Officer hurt in accidental shooting (by 3yr old son) sues gun maker

[squirt]

everyone is looking for easy money. .. Shouldn't he be fined and sued for improper storage of a firearm? Didn't a state trooper from MA just do the same thing by leaving his firearm unsecured thereby allowing his son to take it from the home and pointing it at a little girls head?

And we wonder why this country is being flushed down the toilet. .

 

[Fsorrent]

And we wonder why this country is being flushed down the toilet. .

No, that's what this country needs though. Instead, we are kind of like a backed up toilet that keeps getting pissed on, but no one wants to pull the flusher anymore.

 

[namedpipes]

Nor the public's. What AD proposes is the "British System," the effect of which is to intimidate legitimate, but not wealthy, parties by the threat of the costs of the entire trial if their claim is found less than compelling by a preponderance of the evidence.

...

"Less than compelling" and "blatantly frivolous" are two different things. I'm not clear whether you "shortcut" the description of the law for the sake of keeping the description on point and brief, or if that is the real wording.

Court is where you go when there are points about the case that could be seen different ways and an objective judgment is required. (maybe not on THIS planet, but somewhere, maybe)

When you walk into a 7-11, point a 9mm at the clerk and say "Give me the money" - well, thats illegal isn't it?

That lady that sued McDonald's because she did not know her coffee would be served hot. She did the same thing. She used the legal system to do it, not a 9mm, but the fact is, she is no better than the punk with the 9mm.

Using the legal system as a way to correct wrongs is one thing.

Using the legal system as a weapon to commit robbery and extortion is quite another, whether you are a fatuous idiot like the coffee lady or Microsoft avoiding the OS refunds when you use linux on your computer.

 

[jshooter]

It would be a good idea to sue an idiot's parents for manufacturing an idiot.

Thats awesome, Maybe Mrs. Chavez can have a 140th trimester abortion.

 

[Joe G]

Me too

I did have a dog that could clear a room with his farts....

[HIJACK_ALERT]
My son Ben came up the stairs this morning giggling that Jack (the dog) farted when he (Ben) when down to say good morning.
[/HIJACK_ALERT]

 

[rscalzo]

IA similar thread is going on in a law enforcement only site with some additional information not cited here. The thoughts are the same with the fault lying in the careless storing of the firearm in the first place. Time will tell how the legal system views it.

 

[Scrivener]

That lady that sued McDonald's because she did not know her coffee would be served hot. She did the same thing. She used the legal system to do it, not a 9mm, but the fact is, she is no better than the punk with the 9mm.

BULL. You obviously don't know what you are ranting about - or are presuming we don't and will accept blindly believe such specious claims.

As anyone who actually IS familiar with the case is well aware;

1. Stella was NOT driving the car when this occurred (in point of fact, she was not driving at all);

2. The car was PARKED when she was scalded;

3. All she wanted was reimbursement of actual medical costs - McDonalds REFUSED that simple request; and

4. McDonalds had actual knowledge of the scalding effect of its coffee from PRIOR incidents.

Want more? I doubt it, but here it is:

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Here's a link - try actually learning before lecturing.....

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

[jkelly]

…whether you are a fatuous idiot like the coffee lady…---namedpipes

I remember hearing about this case at the time and heard it referenced so often as one of the things that’s wrong in Law today. What was the age of the woman, what damage was done to her, how much coffee was spilled and how hot was the coffee?


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[rscalzo]

BULL. You obviously don't know what you are ranting about - or are presuming we don't and will accept blindly believe such specious claims.

I had this discussion late one night with a bored Associate at the law firm where I worked for years. Apparently the lid was incorrect for the container size in addition to what has been already been noted.

 

[Scrivener]

Apparently the lid was incorrect for the container size in addition to what has been already been noted.

Which would be another of McDonald's mistakes; not Stella's.

 

[namedpipes]

BULL. You obviously don't know what you are ranting about - or are presuming we don't and will accept blindly believe such specious claims.

