A) Unless you care about the person, walk away.
B) If you care about the person, make sure you give them CPR and claim they weren't breathing.
SevereFlame
Title: Superpowered President
Joined: Dec 07 2008
Location: White House In The Sky
Posts: 529
Posted:
Dec 21 2008 11:49 am
It's actually not new. The whole "I'm gonna sue you if you try to save my life!" was known of long, long ago. Here's an actual quote from Valdronius's article on Toxic Crusaders.
Valdronius wrote:
Then I laughed at him instead of doing CPR, because you can get sued if you attempt to save someone's life and fail.
A) Unless you care about the person, walk away.
B) If you care about the person, make sure you give them CPR and claim they weren't breathing.
That's a crock of shit. I obviously couldn't say for sure what my feelings would be if I was injured by someone trying to save my life, my first thoughts are that I wouldn't be able to hold them responsible.
This situation is quite different, but it is what the story reminded me of. I have a buddy who was a bouncer in KC. In a club he worked at. there was a guy who backhanded his wife/girlfriend/old lady/whatever the fuck and tried to choke her out. So he slams the guy against the wall. Next thing he knows, the bitch hits him over the head with a bottle. He saves her from getting the shit beat out of her, and she attacks him for it. I know abused women can be fucked in the head like this, and a lot of them don't want help because the may get it worse when the get home, but still, it was a bunch of bullshit.
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
Posted:
Dec 21 2008 06:31 pm
The ruling was just that thay -can- be sued. It doesn't mean the suit is going to be sucessful.
And don't be so quick to assume the suit is bullshit. Even if you mean well, you can completely fuck someone up in the act of saving their life if you don't know what you're doing or do the wrong thing. Like moving someone with a spinal injury. Just because you thought you were saving their life doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions (though if you can show you actually did save their life, you'll probably win the suit).
If someone is injured, but awake and not in harm's way, it's usually just a good idea to wait for people who know what they're doing to show up.
The ruling was just that thay -can- be sued. It doesn't mean the suit is going to be sucessful.
And don't be so quick to assume the suit is bullshit. Even if you mean well, you can completely fuck someone up in the act of saving their life if you don't know what you're doing or do the wrong thing. Like moving someone with a spinal injury. Just because you thought you were saving their life doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions (though if you can show you actually did save their life, you'll probably win the suit).
If someone is injured, but awake and not in harm's way, it's usually just a good idea to wait for people who know what they're doing to show up.
Right, and witnesses say there was no threat of a fire. But I also have a hard time believing that somebody would make up a threat like that just to play hero. I'm inclined to believe that she really thought there was danger in leaving her in the car.
I'm not saying there is no grounds for a law suit. I'm just saying I personally think I would have a hard time suing somebody who actually thought they were saving my life.
Either way, I'm not surprised. You can pretty much sue somebody for anything. If I'm on the run from the cops and I run through your house trying to get away (you know, like in the movies) and slip on your hardwood floor that you just mopped, I can sue your ass.
SevereFlame
Title: Superpowered President
Joined: Dec 07 2008
Location: White House In The Sky
Posts: 529
Posted:
Dec 22 2008 08:13 pm
scamrock wrote:
UsaSatsui wrote:
The ruling was just that thay -can- be sued. It doesn't mean the suit is going to be sucessful.
And don't be so quick to assume the suit is bullshit. Even if you mean well, you can completely fuck someone up in the act of saving their life if you don't know what you're doing or do the wrong thing. Like moving someone with a spinal injury. Just because you thought you were saving their life doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions (though if you can show you actually did save their life, you'll probably win the suit).
If someone is injured, but awake and not in harm's way, it's usually just a good idea to wait for people who know what they're doing to show up.
Right, and witnesses say there was no threat of a fire. But I also have a hard time believing that somebody would make up a threat like that just to play hero. I'm inclined to believe that she really thought there was danger in leaving her in the car.
I'm not saying there is no grounds for a law suit. I'm just saying I personally think I would have a hard time suing somebody who actually thought they were saving my life.
Either way, I'm not surprised. You can pretty much sue somebody for anything. If I'm on the run from the cops and I run through your house trying to get away (you know, like in the movies) and slip on your hardwood floor that you just mopped, I can sue your ass.
I'm actually inclined to believe you because of the "HOLY CRAP MCDONALDS COFFEE IS HOT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHGHGHGHHGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, time to sue! GGHGHGHGHGGHGHHGH!!!!!" lawsuit.
Right, and witnesses say there was no threat of a fire. But I also have a hard time believing that somebody would make up a threat like that just to play hero. I'm inclined to believe that she really thought there was danger in leaving her in the car.
