http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658/

Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint at
work.



JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

J T wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658/

Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint
at
work.

I think the shareholders should sue the railroad for having
insufficient voltage and thus incurring the expense of a lawsuit which
could have been prevented if the twit had been fried dead on the spot.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J T" wrote in message ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658/

Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint at
work.

A sign??? They paid NO attention to a "No Trespassing", or "Private Property" sign. A shame they wern't removed from the gene pool.....

"J T" wrote in message
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658/

Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint at
work.



Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that decide
these things.

--

-Mike-

Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 10:04pm (Mike*Marlow) doth
sayeth:
Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that
decide these things.

Federal jury. Federal equels gubmint. Way I figure, if they
went to trial, it should have been for criminal tresspass, and to see
how much they'd repay for the medical treatment the received, instead of
getting rewarded. Seems like a typical government thing to me.



JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

On Sep 4, 10:19 am, (J T) wrote:
Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 10:04pm (Mike Marlow) doth
sayeth:
Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that
decide these things.

Federal jury. Federal equels gubmint. Way I figure, if they
went to trial, it should have been for criminal tresspass, and to see
how much they'd repay for the medical treatment the received, instead of
getting rewarded. Seems like a typical government thing to me.

JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

Hey, JOAT, better news here. Two guys broke into the closed down
Radford (Virginia) Arsenal some weeks ago. Clamped onto some copper
wires--very, very thick--with bolt cutters, and snipped. As I recall,
one died right away, the other a bit later. Evidently the 4,000+ volts
was still feeding the wires, even though the place was closed
(padlocked, chainlink fence, huge warning signs, etc.). One might have
survived. I wasn't really interested after some relative spouted to
the newspaper that "he was only trying to support his kids." Ayup.
Now, he isn't. Why he didn't even try to get a job was never explained
(there is plenty of work around here, even for that level of
intelligence).

On Sep 4, 12:53 pm, Charlie Self wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:19 am, (J T) wrote:

Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 10:04pm (Mike Marlow) doth
sayeth:
Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that
decide these things.

Federal jury. Federal equels gubmint. Way I figure, if they
went to trial, it should have been for criminal tresspass, and to see
how much they'd repay for the medical treatment the received, instead of
getting rewarded. Seems like a typical government thing to me.

JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

Hey, JOAT, better news here. Two guys broke into the closed down
Radford (Virginia) Arsenal some weeks ago. Clamped onto some copper
wires--very, very thick--with bolt cutters, and snipped. As I recall,
one died right away, the other a bit later. Evidently the 4,000+ volts
was still feeding the wires, even though the place was closed
(padlocked, chainlink fence, huge warning signs, etc.). One might have
survived. I wasn't really interested after some relative spouted to
the newspaper that "he was only trying to support his kids." Ayup.
Now, he isn't. Why he didn't even try to get a job was never explained
(there is plenty of work around here, even for that level of
intelligence).

Oops. That was Radford Foundry. The arsenal is hitting on all
cylinders right now. These guys, stepson and Dad, cut their way in,
and then ended up with burns on 60% of their bodies. I can't find a
follow up outside of the Roanoke newspaper, which wants $1.95 for the
article, which ****es me off enough so there's not a chance. I paid
for the damned story once. That's enough.

On Sep 4, 10:19 am, (J T) wrote:
Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 10:04pm (Mike Marlow) doth
sayeth:
Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that
decide these things.

Federal jury. Federal equels gubmint. Way I figure, if they
went to trial, it should have been for criminal tresspass, and to see
how much they'd repay for the medical treatment the received, instead of
getting rewarded. Seems like a typical government thing to me.


You can figure all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Mike is
right. The decision was handed down by a jury of peers. In these types
of cases, people get all kinds of upset at the initial splash then
their interest fades as the story progresses. A few years ago, people
flipped out when a woman was award millions of dollars after she was
burned by McDonalds coffee. The final reward was considerably less. In
the end she got 13,000.00 a third of which would have gone to her
attorney.

It is also important to distinguish the suit from criminal charges.
The article didn't mention it but I'm willing to bet the two were
charged with criminal trespassing which is probably a misdemeanor
offense....

On Sep 3, 8:19 pm, (J T) wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658/

Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint at
work.


The reason stories like that get published in the popular
press is precisely because they are unusual. Frequently
details essential to understanding the verdict are omitted,
IMHO often maliciously.

FWIW, my understanding is that a tresspasser may
sue for injuries suffered due to an unsafe condition on
the property if a person legally on the property would
have been subject to the same risk. I'll bet the judge
advised the jury to that effect, though I won't hazard
a guess as to whether or not that was the situation
in this specific case.

At the end of the story we read that one of the plaintiffs,
after recovering, enlisted and is now serving in Afghanistan.
So I'm not inclined to be too critical of his past stupidity
and criminality.