As anyone who actually IS familiar with the case is well aware;

1. Stella was NOT driving the car when this occurred (in point of fact, she was not driving at all);

2. The car was PARKED when she was scalded;

3. All she wanted was reimbursement of actual medical costs - McDonalds REFUSED that simple request; and

4. McDonalds had actual knowledge of the scalding effect of its coffee from PRIOR incidents.

Want more? I doubt it, but here it is:



Here's a link - try actually learning before lecturing.....

YES! Flamed by Scrivner!

I've got my wings!

Whatever additional details there may be, the lady spilled her coffee in her lap and got scalded. Not a big surprise to me. I drink a lot of coffee. Based on that research I've come to a painful conclusion that I should avoid spilling coffee in my lap (exception: Dunkin's Ice Coffee if > 95 degree weather).

Did I lecture? OK, I guess I was a little. But it's a known fact (www.courtstats.gov/research.php?civ=&crim=&friv=) that 72% of Americans think that 46% of civil cases and 38% of criminal cases are frivolous.

We now return to the serious part of the argument.

Let's agree that particular case had enough merit to debate (although I personally feel Stella must have the common sense of a state legislator).

Do you contend that there are no cases in say, the last 10 years that were well known and frivolous?

Not even enough to consider the possibility that there is a problem in the legal system?

 

[Scrivener]

Let's agree that particular case had enough merit to debate (although I personally feel Stella must have the common sense of a state legislator).

Let's see. McDonalds:

1. Sells extremely HOT coffee to customers;

2. It KNOWS will drink it while driving;

3. Has had HUNDREDS of scalding incidents due to that practice;

4. May well have put the INCORRECT lid on the cup;

YET

You would have us believe a woman who had the temerity to remove the lid to add the cream and sugar McDonalds did not;

somehow has "the common sense of a state legislator" when she was scalded by the not merely foreseeable, but a repeat of actually documented, scalding incident occurs.....

Well, someone has "the common sense of a state legislator," but it's not her.

 

[namedpipes]

Let's see. McDonalds:

1. Sells extremely HOT coffee to customers;

2. It KNOWS will drink it while driving;

3. Has had HUNDREDS of scalding incidents due to that practice;

4. May well have put the INCORRECT lid on the cup;

YET

You would have us believe a woman who had the temerity to remove the lid to add the cream and sugar McDonalds did not;

somehow has "the common sense of a state legislator" when she was scalded by the not merely foreseeable, but a repeat of actually documented, scalding incident occurs.....

Well, someone has "the common sense of a state legislator," but it's not her.

I refuse to believe someone that spilled coffee in their lap deserves to be rewarded for it.

You neatly repeated and expanded your points, but did not answer the two questions I posed, after I stipulated that perhaps that specific case wasn't my best example. (after all, I'm a computer geek, not a lawyer).

So, would you care to answer this?

Do you contend that there are no cases in say, the last 10 years that were well known and frivolous?

Not even enough to consider the possibility that there is a problem in the legal system?

 

[rscalzo]

Which would be another of McDonald's mistakes; not Stella's.

That was my point.

 

[Scrivener]

You neatly repeated and expanded your points, but did not answer the two questions I posed, after I stipulated that perhaps that specific case wasn't my best example. (after all, I'm a computer geek, not a lawyer).

So, would you care to answer this?

There are abuses in any system. There certainly are in the legal system.

What you studiously ignore is the fact that the awards you rail against are made by JURIES. That means 12 citizens not only found the complaint credible, but awarded damages based upon its findings.

But then again, having actual facts before them, they obviously lacked your Clarity Of Vision......

 

[namedpipes]

There are abuses in any system. There certainly are in the legal system.

What you studiously ignore is the fact that the awards you rail against are made by JURIES. That means 12 citizens not only found the complaint credible, but awarded damages based upon its findings.

But then again, having actual facts before them, they obviously lacked your Clarity Of Vision......

