AmbergrisCaye.com Home Forums Talk Belize Chat Area Trying to get rich for being drunk and stupid!

dc - yep. people here do not want to take responsibilty for their actions.

hey world - cohen has been doing borat for years on his 'ali g' show. where has everyone been?

doesn't this suit sound just like 'girls gone wild - spring break'?????

I'm sure there are a bunch out there that need to be addressed in some way, but the ones that the media bring to the public's attention that are way beyond being "reasonable" are the ones that I want to go and shake the person that is suing. What ever reason, they want easy money.
Lets see, the "hot coffee/McDondald" incident, where the person was awarded a "stupid" amount of money. Come on now. Unless you're drinking an "iced" coffee, coffee is hot...I don't think anyone should be awarded for being a dumb a**s and that is what a lot of our courts are doing. It goes back to being responsible for our OWN actions. I know that there are lawsuits where there has been product liability in which someone was hurt. Yes, make the manufactures pay, but just becasue I walk outside and trip over a bike, I'm not going to go and sue the bike shop because it wasn't labeled properly or painted bright enough for me to see.
Like I have stated before I worked at my cousin's law firm for a while. When the frivolous lawsuits started coming in ad-nausium I figured I'd better get out of there before I killed someone. And that would not have been frivolous, it would have been justifiable!

Much better hangin' with cows than lyars anyday!

Well, the McDonald's suit is a perfect example of a suit I think needed to be brought. The problem with limiting yourself to the media account is that you rarely get all the facts.
McDonalds was on notice that they kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than the industry norm considered safe. They knew there had been at least three documented incidents of serious burn injuries attributable to the temperature. They determined it would be too expensive to retrofit all their coffee machines so decided it was worth it to continue to risk physical injury to their customers in order to protect thier profits.

The elderly woman who sued suffered serious burns which required a lengthy hospital stay and numerous skin grafts. Early on she offered to settle with McDonalds for the cost of her medical bills. McDonalds refused.
In determining an appropriate award, the jury took into consideration the woman's portion of negligence and adjusted their damage verdict accordingly. The prevailing legal principal is who is in the best position to prevent the injury. Certainly the plaintiff bore some responsibility, but no one expects to suffer burns requiring skin grafts from a cup of coffee. McDonalds was on notice this was a possibility, took no steps to prevent such injuries and provided no warnings.
The jury then imposed punitive damages against McDonalds for their intentional conduct. It was the punitive damages which made up the bulk of the verdict. The common argument is that punitive damages must be significant enough to discourage future similar behavior. All in all, I think it was a very just verdict. McDonalds promptly retrofited their coffee machines. They failed to do so until it hurt their pocketbook.

Jesse, no one's asking you to stick around. Feel free to take a hike. You could use the exercise.
(this won't last long.)

Cows got sumpin' to hang on to! hehehe!

Very interesting L (the lawsuit)

Geez, I gotta type faster and quit getting distracted

it was a funny movie, but i thought it could have been better.

Lawcucui....That reminded me.

I HATE LAWYERS!

Gues you're having a bad day in court...lol

I had a cup of MacD's coffee in Chicago Midway last month that I had to let set for 45 minutes before I could drink it. I am amazed that that stupid cup could keep it that hot that long. I was amazed that it was so hot to start with. I was angry because I only got 2 sips after all that time and they wouldn't let me bring it on the plane.
Many years ago I remember a product liability suit and the outcome was on the news. The plaintiff sued becasue he injured himself trimming a hedge with his rotary lawn mower. Apparently there was no "warning label". The plaintiff won some big bucks, and the news showed him and his relatives walking out of the courtroom with big smiles. Basically, wearing their stupidity like a badge of honor. What idiot doesn't know you can't hold your stupid lawn mower at chest height and trim a hedge?
Generic label. "You must be this bright to use our product."
Don't talk bad about college students, they are our best and brightest (they keep reminding us).