Not relevant to the lawsuit, but I thought just point that
out.

--

FF

In article om,
Charlie Self wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:53 pm, Charlie Self wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:19 am, (J T) wrote:

Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 10:04pm (Mike Marlow) doth
sayeth:
Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that
decide these things.

Federal jury. Federal equels gubmint. Way I figure, if they
went to trial, it should have been for criminal tresspass, and to see
how much they'd repay for the medical treatment the received, instead of
getting rewarded. Seems like a typical government thing to me.

JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

Hey, JOAT, better news here. Two guys broke into the closed down
Radford (Virginia) Arsenal some weeks ago. Clamped onto some copper
wires--very, very thick--with bolt cutters, and snipped. As I recall,
one died right away, the other a bit later. Evidently the 4,000+ volts
was still feeding the wires, even though the place was closed
(padlocked, chainlink fence, huge warning signs, etc.). One might have
survived. I wasn't really interested after some relative spouted to
the newspaper that "he was only trying to support his kids." Ayup.
Now, he isn't. Why he didn't even try to get a job was never explained
(there is plenty of work around here, even for that level of
intelligence).

Oops. That was Radford Foundry. The arsenal is hitting on all
cylinders right now. These guys, stepson and Dad, cut their way in,
and then ended up with burns on 60% of their bodies. I can't find a
follow up outside of the Roanoke newspaper, which wants $1.95 for the
article, which ****es me off enough so there's not a chance. I paid
for the damned story once. That's enough.


links:
http://www.radford.va.us/News/Radford%20Foundry%20Electrocution%20-%20UPDATE2.pdf
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/124561

Google "Radford Foundry" accident (INCLUDE the quotes as shown)
and there are a bunch more hits,

Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 4:53pm (EDT+4) (Charlie*Self)
doth posteth:
Hey, JOAT, better news here. snip

I think that was very courteous of them - saving taxpaper money on
a trial that is.



JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 11:49am (EDT-3) (Jeff) doth
sayeth:
You can figure all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Mike is
right. The decision was handed down by a jury of peers. snip
A few years ago, people flipped out when a woman was award millions of
dollars after she was burned by McDonalds coffee. The final reward was
considerably less. In the end she got 13,000.00 snip

A jury of ignorant petty thieves, eh?

Yeah, I recall. Any way you figure, she got a reward for bing
stupid. Ask for hot coffee, then sue when she does something stupid,
and the coffe turns out to be hot.



JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 1:11pm (EDT-3)
(Fred*the*Red*Shirt) doth sayeth:
snip FWIW, my understanding is that a tresspasser may sue for injuries
suffered due to an unsafe condition on the property if a person legally
on the property would have been subject to the same risk. snip

Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm
concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the
same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property
legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).



JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

"J T" wrote in message

Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm
concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the
same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property
legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).

You're logic is way too logical ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/8/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 4, 7:02 pm, (J T) wrote:
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 11:49am (EDT-3) (Jeff) doth
sayeth:
You can figure all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Mike is
right. The decision was handed down by a jury of peers. snip
A few years ago, people flipped out when a woman was award millions of
dollars after she was burned by McDonalds coffee. The final reward was
considerably less. In the end she got 13,000.00 snip

A jury of ignorant petty thieves, eh?

Yeah, I recall. Any way you figure, she got a reward for bing
stupid.

Not the way I figure it.

Unless you figure third degree burns and a medical bill in excess
of $50,000 is a reward.

Ask for hot coffee, then sue when she does something stupid,
and the coffe turns out to be hot.


Hot is not a binary condition.

--

FF

On Sep 4, 7:13 pm, (J T) wrote:
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 1:11pm (EDT-3)
(Fred the Red Shirt) doth sayeth:
snip FWIW, my understanding is that a tresspasser may sue for injuries
suffered due to an unsafe condition on the property if a person legally
on the property would have been subject to the same risk. snip

Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm
concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the
same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property
legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).

It sounds like you are presuming the property owner would
appraise the individual of any hazards. In general it is entirely
possible for people to legally be on the property without the
knowledge of the property owner. Obvious examples include
police and firemen.

A city used a similar argument when a drunk sued after falling
down an open manhole. In his ruling the judge observed that
"An inebriated man has as much a right to a safe street on
which to walk as a sober man, and far greater need."

--

FF

On Sep 4, 7:41 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"J T" wrote in message

Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm
concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the
same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property
legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).

You're logic is way too logical ...


A good and sometimes logical discussion may be had by posting
to misc.legal.moderated.

--

FF

Allen Roy wrote:
: Go to http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html You can read the story there.



And here, with some pictures of what a burn like this can be like:


http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html




http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm



I continue to be amazed at how easily people come to the conclusion
that this was a frivolous lawsuit. It's like people enjoy McD's
hamburgers, and can't wait to defend them against some whiny old
lady who asked to have her medical costs covered (see last link).



