Thread: Fine what your doing but its limited

Great Point--thelmahopkins! Landlord are most definitely part of the problem and in a very serious way. They are providing the "housing" which is "harboring" illegal aliens in the United States. They are also slumming down our standard of living. More cars on the street; more children in that school district; not enough property taxes to support the Kit and Kaboodle; more trash that resources were designed to handle; more medical needs that the area was prepared to provide; more of "needs" "costs" "expenses" across the board....all the "ilk" associated with population needs.

The reason the United States has been a nice place for live is because of zoning laws; which match resources; which match services; which match comunity tax income.

Slumlords violating zoning laws are first gear to third world living conditions in the United States and it is already happening on a monumental scale.

The ignition of course is illegal immigration.

Our government of course is in "neutral" idling away saying "great, more people, more transactions, more votes our way, more foreign interest, more dilution to the American interest, HOORAY, World Government is just a few days away!!

Team--"this is going to give us more than heartburn"

You got it.

So, now some illegal alien is suing to get an illegal driver's license. Now don't that beat all.

IS OUR GOVERNMENT NUTS?

That is totally frivolous.

Oh, the illegal suing about the drivers' license is PEANUTS compared to the family who sued Duke University Medical Center because their ILLEGAL CHILD had a heart transplant at Duke, Duke screwed up and then REPLACED that heart with another one. The child later died and the family was suing Duke. This was a hospital who TRIED to help a child who would otherwise have NEVER gotten help and, because there was a legitimate medical error AND Duke did everything they could to correct it, the ILLEGAL FAMILY had a RIGHT TO SUE?? I think they settled out of court and I haven't heard anything else about it in a couple of years.

My position is still--IF YOU DON'T have CLEAN HANDS, you CANNOT go to court and SUE ANYONE. THAT would include ANYONE--Americans, legals, illegals, the WORKS. You cannot BREAK a law and, when something BACKFIRES, go into a court of law and demand restitution if you, yourself, have not been above the law.

Originally Posted by Bootsie

My position is still--IF YOU DON'T have CLEAN HANDS, you CANNOT go to court and SUE ANYONE. THAT would include ANYONE--Americans, legals, illegals, the WORKS. You cannot BREAK a law and, when something BACKFIRES, go into a court of law and demand restitution if you, yourself, have not been above the law.

Frivolous law suits in general, just like the person and the coffee at Mc Nogelds.

Oh yeah!! I forgot that little TIDBIT! And, the FOOL WON! If people are SO STUPID that they don't know that COFFEE or HOT CHOCOLATE is HOT, they sure don't deserve to win a lawsuit.

And, on the subject of frivolous lawsuits, one I REALLY have a problem with is smokers with lung cancer suing the tobacco companies. NOW, I AM a smoker so I can speak with a lot of authority on this one! I can say that people who contracted lung cancer YEARS before it became KNOWN that smoking caused lung cancer and the tobacco companies started putting that message on tobacco products have a right to sue. But, we have known FOR MANY YEARS two facts: tobacco can cause lung cancer and tobacco is ADDICTIVE. SO, it you still CHOOSE to smoke, you have made that decision based on unrefutable facts and you should NOT have the right to sue tobacco companies.

Hi! Couldn't sleep. Anyway, just a little follow-up on the McDonald's coffee deal. This was an older woman driving through the drive-by window. She orders the large coffee which at that time was a super size for truck drivers. In the process of it being handed to her she dropped it in her lap. She was trapped in her car because of a car in front and in back and by the drive-by window. At that time I got alot of this coffee and it was so hot, I would have to take the lid off, blow on it, and let it sit for several minutes before I could drink it and I live on coffee.

This huge amount of hot liquid got trapped in her lap and crotch area because she couldn't get out of the car and it burned her private parts to such an extent that she had to have skin grafts..."down there".

She had a hospital bill which she had to pay of $10,000 which she couldn't pay. I think some insurance paid part of it. So her daughter thought McDonald's should pay the $10,000 because the coffee was too hot to be served through a window like that.

When they called McDonald's to ask for assistance, McDonald's legal department declined assistance.

