"Ignoramus26072" wrote in message
...
On 2013-05-27, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:40:40 -0500, Ignoramus26072
wrote:

On 2013-05-27, Larry Jaques wrote:
be exposed to if something goes wrong. Say, a bullet ricochets and
kills a kitten a mile away, or whatever. Any comments are welcome.

In this litigious society, I'd be very cautious selling something like
that. Word the ad "Some people use these for rifle targets." and then
put a disclaimer of some sort, maybe? All sorts of crazies sue people
with absolutely no hope of winning, but it can still cost their
victims (tens of?) thousands of dollars to defend against it.


I am not, generally, worrying about being sued by some crazy person
who files a meritless lawsuit. It happens randomly anyway, and I do
have money to defend myself.

What I am concerned about is someone suing me and winning a lawsuit.

That would be enough to keep me from selling it as such. Even
meritless lawsuits are won. Look at the McDonalds coffee fiasco.

http://www.fortworthinjuryattorneybl...McDonalds1.jpg

http://www.burton-law.com/2011/12/my...olous-lawsuit/


"
The truth about the infamous 1994 McDonald's case is quite different from
what you may have heard:

- 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was a passenger seated in a parked car when the
injury occurred. The coffee spilled when she attempted to remove the cup's
lid to add cream and sugar.

- She was wearing cotton sweatpants which absorbed the coffee and held it
against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.

- Liebeck suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser
burns over sixteen percent.

- She suffered very serious third degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and
genitals from the spill; she was hospitalized for eight days, lost 20
pounds, and endured several skin grafts. Two years of medical treatment
followed.

- Liebeck originally sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover
her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500;
her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her
loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately
$18,000. McDonald's offered only $800.

- McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C).
At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to
seven seconds.

- McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its
drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were
commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial
temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

- The company had received more than 700 prior reports of burn injuries,
including third degree burns similar to those Liebeck suffered.

McDonald's was well aware of the extent and nature of this hazard. McDonald's
own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any
food served above 140 degrees; their coffee was kept warm at 185 degrees.

After trial to a jury of twelve citizens, they awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000
in compensatory damages, but reduced it to $160,000 because they found her
20 percent at fault for the spill. The jury also awarded her $2.7 million
in punitive damages, equal to two days of McDonald's coffee sales. This was
eventually reduced to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's
conduct reckless, callous, and willful. Jurors expressed similar sentiments
in interviews after the trial. Ms. Liebeck and McDonald's eventually
reached a confidential post-verdict settlement.

The myths surrounding the McDonald's Coffee case need to be dispelled. HBO
premiered a documentary about the problems with tort reform recently, with
the film titled "Hot Coffee", which premiered on June 27, 2011. The film
also discusses in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often
used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit and referenced in
conjunction with tort reform efforts.

A basic principle of the negligence system is that each of us has an
obligation to protect, not only ourselves, but other people when we can take
reasonable steps to do so. That principle makes both moral and economic
sense.






The judge remittiturred the case, but it still cost them several
hundred thousand dollars for the twit's medical bills.


If you live your life so afraid of such things, you will never make
any money. I buy, and I sell, and I accept a small probability of
lawsuits, something that I am aware of and try to minimize.

If I spent my life paralyzed with fear about meritless lawsuits, I
think that I would not accomplish as much as is possible,

i