Thank you for acknowledging that. I agree. Any system has faults.

Who said I railed against the awards? I may, but that's not what I said. What I said was: the woman spilled coffee on herself. In an ironic twist of fate, I burned my hand on a hotdog this evening, taking it out of the microwave. I'm not going to sue either Oscar Meyer OR the microwave maker.

Now, for, I believe, the THIRD time, I will state again, my repeated previous statement, already asserted, that this particular case might not have been the best case to support my argument. I don't quite know why you insist on finding new arguments to support your position on a point I already conceded.

However, for about the fifth time (cuz I'm ALSO stubborn), I will again repeat again, the woman (imo) is/was an eejit.

As you no doubt recall, my point was mainly a question asking a clarification on a point you originally made. Rather than answer the question (which remains unanswered, I believe), you jumped onto a minor comment. Which, as I've repeated restated again could have been better chosen.

Some other time I'll give a little lecture on the proper use of punitive damages

 

[drgrant]

What you studiously ignore is the fact that the awards you rail against are made by JURIES. That means 12 citizens not only found the complaint credible, but awarded damages based upon its findings.

Well, that, or maybe like half of them found it credible, and the other half didn't want to hang around fighting about it, and said "Aw f**k it, it's only mcdonalds, they can afford it... " or "They shoulda just paid that lady's medical bills..." It's very convenient for a jury to say "screw mcdonalds" in the interest of expediency. A bunch of jurors might stick it out if say, some guys throat is on the line in a criminal case, but if the only thing at stake is some big company losing some (proportionally small) amount of money, the "give a shit" level goes way down. I think thats part of the reason why a lot of these companies end up settling; the jury will end up being a little too impartial, unless by some magical consequence they happen to select a bunch of people who are into tort reform.

Granted, I don't think every jury is going to do something like that, depending on what the case is, but I think in the case of big companies vs someone perceived as the "underdog", the jury will favor the underdog unless the bogus-factor level of the person's claim is a few miles off the charts.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

I think McDonalds' blatant arrogance was the tipping factor.

And while one person insists Stella was "an eejit," the fact remains that McDonalds knew its coffee was very hot, knew its patrons would try to drink it while driving and knew of other scalding incidents.

That's not merely foreseeable, which itself is grounds for liability - that's blatant disregard of a known danger. It then refused to pay the mere medical bills of a victim of that disregard.

So - who's the "eejit" now?

 

[Yelena]

And while one person insists Stella was "an eejit," the fact remains that McDonalds knew its coffee was very hot, knew its patrons would try to drink it while driving and knew of other scalding incidents.

I think people who order hot cofee should know that it is HOT.

 

[rscalzo]

This is a general overview of the case with the exception of the final outcome which was sealed. It does tend to show that McDonald's disregarded the hazards of the requirements of their coffee service.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

While the jury award was quickly rewduced by the judge to around 640K, McDonalds filed an appeal and a settlement for what is believed much less was agreed upon and sealed.

I also found this interesting as I tended to think McDonalds coffee is somewhat hot even today...

Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."

 

[Yelena]

This is a general overview of the case with the exception of the final outcome which was sealed. It does tend to show that McDonald's disregarded the hazards of the requirements of their coffee service.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Understood.

 

[namedpipes]

I think McDonalds' blatant arrogance was the tipping factor.

And while one person insists Stella was "an eejit," the fact remains that McDonalds knew its coffee was very hot, knew its patrons would try to drink it while driving and knew of other scalding incidents.

That's not merely foreseeable, which itself is grounds for liability - that's blatant disregard of a known danger. It then refused to pay the mere medical bills of a victim of that disregard.

So - who's the "eejit" now?

I thoroughly respect your knowledge on the law, and in fact in other threads you have helped me tremendously, so thank you for that.

We'll continue to disagree on this particular case, and frankly I think both of us are repeating repeating ourselves.