This led to consternation and the hiring of an attorney who through discovery in the lawsuit found that there had been other burn incidents, complaints, and demonstrated that contact with this coffee at this temperature would burn the skin severly.

Based on that she was awarded her $10,000; attorney's fees; and $2,000,000 in punitive damages. This was solely up to the jury to decide the amount. They could have said $5,000. They could have said $50,000. The jury decided upon $2,000,000. Punitive damages are part of our legal system that allows victims through their experience to teach the other party a lesson, a financial lesson, to be more careful and more responsible for the protection of customers and the public.

The McDonald's coffee was much too hot to serve through a window to drivers in flimsy cups that buckled causing the lids to pop off and the contents to spill.

All McDonald's had to do the first time there was a burn complaint was turn the temperature setting on their coffee makers down to safe level. They chose not to.

All McDonald's had to do with the lady who were severely burned was help pay her medical expenses of $10,000. They chose not to which turned out to be a $2,000,000 mistake on their part.

A jury based upon the evidence presented decided McDonald's should have turned the temperature down the first time there was a burn complaint and failing to do so was gross negligence resulting in other burn victims including the lady who sued them.

It sounds ridiculous that someone who spilled their coffee on themselves got $2,000,000. But, the coffee was way too hot. In fact, in the months leading up to this, I commented many times that that coffee was "too damn hot".

McDonald's said the reason they kept it at this temperature which they knew was too hot was for truck drivers who would buy the large size and then nurse it for 200 miles. It they served it at a proper temperature, then the coffee might be cold before the driver drank it all.

Balancing the two issues--potential burn victims versus some cold coffee before you drank it all, the prudent business would have turned the temperature down to avoid the potential injury.

The woman didn't ask for $2,000,000. What lawyers do is present a figure that they hope will be large enough to get the attention of the entity so that they learn from the experience and take more precautions in the future but the granting of punitive damages is solely within the perview of the jury.

I was thinking it was a man that it happened to. Could be wrong. I see what you're saying but 2 million dollars is just way too much for PUNITIVE damages. But, if that's what the JURY decided, then that's what they decided. So, there should be a cap on punitive damages because the system has become ABUSED by frivolous lawsuits. I haven't ever bought a cup of coffee at McDonald's AND I do understand if it was in a flimsy cup. But, still, coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm convinced it was McDonald's fault. I can see there were other extenuating cirmcumstances but that shouldn't be McDonald's fault. It seems like SOME of the things that led up to the injuries were just plain accidents.

Sorry you couldn't sleep!

What caused the injury was the temperature of the coffee. You can spill a cup of coffee straight out of a Mr. Coffee and it may burn and you go ouch that's hot but it doesn't require skin grafts. You can spill a coke in your lap and go "ooh, that's cold", but you won't need emergency surgery. I had an entire fresh pot of restaurant coffee spilled on me in a restaurant. The waitress dropped it and the pot fell right in my lap spilled the entire pot of coffee on me and the pot broke on the floor. It was very hot but not hot enough to require emergency surgery. I had to go to the ladies room and put cold water on my legs which were bright red but the skin was not damaged. Liquid hot enough to burn the skin to require skin grafts is not safe, McDonald's knew that but continued with their unsafe practice none the less. This coffee could have spilled on a child and burned them. Food spills and if it's hot you might go ouch, but no food served by public restaurants should be served hot enough to burn clear through your skin.

Evidence from the coffee pot manufacturer showed that they had recommended setting for the coffee and that McDonald's exceeded that by 20 degrees.

Another suit at about this time was Domino's Pizza. They were sued and the jury awarded over $30,000,000 in punitive and actual damages. A driver driving his own car delivering a pizza ran a red light and broad-sided another vehicle. The lady driving the other vehicle was severely injured. Based upon the evidence presented, Domino's was held responsible even though it was not their vehicle and it was the driver's fault, not Domino's, that he chose to run a red light. The attorney for the injured woman through discovery in the lawsuit proved that Domino's 30 minutes or less policy put pressure on the drivers to such an extent that they felt they needed to run red lights to do their job. Domino's has since dispensed with this policy and they now say your pizza will be there in around 30 to 40 minutes.

Well, 20 degrees IS a LOT hotter then. You can rest your case, Madame.