just wondering about liability release

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by BandB

Those are the most annoying. It's like some kind of fender bender that you know 100% was the other guys fault so reported to both insurers and you hear nothing more. Find out later your insurer paid.

Fortunately, I've never been sued, never sued, and not had either done to my insurer. However, I've never been at fault in an accident.

At least it gets you out of jury duty. Really, unfortunately when it is obviously a scam.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Cadence

It's not and should be. It would put a stop to these stupid law suits that only serve the scumbag lawyers and cost the tax payer by overloading the courts and those paying insurance premiums. I think Canadians are smarter the us in the US at times. Wish the weather was better. Then again the lawyer doesn't have to pay the costs of a failed suit.

It's not and it shouldn't be. Should seeking justice carry the risk of financial ruin? How many individuals could pay the legal expenses of a big company if they lose?

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Cadence

At least it gets you out of jury duty. Really, unfortunately when it is obviously a scam.

Well, we've encountered very few ever trying to take advantage. In the business my wife and I own, none so far. Good human resource practices minimize them. The ones I previously encountered were on acquisitions and they had cases that had gone unsettled for 9 years.

We always took an active approach to the injury, making sure anyone got immediate medical care, making sure we communicated with them. Then also, when they could come back to work, even if not doing their regular job, we'd bring them back at their regular pay. If they're really injured, they appreciate that. If not injured, they hate it and get well fast.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

It's not and it shouldn't be. Should seeking justice carry the risk of financial ruin? How many individuals could pay the legal expenses of a big company if they lose?

This is a good point, a great point, even. In cases where there is a legitimate dispute -- both sides legitimately believe they are correct -- I think this is how it should work. It does favor those with deeper pockets, but not horribly so.

And also, there is a mechanism to balance even that. A finding that one party acted in bad faith can allow the judge (in some states, I suppose) to order the other party to pay all legal costs.

I am not a lawyer. I have paid some of them a lot of money, and at least one of them explained it to me this way. It might be all BS.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Big companies get unfair judgments all the time. Do you really think McDonalds should have gotten sued for an old lady dumping her coffee in her lap? The shock that they actually served hot coffee...hot.

Those scumbag lawyers:

McDonalds' Hot Coffee Case - Read the Facts NOT the Fiction

Provided by the Center for Justice & Democracy, New York City

The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;

At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;

McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”

McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.”

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Cadence

At least it gets you out of jury duty.

I don't know for the life of me why that would get me out of jury duty.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

Those scumbag lawyers: McDonalds' Hot Coffee Case - Read the Facts NOT the Fiction ... <snip>

I had read the facts, and I know a lot of people knee-jerk on this. The ruling in the case correctly applied the law to the facts, as best I can tell. But there is simply more to it than the law. Put another way, the law was followed, but I (and many others) think the law is wrong here.

Unless it was her first cup of McDonald's coffee — and the facts in evidence show that it was not — then she knew it was insanely hot and behaved carelessly. The accident was her fault. And as far as I'm concerned, the severity of her injuries should have been excluded from evidence for being highly prejudicial without having any probative value.

But until I get crowned king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat, well, all I can do is vote. Well, vote and complain...

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

I had read the facts, and I know a lot of people knee-jerk on this. The ruling in the case correctly applied the law to the facts, as best I can tell. But there is simply more to it than the law. Put another way, the law was followed, but I (and many others) think the law is wrong here.

Unless it was her first cup of McDonald's coffee — and the facts in evidence show that it was not — then she knew it was insanely hot and behaved carelessly. The accident was her fault. And as far as I'm concerned, the severity of her injuries should have been excluded from evidence for being highly prejudicial without having any probative value.

But until I get crowned king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat, well, all I can do is vote. Well, vote and complain...

A little more about the case, from the 'Lectric Law Library:

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.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by marlin driver

If you are thinking of moonlighting as a lawyer, I recommend you not quit your day job.

Real useful response. If I am wrong, why don't you explain how, and/or why, so that everyone here can benefit? I am certainly willing to be educated, as I'm sure everyone else here is.

If your intent is only to pointlessly flame... Thanks. Got it. I'm just so very impressed.

[zeehag]

it used to be understood that if you screw up on "my" boat same as if i screwed up on your boat, that the screwing up individual took responsibility for his or her actions and was immediately taught how to properly deal with the situation they screwed up./
and then along came tort law and screw thy neighbor mentality.
wow.
and so now ye gotta ask the incoming potential crew what their lawyers name is.
my liability release is individual and verbal if needed.
i donot take with me anyone who has a lawyer or total strangers.
i no longer, for this time frame unknown, sail waters of usa, therefore no need for me retaining a liar. err r lawyer.
none of my friends or associates has a tort law plaintiff mentality.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by zeehag

it used to be understood that if you screw up on "my" boat same as if i screwed up on your boat, that the screwing up individual took responsibility for his or her actions and was immediately taught how to properly deal with the situation they screwed up./
and then along came tort law and screw thy neighbor mentality.
wow.
and so now ye gotta ask the incoming potential crew what their lawyers name is.
my liability release is individual and verbal if needed.
i donot take with me anyone who has a lawyer or total strangers.
i no longer, for this time frame unknown, sail waters of usa, therefore no need for me retaining a liar. err r lawyer.
none of my friends or associates has a tort law plaintiff mentality.

+1. It's a sad culture some of us live in... It's reality (for some), but it's still sad.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by BandB

I don't know for the life of me why that would get me out of jury duty.

If you have been in a similar suit as the jury duty is for. You're exempt if the judge asks and you raise your hand in the jury pool. Especially when asked you express an opinion.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by zeehag

none of my friends or associates has a tort law plaintiff mentality.

Many don't have a plaintiff mentality until they are injured severly enough to be disabled, lose their job and realize they are about to be homeless.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Cadence

If you have been in a similar suit as the jury duty is for. You're exempt if the judge asks and you raise your hand in the jury pool. Especially when asked you express an opinion.

But that comment was in response to this post, so makes no sense.

Those are the most annoying. It's like some kind of fender bender that you know 100% was the other guys fault so reported to both insurers and you hear nothing more. Find out later your insurer paid.

Fortunately, I've never been sued, never sued, and not had either done to my insurer. However, I've never been at fault in an accident.

Now, we are ineligible for jury duty but for other totally unrelated reasons.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by BandB

But that comment was in response to this post, so makes no sense.

Those are the most annoying. It's like some kind of fender bender that you know 100% was the other guys fault so reported to both insurers and you hear nothing more. Find out later your insurer paid.

Fortunately, I've never been sued, never sued, and not had either done to my insurer. However, I've never been at fault in an accident.

Now, we are ineligible for jury duty but for other totally unrelated reasons.

It was in response to your insurance paid. Even though it might not cost you directly, it costs everyone in premiums. The system is broken. The solution, I haven't a clue. I said the ineligibility was if your insurance had paid and you have an opinion on that. It is total drift sorry.