On 28 Oct, 19:27, T i m wrote:


The frightening thing is it's true though. Even insurance Co's paying
out simply bogus claims because it will be cheaper, not because it's
the morally correct thing to do. This includes it seems paying those
who are stupid enough to drive whilst holding a cup of coffee between
their legs the suing because they get scalded (or whatever).

You do have to be careful not to fall into the Daily Mail trap,
though. Just to take the coffee example, it is hugely blown out of
context.

Had I been sitting in that jury, I think my sympathies would have gone
against McDonalds. They could easily, having decided that they wanted
to store at scalding temps, not to serve drive-by customers. Maybe I
would have upped the 20% contribitory negligence, but I'm not sure.

http://www.dsinjurylaw.com/knowledge...7s+Coffee+Myth