Elvis , since I"m the one who posted the fucking link, you can readily assume that I knew about it.
You asked why people were getting on your case about posting (again) false info about the McDonalds Case, I 'splained it to you.
RE; fighting ignorance - check out the “Straight Dope Homepage”, under the banner reading “straight Dope”, you’ll see the line “fighting ignorance since… it’s taking longer than we thought”.
Perhaps this is an example why.
…I would sue:
-the tire mfg. (tires should have prevented the crash)
-the car mfg. (the car should have protected the occupants from death)
El Elvis Rojo*Again, could someone please tell me when the little message was beamed into my brain that states that this board is “devoted to fighting ignorance”? Personally, I’m here to have fun. Entering into debates is sometimes fun for me. *
(Spelling corrected.)
This member would humbly request that you refrain from spreading ignorance on this board. There are plenty of other forums on the internet for that sort of activity.
Gee, use an example of a HIGHLY VALID lawsuit as an example of a frivolous one and wonder why people corrected you? WTF?? Then to further claim validity for your use of said example by saying that lots of people are just as ignorant as you are?
How did you get here? Perhaps www.teenchat.com would be more suited to your needs?
Uh, maybe because you’re spreading rather moronic misinformation?
“Did you hear about the woman who got burned by scalding hot coffee she bought at McDonald’s? Can you believe she won?”
:rolleyes:
A woman got third-degree burns from the coffee and sued McDonald’s for not fixing a known problem. She made out with $480,000. Not exactly a new beach house in the Virgin Islands.
Wrong. Nope. Try again, you freaking scrotal maggot. She was in the right: The coffee gave her third-degree burns! She was going to drink that stuff! IT WOULD HAVE DONE WORSE TO HER MOUTH! The only moron here is you, for comparing her story to the truly moronic cases.
Then I’m damn glad no bar association in the nation would accept your sorry ass.
Did I just hear the first semi-intelligent thing out of you in the whole thread? I think so.
Cosell: “Elvis had the ball, but he dropped it! He dropped it like a red-headed baby! Elvis dropped the ball like it was a shit-covered cup of scalding hot coffee! That moron!”
And it ain’t pretty what you’re doing here, either.
The other day I was at the grocery store. A woman in the isle across from me was unloading her groceries as her two year old child started to climb out of the seat. The woman behind me called her attention to it, the woman thanked her, picked up her child, and continued to unload her groceries. The man in front of me said:
“It’s a good thing someone called that. Otherwise that child would have fallen and busted his head on the floor, then this store would have had a lawsuit on their hands.”
Why? Why would the store, that has instructions posted on the basket of how a child is supposed to be placed in it, and a seatbelt to assure the child doesn’t stand up, get blamed for a woman neglecting her child and the injury that could occure from such negligence?
That was the whole point of my mentioning the McDonald’s case. I explained that twice. Yet, still, you people don’t get that. Ask your friends “What’s the stupidest lawsuit you know of?” (for some of you, this may be difficult to find outside of the internet, so try co-workers instead). I asked about twenty people at my work here at a news station, and they all responded “I think that one where the woman sued McDonalds for spilling her coffee was pretty stupid.” I’m sure you’ll get the same results.
My mentioning of it was not to argue specifics. It was to point out the fact that since that trial, more and more people find other places to place blame for thier own mistakes. There was no misinformation in any of my posts (a bit of embelleshment in the original, yes). What I stated was the impact that this case had on society, which is the real importance of such a case. To sit here in a discussion about the actions of the general public and to glance over the perceptions and ideas of the general public is ignorance. To sit there and argue specifics about a trial when it’s social ramifications are what’s being discussed and to claim that those are unimportant is ignorance.
You want to continue “fighting ignorance”? Next time you enter into a debate or discussion, take about five seconds to step off your high horse and get your head out your ass.
On the McDonalds-coffee hijack, while I have absolutely no problems with the jury award (especially considering that they said, in essence, that the woman was 20% at fault for her own carelessness in spilling the coffee and hence getting burned, and McDonalds 80% at fault for serving scalding hot coffee that would burn her if she spilled it), I was taken to task on another board on the subject – and the gentleman arguing with me pointed out a serve-out temperature of 185 degrees as the recommended industry standard – today, a significant time after the verdict. I’ll try to look up the link he posted and post it here if anyone is sufficiently interested to see it.
I suggest just dropping the McDonald’s portion of this thread. El Elvis Rojo, I don’t see it as at all relevant to your OP.
And I agree with you on your local story. It’s absurd that the parents of an adult should be held responsible by the parents of other adults for actions thay ALL took that got them killed. Unless it was something really wierd like the parents of the driver providing the drugs and alcohol, in which case parenthood itself wouldn’t be an issue, but other (possibly criminal) liability would.
I hope it gets tossed ou of court quickly.
yojimboguy, it was never suposed to be a hijak, I simply made the comment that since that case, it’s become a tendencey in our society to search for blame anywhere but with ourselves. It was what I perceived to be a quick reference, and nothing more. I moved on in my original post, and tried to use my second post as a means to get back to the OP. Unfortunately, others decided to post NINE knee jerk reactions to a simple comment and completely lost focus. I then felt the need to defend myself from ignorant people.
As I’ve said, it’s a tendency in our society to place blame anywhere but with ourselves. Like my example from the grocery store. Somehow, somewhere, it became “understood” that any injury sustained in a public place is suddenly the fault of whoever runs such establishment. A kid climbs out of a basket while the parent isn’t looking, cracks their skull open on the floor, somehow, it’s the store’s fault? I don’t buy it. That’s my connection to this case.
It is ridiculous that the parents could even conceive that they have a case here against the parents of the driver. It’s sick, and as I said earlier, if I were a judge, I’d simply tell these people to get the fuck out of my court. Money is no substitute for grief, that’s the problem I see here.
Elvis, the reason you got such knee-jerk reactions is that many people feel sorry for that little old lady who had to get skin grafts on her genetalia and who, then, afterwards, also became a national symbol for frivilous lawsuits and rampant greed.
It’s like if somehow this thread sprang up a strange rumor that you have a weird habit of bringing up the McD’s coffee suit in every thread, and there were several pit-threads about how you couldn’t let this damn suit lie, and [pretty soon people who had never even read a single post by you knew you as “The McD’s coffee guy”, and somebody made some disparaging, yet funny, remark about you and “your McD’s obsession” in another thread, two years from now, and one of the posters that is here today jumped in and said “you know, that’s not really what happened in that thread–it was only one thread, and only one throw-away reference”, and then the guy who made the disparaging comment about you said “Oh, yeah, I know Elvis got a bad rap and dosen’t deserve his reputation, but it was such a funny joke, I just wanted to make it.” Don’t you see how that would be irritating?
It’s not fair, it’s not–for lack of a better word–honerable–to hold this woman up as an example of litigation-happy greed when you know that she wasn’t.