I'm not saying there is no grounds for a law suit. I'm just saying I personally think I would have a hard time suing somebody who actually thought they were saving my life.
I don't think she "made anything up", but I have a feeling she may not have been thinking clearly. She may have thought she was doing the right thing at the time. Unfortunately, your intent doesn't really matter when you break someone's neck. You screw up, you're responsible.
Quote:
Either way, I'm not surprised. You can pretty much sue somebody for anything. If I'm on the run from the cops and I run through your house trying to get away (you know, like in the movies) and slip on your hardwood floor that you just mopped, I can sue your ass.
Probably not sucessfully. However, if they ran through your yard and tripped over something that you knew about and left out there, they'd have a case (but of course, you could file a countersuit for trespass). The difference: It's very unlikely someone will run through your kitchen without you at least first giving them a warning, so you have no duty to someone who bolts through it. It's quite likely someone will run through your yard, however.
Negligence is a large part of why laywers stay in business. It's tricky stuff figuring out who you have a "dury of care" to.
I'm no mechanic. I wouldn't really have a good sense for whether or not there was a legitimate threat of a fire starting after a car accident (unless it's really obvious, like fuel leaking everywhere.)
I got in a pretty serious car accident a few years ago, and before I pulled myself out of my car, I turned the engine off for just that reason.
Sydlexia.com - Where miserable bastards meet to call each other retards.
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
Posted:
Dec 23 2008 01:03 am
Quote:
I'm actually inclined to believe you because of the "HOLY CRAP MCDONALDS COFFEE IS HOT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHGHGHGHHGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, time to sue! GGHGHGHGHGGHGHHGH!!!!!" lawsuit.
I don't really want to get into the huge big shoutfest about this, so all I'm going to say is that that was a legitimate lawsuit. Look up the details, and ask yourself if spilled coffee is supposed to cause third degree burns.
Quote:
I'm no mechanic. I wouldn't really have a good sense for whether or not there was a legitimate threat of a fire starting after a car accident (unless it's really obvious, like fuel leaking everywhere.)
People who make cars are pretty well aware gasoline is a fire hazard, so it's VERY hard to get a fire from the fuel. Other things start fires (like electrical stuff, and the things in the passanger area tend to be pretty flammable, including passangers), but it's very hard to get to the fuel.
In short, a car is unlikely to explode, and if there's a danger of fire...you'll know.
I'm actually inclined to believe you because of the "HOLY CRAP MCDONALDS COFFEE IS HOT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHGHGHGHHGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, time to sue! GGHGHGHGHGGHGHHGH!!!!!" lawsuit.
I don't really want to get into the huge big shoutfest about this, so all I'm going to say is that that was a legitimate lawsuit. Look up the details, and ask yourself if spilled coffee is supposed to cause third degree burns.
Usa is right. Coffee shouldn't cause 3rd degree burns. Funny enough... neither should oatmeal, but you don't hear about some fucking idiot suing their wife for making oatmeal too hot as they spill it between their legs while they are driving. That's because they wouldn't get very much money from their wife... but McDowell's has the money of Zamunda!
Places where coffee does not belong while driving.
In crotch
In face
On feet
Under armpit
Places where coffee does belong while driving.
In cup holder
In hand
In mouth
SevereFlame
Title: Superpowered President
Joined: Dec 07 2008
Location: White House In The Sky
Posts: 529
Posted:
Dec 23 2008 08:54 am
UsaSatsui wrote:
Quote:
I'm actually inclined to believe you because of the "HOLY CRAP MCDONALDS COFFEE IS HOT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHGHGHGHHGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, time to sue! GGHGHGHGHGGHGHHGH!!!!!" lawsuit.
I don't really want to get into the huge big shoutfest about this, so all I'm going to say is that that was a legitimate lawsuit. Look up the details, and ask yourself if spilled coffee is supposed to cause third degree burns.
I think it clearly states that McDonalds coffee is hot - handle with care on the container. You're not SUPPOSED to spill it.
If someone is injured, but awake and not in harm's way, it's usually just a good idea to wait for people who know what they're doing to show up.
That's actually one of the very first things they taught me in my first aid course: if you arrive at an accident and the person in the wreck is not in immediate danger, do not attempt to lift them out of their seat. The risk of inflicting permanent injury is just too great for somebody who is not trained to handle this kind of situation.
UsaSatsui wrote:
In short, a car is unlikely to explode.
Are you telling me the Simpsons were lying?
GPFontaine
Joined: Dec 06 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11244
Posted:
Dec 23 2008 10:35 am
Tyop wrote:
UsaSatsui wrote:
In short, a car is unlikely to explode.