-- Andy Barss

Andrew Barss wrote:
Allen Roy wrote:
Go to http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html You can read the
story there.



And here, with some pictures of what a burn like this can be like:


http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html




http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm



I continue to be amazed at how easily people come to the conclusion
that this was a frivolous lawsuit. It's like people enjoy McD's
hamburgers, and can't wait to defend them against some whiny old
lady who asked to have her medical costs covered (see last link).

Oh, Christ, not this crap again. If it's below 200F coming out of the
filter then it's not being properly prepared according every expert on
the making of coffee that I've ever talked to and according to
American National Standards Institute published standards. McD did
what they were supposed to do and the Stupid Old Bat screwed the pooch
and the fact that a smart lawyer managed to bamboozle a jury into
agreeing with him doesn't change that.

And don't tell me about the "survey of local establishments". Just
because everybody else is serving lukewarm dog **** and calling it
"coffee" doesn't mean that that's the right way to do it and doesn't
mean that any outfit that follows the standards is doing wrong.

And don't tell me that Starbucks serves it cooler unless you're
talking about their drip coffee and straight espresso and not all the
fancy crap that is mostly 160F milk froth.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:13 pm, (J T) wrote:

Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 1:11pm (EDT-3)
(Fred the Red Shirt) doth sayeth:
snip FWIW, my understanding is that a tresspasser may sue for injuries
suffered due to an unsafe condition on the property if a person legally
on the property would have been subject to the same risk. snip

Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm
concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the
same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property
legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).


It sounds like you are presuming the property owner would
appraise the individual of any hazards. In general it is entirely
possible for people to legally be on the property without the
knowledge of the property owner. Obvious examples include
police and firemen.

A city used a similar argument when a drunk sued after falling
down an open manhole. In his ruling the judge observed that
"An inebriated man has as much a right to a safe street on
which to walk as a sober man, and far greater need."


The duty a landowner owes varies from state to state. In most state the duty is
greater to an invitee than it is to a licensee, than it is to a trespasser. And
the duty also varies depending how obvious the danger is. Without knowing what
state you're in, the status of the person on the property, and the particular
danger to that person, it's impossible to say if the landowner owes a duty.

Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 9:16pm (EDT-3)
(Fred*the*Red*Shirt) posted this along with some other stuff.
A good and sometimes logical discussion may be had by posting to
misc.legal.moderated.

You sound like a lawyer.

A few weeks ago I burnt my hand with some hot coffee I had bought
at a fast food joint. My mistake, not the minimum wage drone. Much
pain, much redness, past 1st degree burn. Did I think sue? No, not
lately. I put my hand under the cold water for awhile. Then again.
And again. Pain finally subsided. Hand was bright red for over a week,
before starting to gradually fade in color. Then started to peel.
Would this have required $50,000 in medical costs? No. Should I have
tried suing? No, not in my world, I don't think I deserve money for
doing something like that. However, if it 'had' been someone from the
fast food joint at fault, the most I would have requested would have
been the actual medical cost. My son had surgery on an infected foot;
surgery, hospital time, intravenous medication, the whole shot, came to
around $25,000. $50,000 medical cost for a cup of coffee burn seems
excessive - but then, I'm not a soliciter.



JOAT
What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new
humiliations?
- Peter Egan

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:07:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:02 pm, (J T) wrote:
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 11:49am (EDT-3) (Jeff) doth
sayeth:
You can figure all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Mike is
right. The decision was handed down by a jury of peers. snip
A few years ago, people flipped out when a woman was award millions of
dollars after she was burned by McDonalds coffee. The final reward was
considerably less. In the end she got 13,000.00 snip

A jury of ignorant petty thieves, eh?

Yeah, I recall. Any way you figure, she got a reward for bing
stupid.

Not the way I figure it.

Unless you figure third degree burns and a medical bill in excess
of $50,000 is a reward.

Ask for hot coffee, then sue when she does something stupid,
and the coffe turns out to be hot.


Hot is not a binary condition.

It's a REWARD for being stupid! Why should the world pay for other
peoples stupidity!

Break the law, get burned, TOUGH! Take the consequences!

Just like New Orleans, the nation is going to pay again and again for
people that live below sea level to get a free pass when reason says
move to higher ground!! DUH pay the relocation once!
In the rest of the country people can't get a building permit or
mortgage money for property in the "100 year flood plane".

J T wrote:
$50,000 medical cost for a cup of coffee burn seems
excessive - but then, I'm not a soliciter.


Although I am in agreement that such awards make but little sense, it
wasn't her foot or hand that got burned.

Where something is wholly or even just substantially my fault, I 'take
the hit'. Maybe I am out of step with this world ... but I really do
think that this is the right thing to do.

