.

Similar Threads

  1. The Random Movie Quote Thread
    By asynartetic in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 220
    Last Post: 12-02-2017, 10:31 PM
  2. The Infamous INFP or INFJ Question.
    By Nørrsken in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-26-2016, 12:01 AM
  3. [JCF] The Infamous Ni-Ti Loop of INFJ
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-24-2013, 11:50 AM
  4. The Infamous Short Post Thread
    By wolfy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-27-2011, 06:58 PM
  5. The heavenly nectar that is coffee...
    By Xander in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 02:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO