The alpha-Male...

[GarMan]

Why teh quotes function is kicking my ass today, I don't know.  Anywho, the ones cited in your post concerning the guy stealing hubcaps, woman tripping over her own baby etc.  All made up.  Fabrications.  No lawsuit ever existed nor do the law firms referenced in the article exist. 

By golly gee....what?  Someone lied?  Must have been the lawyers. 

Fair enough...  Although, Stella's case did exist, and a jackpot award and eventual settlement resulted.

[JR4AU]

I haven't failed at anything here.  We have no proof that the car wasn't moving.  They claimed that they were stopped, but we don't really know.  I can only presume the obvious.  

If it were me, I'd presume what the jury said in it's verdict was proved at trial.  At any rate, whether the car was moving or not, would probably only go to how much she was at fault.  I appears from the verdict that they believed the car wasn't moving.  But if you need to "presume to feel better, by all means.

When you make and pour a fresh cup of coffee at home, can you immediately start drinking it like it's water out of a fountain?  The answer is NO if you're being honest.  Yes, the coffee was unreasonbly hot for immediate consumption.  

It was not only too hot for immediate consumption which most coffee is, it was so hot that it would cause serious burns whether it was consumed, or negligently handled by the consumer.  Most coffee in the industry, my leave a red mark, and hurt...McDonalds coffee caused 3rd degree burns!  

McDonalds' coffee wasn't a new product, and Stella wasn't the first person to ever purchase this product.  I really believe that this case extends beyond the bounds of reason whether you want to argue the actual facts of those reported on the Stella Reports website.  

True, nor was Stella the first to complain about the coffee, or report an injury.  McDonalds was on notice!  That's big in the legal world.  It's one thing to produce a dangerous product.  Guns are inherently dangerous.  Coffee isn't supposed to be.  But when you produce a product that, by industry standards, isn't normally dangerous even if mishandled, and you're put on notice that it is dangerous.  You better damn well expect a law suit down the road if you continue to produce it the same way.

This is where we'll disagree to some extent as well.  In my profession, I implement systems that save companies millions of dollars.  Should I be compensated based on the benefits gained from my service?  Or, should I be compensated a fair marketable rate for the services provided?  These jackpot awards push the envelope of reason, norm AND otherwise.  

I think I said we agree on jackpot awards to an extent, though maybe not in whole.  

I think people should be compensated for their value...sometimes that's governed by the market as a whole, sometimes that's governed by individual production.  This is where individual markets rule.  IT guys (for example) are paid salary in most places I would guess, though they may save the company money many times.  Salesmen make companies money, and usually are paid a percentage of the revenue they generate.  Companies view saving money and generating revenue differently...rightly or wrongly.  That's a whole other ball of wax there partner.  

I don't think we want to throw the baby out.  There are a lot of norms in your profession that many of us find unreasonable and unappetizing.  Many just use these few exceptions as examples of the abusive practices.  

I'll agree with your second part there, IF you'll agree that many of the so-called "norms" are often really misconceptions held by the public.  Case in point, the many ficticious cases you cited.

[JR4AU]

Fair enough...  Although, Stella's case did exist, and a jackpot award and eventual settlement resulted.

Yes, but the jackpot (which was awarded by a jury of 12 citizens, not a bunch of lawyers) was reduced by the judge (a lawyer), AND on appeal after that, was settled...a settlement that was secret.  We don't really know what she got.

[Snaggletiger]

We must be reading totally different facts.  Stella did everything she could to settle her case without the need for any of this.  $20K with $11K in meds and permanent scarring?  Wow!!!   Her injury was 100X worse than what the media portrayed.  Yes, there was eventually a huge award but again, people tend to leave out those itty bitty details at the end. The ones that say that huge award was reduced to $480K and then eventually settled after McDonald's appealled and appealled to reduce it further.  Who knows what Stella actually received in the end.  Did the greedy lawyers rack up?  Doubt it.  The expenses in taking this kind of case this far would be well into 6 figures with medical and expert testimony etc.

Bottom line is this case is one of the greatest examples of misinformation and spin I've ever seen in my life...with the exception of the total fabrications listed earlier.

[Snaggletiger]

Damnit.  Beat me to the punch.  I actually had to work for a minute..or two.

[JR4AU]

We must be reading totally different facts.  Stella did everything she could to settle her case without the need for any of this.  $20K with $11K in meds and permanent scarring?  Wow!!!   Her injury was 100X worse than what the media portrayed.  Yes, there was eventually a huge award but again, people tend to leave out those itty bitty details at the end. The ones that say that huge award was reduced to $480K and then eventually settled after McDonald's appealled and appealled to reduce it further.  Who knows what Stella actually received in the end.  Did the greedy lawyers rack up?  Doubt it.  The expenses in taking this kind of case this far would be well into 6 figures with medical and expert testimony etc.

Bottom line is this case is one of the greatest examples of misinformation and spin I've ever seen in my life...with the exception of the total fabrications listed earlier.

Another thing people don't know, or consider...the appeal process.  You (plaintiff or attorney) don't see any money until the appeals are exhausted or settled.  In the mean time creditors are banging on your door for money now, and the lawyers had to pay the doctors to depose them and the experts to testify out of their pocket, and up front.  Lawyers?  Well, yes, sometimes they get paid nicely.  The flip side is they can take a case that has merit, and still lose...and get NOTHING, not one thin dime, AND the lawyers pay the expenses, or a good portion of it. There's a lot of risk vs reward in taking plaintiffs cases.   The reward is almost never nearly as big as some think.

[GarMan]

If it were me, I'd presume what the jury said in it's verdict was proved at trial.  At any rate, whether the car was moving or not, would probably only go to how much she was at fault.  I appears from the verdict that they believed the car wasn't moving.  But if you need to "presume to feel better, by all means.

It's not feelings; it's logic.  The car was in operation at the time, stopped or otherwise. 

It was not only too hot for immediate consumption which most coffee is, it was so hot that it would cause serious burns whether it was consumed, or negligently handled by the consumer.  Most coffee in the industry, my leave a red mark, and hurt...McDonalds coffee caused 3rd degree burns! 

Too hot for immediate consumption?  I agree.  Dangerous?  If used or handled inappropriately.  I'm sure that a fresh pot of anybody's coffee can be dangerous if poured on the soft tissues of the inner thighs and genital region.  It's absurd to think otherwise, and holding McDonald's accountable to this extent exceeds reason. 

I'll agree with your second part there, IF you'll agree that many of the so-called "norms" are often really misconceptions held by the public.  Case in point, the many ficticious cases you cited. 

Misconceptions...  Even the non-fictitious cases seem to identify issues with these "norms", and I can tell you that my personal experiences with these "norms" haven't exactly been fair or reasonable. 

[CCTAU]

You can't out argue these guys.

Exhibit A:

A snake and a rabbit were racing along a pair of intersecting forest pathways one day, when they collided at the intersection. They immediately began to argue with one another as to who was at fault for the
mishap.

When the snake remarked that he had been blind since birth, and thus should be given additional leeway, the rabbit said that he, too, had been blind since birth. The two animals then forgot about the collision
and began commiserating concerning the problems of being blind.

The snake said that his greatest regret was the loss of his identity. He had never been able to see his reflection in the water, and for that reason did not know exactly what he looked like, or even what he
was. The rabbit declared that he had the same problem. Seeing a way that they could help each other, the rabbit proposed that one feel the other from head to toe, and then try to describe what the other
animal was.

The snake agreed, and started by winding himself around the rabbit. After a few moments, he announced, "You've got very soft, fuzzy fur, long ears, big rear feet, and a little fuzzy ball for a tail. I think that
you must be a bunny rabbit!"

The rabbit was much relieved to find his identity, and proceeded to return the favor to the snake. After feeling about the snake's body for a few minutes, he asserted, "Well, you're scaly, you're slimy, you've
got beady little eyes, you squirm and slither all the time, and you've got a forked tongue. I think you're a lawyer!"

[GarMan]

Yes, but the jackpot (which was awarded by a jury of 12 citizens, not a bunch of lawyers) was reduced by the judge (a lawyer), AND on appeal after that, was settled...a settlement that was secret.  We don't really know what she got.  

Even the reduced award was unreasonable at over $600k.  Sure, there was an undisclosed settlement, but with the amount of the awards, I would bet that it was still a jackpot for Stella and her attorneys.  

[JR4AU]

It's not feelings; it's logic.  The car was in operation at the time, stopped or otherwise.  

Too hot for immediate consumption?  I agree.  Dangerous?  If used or handled inappropriately.  I'm sure that a fresh pot of anybody's coffee can be dangerous if poured on the soft tissues of the inner thighs and genital region.  It's absurd to think otherwise, and holding McDonald's accountable to this extent exceeds reason.  

Misconceptions...  Even the non-fictitious cases seem to identify issues with these "norms", and I can tell you that my personal experiences with these "norms" haven't exactly been fair or reasonable.  

> Again, a case where you clearly admit relevant facts really don't mean much to you.

> Again, most coffee is too hot for immediate consumption, and most would even injury you if you poured a large quantiy on you.  There was medical tesitmony in the McD's case on the different types of injuries that would occur and how long the coffee would have to be in contact with the skin at various tempratures.  It was plainly evident to the jury, and the judge, that there was not reasonable excuse for serving coffee that hot espeically in light of the fact that they'd been put on notice with many prior complaints.

>  You're seriously going to stick with grossly misreported stories to support your agenda?  Fiction (because that's what it is) identifies real issues?  You're serious?  You struck me as smarter than that.    

I'd be glad to hear about your personal experiences.  That might shed some real light on all this!

[JR4AU]

You can't out argue these guys.

Exhibit A:

You can't argue with people that use fairytales, and ficticious "anecdotes" to support their real world agenda and belief system. 

Exibit A:  your posts in this thread.

[wesfau2]

It's not feelings; it's logic.  The car was in operation at the time, stopped or otherwise. 

Does it matter that she was the passenger and not operating the vehicle (moving or otherwise)?

[JR4AU]

Does it matter that she was the passenger and not operating the vehicle (moving or otherwise)?

He's pretty well stated that his "logic" tells him what he needs to know, and that facts just don't really matter.

[GarMan]

> Again, a case where you clearly admit relevant facts really don't mean much to you.

You call them relevant facts...  They were enlightening.  They cleared up some misconceptions.  They did not prove to me that any of the unreasonable awards were justified. 

> Again, most coffee is too hot for immediate consumption, and most would even injury you if you poured a large quantiy on you.  There was medical tesitmony in the McD's case on the different types of injuries that would occur and how long the coffee would have to be in contact with the skin at various tempratures.  It was plainly evident to the jury, and the judge, that there was not reasonable excuse for serving coffee that hot espeically in light of the fact that they'd been put on notice with many prior complaints. 

I still don't see this as justification for the unreasonably high awards.  I'm certain that this wasn't the first time Stella purchased coffee from McDonalds.  I'm also certain that if you jamb a pencil in your eye, you could go blind.  This extends beyond the bounds of reason.  You'll never justify it to me. 

>  You're seriously going to stick with ficticious stories to support your agenda?  Fiction identifies real issues?  You're serious?  You struck me as smarter than that.    

I'm not sticking to the fictitious stories.  Stop battling that straw man.  We're arguing a real case here.  How did you even get that?  You guys are the ones who keep going back to the fictitious stories.  We're beyond that.  For Christ's sake, move on already... 

I'd be glad to hear about your personal experiences.  That might shed some real light on all this! 

Too many details across too many cases to get into here...  Perhaps, over a cheap beer sometime... 

[GarMan]

Does it matter that she was the passenger and not operating the vehicle (moving or otherwise)? 

Why would it?  Would a normal, intelligent person balance a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a car to add creme and sugar?  I can't believe that lunacy...  And, they only assigned 20% fault to her. 

[JR4AU]

Why would it?  Would a normal, intelligent person balance a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a car to add creme and sugar?  I can't believe that lunacy...  And, they only assigned 20% fault to her. 

Are you even willing to entertain the fact that a jury heard ALL the facts came to this conclusion? 

Something to consider:

http://www.iacbe.org/Hartigan-IACBE-Critical_Thinking_and_Critical_Reflection_on_Assumptions.pdf

[wesfau2]

Why would it?  Would a normal, intelligent person balance a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a car to add creme and sugar?  I can't believe that lunacy...  And, they only assigned 20% fault to her. 

You might not believe this, but that really isn't the standard by which she (or any plaintiff, generally speaking) is judged.  You have to account for the large number of mouth-breathing morons in the world.

[GarMan]

He's pretty well stated that his "logic" tells him what he needs to know, and that facts just don't really matter.

There are lot of facts here.  Some matter, and some don't.  At this point, we're stuck in a logic argument between an engineer/IT professional and a group of attorneys.  Engineer/IT professional knows that coffee is hot and recognizes a bimbo doing something stupid.  My series of events starts at the time she purchased the coffee.  You guys will go well beyond that until you find a suitable cash cow.  If it wasn't McDonalds, lawyer logic might have gone after the manufacturer of the styrofoam cup, the manufacturer of the automobile, the processor of the coffee beans used, the manufacturer of the tires on the vehicle...  You know... whoever has the biggest pockets and the largest bank account. 

Nobody's gonna win this one...

[GarMan]

You might not believe this, but that really isn't the standard by which she (or any plaintiff, generally speaking) is judged.  You have to account for the large number of mouth-breathing morons in the world. 

GREAT POINT!  And, that's really my biggest problem in the Liberal versus Conservative debate.  Liberalism is too busy trying to absolve everyone of personal responsibility, while my flavor of hardline Conservatism would let nature take its course thinning out the herd of the weakest in our species.  I know...  It's not nice, but it's how I roll. 

[wesfau2]

GREAT POINT!  And, that's really my biggest problem in the Liberal versus Conservative debate.  Liberalism is too busy trying to absolve everyone of personal responsibility, while my flavor of hardline Conservatism would let nature take its course thinning out the herd of the weakest in our species.  I know...  It's not nice, but it's how I roll. 

So, really your beef is with a common law standard that is at least a hundred years old.

That damned liberalism fucks everything up.