Are you telling me the Simpsons were lying?
With the number of exploding cars in the media... why would we believe that cars wouldn't explode?
I BLAME TV!!!
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
Posted:
Dec 23 2008 11:52 am
Quote:
Funny enough... neither should oatmeal, but you don't hear about some fucking idiot suing their wife for making oatmeal too hot as they spill it between their legs while they are driving. That's because they wouldn't get very much money from their wife... but McDowell's has the money of Zamunda!
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not here. But, yeah. You sue the guy with the money. It's slimy, but you can't make Joe Penniless pay. And suing the wife leads to certain marital issues (not to mention you're still not allowed to do it in some places)
Quote:
I think it clearly states that McDonalds coffee is hot - handle with care on the container. You're not SUPPOSED to spill it.
You're not SUPPOSED to crash your car. You're not SUPPOSED to trip over an exposed wire. You're not SUPPOSED to require dental surgery when you get kicked in the face. And you're not SUPPOSED to serve coffee that is scalding hot.
The issue was not "coffee is hot so i sue cause i got hurt hurr hurr", like people think. It was that McDonalds. who had been warned repeatedly about how hot their coffee was in the past, continued to hand something that could cause serious injury through the window. They could have put a siren on the fucking cup and they would have still been liable.
Also, prior to the suit, they did not have the warning on the cups of how nuclear hot it is. As well, they now have a required tempature, that if followed, they are to keep the coffee below. A range if you will of how hot it needs to be, and what is the maximum temp that it is allowed to be.
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3112
Posted:
Dec 23 2008 04:21 pm
UsaSatsui wrote:
Quote:
I think it clearly states that McDonalds coffee is hot - handle with care on the container. You're not SUPPOSED to spill it.
You're not SUPPOSED to crash your car. You're not SUPPOSED to trip over an exposed wire. You're not SUPPOSED to require dental surgery when you get kicked in the face. And you're not SUPPOSED to serve coffee that is scalding hot.
The issue was not "coffee is hot so i sue cause i got hurt hurr hurr", like people think. It was that McDonalds. who had been warned repeatedly about how hot their coffee was in the past, continued to hand something that could cause serious injury through the window. They could have put a siren on the fucking cup and they would have still been liable.
Right, I love how the woman gets so much shit for that lawsuit. It turns out that there were numerous complaints about the coffee being too hot, as in "just a few degrees from completely evaporating" hot. You get third degree burns for touching fire and stoves, not from spilling coffee on your lap. That, and the workers at the drive-thru had been known to just toss or drop food onto peoples' laps.
I work as a dishwasher. If I were to just take a dirty dish, wipe off the food, and as a result give a customer who later used said dish food poisoning, the restaurant and I are at fault, because we violated rules and regulations pertaining to food distribution. This case is different, however. On one hand, the woman was trying to help her friend from what she saw as danger, which is commendable on her part. On the other hand, she also handled the crash victim in a way that injured or exacerbated injury sustained during the crash. You're also not supposed to haphazardly screw around with crash victims, as they may have received spinal or cranial injuries that can be fatal after excessive physical handling. You really have to weigh out the maybes and ifs you want to get the right legal outcome.
So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
scamrock
Title: Space Bastard
Joined: Jan 26 2008
Location: Planet Druidia
Posts: 2392
Posted:
Dec 23 2008 05:21 pm
Stella Liebeck gets a bad rap. I don't necessarily think it was a frivolous lawsuit as much as I think it comes down to the fact that deciding who was at fault is really a judgement call. It could have come out either way. But I think what makes this case so huge in the public eye is the $2.7 million in punitive damages and the $2,000,000 in compensatory damages. $2.7 mil for hot coffee that she spilled on herself seems a little extreme. I'm really not sure I have an opinion one way or another in regards to who was at fault. The only opinion I have is in regards to the amount of money awarded, which is not what she ended up with in the end.
This is an interesting read in regards to the Stella Liebeck case. Once you read it, it may (or may not) change the way you look at that case. At the very least, it gives some information most people aren't aware of.
Also, on the same website, they award the Stella Awards (named for Liebeck obviously) for frivolous lawsuits. They also have a section for bogus lawsuits that are popular but are really, as the website claims, "false, made-up, or (sometimes) true stories with false elements added to them". This website (stellaawards) says they can't find any evidence that these are true and accuses the media reporting them of not doing their research. Some of those cases in question, I have actually referenced in these forums. In my defense, if these really are bogus, I first heard about them from a guy who heard about them on Paul Harvey, and then, had also heard about them since then from other sources I assumed were reliable.