I am still mildly curious about my original question, which I repeat below, but not at the cost of another round. I have a deadline on a piece of code today and have to focus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrivener
Nor the public's. What AD proposes is the "British System," the effect of which is to intimidate legitimate, but not wealthy, parties by the threat of the costs of the entire trial if their claim is found less than compelling by a preponderance of the evidence.

...

"Less than compelling" and "blatantly frivolous" are two different things. I'm not clear whether you "shortcut" the description of the law for the sake of keeping the description on point and brief, or if that is the real wording.

That's all I really meant to ask. I swear!

 

[jcr]

Do you contend that there are no cases in say, the last 10 years that were well known and frivolous?

Though more than 10yr now, I was amazed by this one.

A guy, drunk out of his mind, speeds down the highway at over 100 mph. He blows a tire, crashes, and is killed.

His relatives sued Ford because they sold the car with tires that weren't rated for speeds over 112mph even though the v8 engine was powerful enough to attain such speeds.

 

[sksguns]

BULL. You obviously don't know what you are ranting about - or are presuming we don't and will accept blindly believe such specious claims.

As anyone who actually IS familiar with the case is well aware;

1. Stella was NOT driving the car when this occurred (in point of fact, she was not driving at all);

2. The car was PARKED when she was scalded;

3. All she wanted was reimbursement of actual medical costs - McDonalds REFUSED that simple request; and

4. McDonalds had actual knowledge of the scalding effect of its coffee from PRIOR incidents.

Want more? I doubt it, but here it is:



Here's a link - try actually learning before lecturing.....

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Just one question on number 3.

If they did agree to medical expenses could that be used against them in later on if the woman decied to sue for damages as she ultimately did do?

I know she probably made her decision to proceed because they wouldn't cover medical costs. But couldn't she still have pursued damages and then with McDonald's paying her medical expense be used against them as an admission that they were at fault or why would they have paid her medical?

Couldn't that have resulted in a bigger award?

Just curious. Thanks.


PS.. I think copboy should face charges for his situation if in fact it did happen that way. If it didn't then he lied to authorities and should face some charges for that no?

 

[Scrivener]

If they did agree to medical expenses could that be used against them in later on if the woman decied to sue for damages as she ultimately did do?

NO. Settlement is settlement and would have been contingent upon a dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Less than compelling" and "blatantly frivolous" are two different things. I'm not clear whether you "shortcut" the description of the law for the sake of keeping the description on point and brief, or if that is the real wording

Neither is the real wording. There are sanctions available for bringing absurdly baseless cases, but the practice seems to be letting them drag themselves out to expire from the ordeal or be rejected by juries in open court.

 

[namedpipes]

NO....Neither is the real wording. There are sanctions available for bringing absurdly baseless cases, but the practice seems to be letting them drag themselves out to expire from the ordeal or be rejected by juries in open court.

Thank you.

 

[Nickle]

Stella v McDonalds is a poor case to call frivolous.

IMNSHO, both parties were at fault. Stella for being a klutz, McDonalds for failing to fix a known hazard. Since "2 wrongs don't make a right", McDonalds got what they deserved. Stella getting a reduced award to cover her medical costs is very fair.

Now, a classic example of a frivolous lawsuit would be the woman that sued Bell Helmet because her husband died in a motorcycle accident and wasn't wearing a Bell Helmet. See, her shylock attorney (not all lawyers are shylocks, but this one was) knew he could extort a settlement out of Bell before the case went to court. Yup, he got her a decent settlement, as Bell settled out of court.

The real outcome of the case? No major helmet manufacturer is left in the US. Bell moved to Italy, due to US laws.

Back to the case in question.

Derek says he's never had an ND with a 4.5 pound trigger. I've used many 2 OUNCE triggers, and also never had an ND. Of course, neither of us is stupid enough to leave a loaded firearm within reach of a 2 year old, in a vehicle.

The LEO is a MORON, and his suit should be dismissed, based on his own complaint.

He played "Russian Roulette" and lost.