In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 30 Nov 2019 20:49:09 -0500, Hawk
wrote:

On 11/30/2019 1:03 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 11/30/2019 09:44 AM, Hawk wrote:
On 11/30/2019 10:50 AM, Frank wrote:
On 11/30/2019 10:26 AM, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 11/30/2019 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/29/2019 11:57 PM, micky wrote:


Please face forward and hold the handrail


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50606015

similar:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ourt-1.4908212




I won't use an escalator any more.* Power went out once and I got
stuck on one for over an hour.* Terrible experience.


You should hire one of those lawyers who advertise on late night TV.
A few million might ease your trauma.


Hire the one suing McDonalds for the guy complaining about them
cooking their veggie burgers on the same grill they use for those made
with meat.

Or the one who helped the lady sue McDonald cause she spilled hot coffee
on her lap and burned herself.

If you dig into that it's not as stupid as it sounds. The old lady
boiled her snatch, spent 8 days in the hospital, had skin grafts, and
was in rehab for a long time. She asked for $20,000 to cover the medical
expenses and McDonald's offered $800. Then it was off to the races.

I disagree. It sucks for the woman, but if people don't have the common
sense about hot beverages, it's not the fault of anyone else.

It was McDonalds's fault You probably dont' know all the facts. No
quotation marks for the quotes below:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stella-liebeck
basically everything people think they know about the McDonald’s hot
coffee lawsuit is false.

In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700
reports of people burning themselves. McDonald’s admitted that its
coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the
practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its
coffee to near-boiling point.

Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay
her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered
$800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994.

After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling
of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more
than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company
a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began
changing how it heats up its coffee.

So how did the public’s view of this case get so warped? According to
Conover, lawyers spent years running a disinformation campaign, which
much of the media bought into, holding up the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit
as an example of a supposed epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

https://segarlaw.com/blog/myths-and-...t-coffee-case/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebec...7s_Restaurants
Liebeck 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
daughter's[15] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of
approximately $18,000.[18] Instead, the company offered only $800.



Some of the frivolous suits start when a large corporation stonewalls.
They have a flock of corporate lawyers sitting around picking their
noses so it doesn't cost them much to bulldoze John Q.

If they settle due to the fault of the user, then when does it stop?

Doesn't apply here


John Q 1 through 1000 will also sue because they can get a settlement.
The systems is already effed because the courts allow stupidity as
legitimate.