Stella could tell from her fingers that the coffee was hot. Coffee, by
its very nature, is normally served hot. Stella chose to put it between
her legs ... the serf in the window did not put the coffee there. Then
Stella, and no one else, spilled the stuff.

As a juror ... well, it's a good thing for Stella that I was not on that
jury.

In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the sea.
There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over the edge
because they stood too close to it.

There has got to be some "Peter Principle" at work here. Something along
the lines of morons being able to harm themselves no matter how clearly
hazards are marked.

The thing is 800 feet in the air ... that's marking enough!
Coffee, even at 160 degrees, is hot. That's warning enough.

Bill

If this is in reference to the "3rd degree burns from the McDonalds' coffee"
story, that particular story has been discredited for years now. Not only
did no one receive any money, it is virtually impossible to receive 3rd
degree burns, which means burns through the full epidermal layers of the
skin resulting in charred flesh, from even scalding hot liquid.

John E.

"BillinDetroit" wrote in message
...
J T wrote:
$50,000 medical cost for a cup of coffee burn seems
excessive - but then, I'm not a soliciter.


Although I am in agreement that such awards make but little sense, it
wasn't her foot or hand that got burned.

Where something is wholly or even just substantially my fault, I 'take
the hit'. Maybe I am out of step with this world ... but I really do
think that this is the right thing to do.

Stella could tell from her fingers that the coffee was hot. Coffee, by
its very nature, is normally served hot. Stella chose to put it between
her legs ... the serf in the window did not put the coffee there. Then
Stella, and no one else, spilled the stuff.

As a juror ... well, it's a good thing for Stella that I was not on that
jury.

In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the sea.
There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over the edge
because they stood too close to it.

There has got to be some "Peter Principle" at work here. Something along
the lines of morons being able to harm themselves no matter how clearly
hazards are marked.

The thing is 800 feet in the air ... that's marking enough!
Coffee, even at 160 degrees, is hot. That's warning enough.

Bill

"BillinDetroit" wrote in message

In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the sea.
There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over the edge
because they stood too close to it.

Just nature's way of insuring they won't pass on the stupid gene.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/08/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"John E." wrote in message
...
If this is in reference to the "3rd degree burns from the McDonalds' coffee"
story, that particular story has been discredited for years now. Not only
did no one receive any money, it is virtually impossible to receive 3rd
degree burns, which means burns through the full epidermal layers of the
skin resulting in charred flesh, from even scalding hot liquid.

Are you claming that this story is an urban myth? If so then a quick google search
shows quite a few articles that indicate that the lawsuit was real.


For instance here are a couple of references to the lawsuit in the NY Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629582 60

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...%20Corporation


Here are a few commentaries on the lawsuit:

http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/...offeecase.aspx

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla_liebe.html

John E. wrote:
If this is in reference to the "3rd degree burns from the McDonalds'
coffee" story, that particular story has been discredited for years
now. Not only did no one receive any money, it is virtually
impossible to receive 3rd degree burns, which means burns through
the
full epidermal layers of the skin resulting in charred flesh, from
even scalding hot liquid.

Discredited? Google "Stella Liebeck".

If you know with certainty that "no one received any money" then you
must be privy to information which is bound by a nondisclosure
agreement. The only thing that is known with certainty by anybody
other than Stella, McDonalds, the lawyers, the judge, the bank, and
the IRS is that there was a settlement for something less than
$680,000.

While it may be "virtually impossible to receive third degree burns .
.. . from scalding hot liquid", according to the testimony of the
surgeon who performed the repairs on her, Stella Liebeck did in fact
somehow manage it. Now it may be that he was mistaken on that point,
however McDonalds' lawyers appear to have been unable to prove it in
court.

I don't know where you get the idea that "that story has been
discredited". It isn't something that somebody made up, it's a matter
of public record. If you call the Albuquerque courthouse they'll
probably be willing to sell you a copy of the transcript.

The only real point of contention is whether the temperature at which
the coffee was served was in fact excessive. According to published
standards and the opinion of numerous coffee experts (none of whom
appear to have been brought into the trial) it was not, but according
to a survey of establishments near the one in which the coffee was
purchased it was in excess of what a "reasonable man" would expect.



John E.

"BillinDetroit" wrote in message
...
J T wrote:
$50,000 medical cost for a cup of coffee burn seems
excessive - but then, I'm not a soliciter.


Although I am in agreement that such awards make but little sense,
it
wasn't her foot or hand that got burned.

Where something is wholly or even just substantially my fault, I
'take the hit'. Maybe I am out of step with this world ... but I
really do think that this is the right thing to do.

Stella could tell from her fingers that the coffee was hot. Coffee,
by its very nature, is normally served hot. Stella chose to put it
between her legs ... the serf in the window did not put the coffee
there. Then Stella, and no one else, spilled the stuff.

As a juror ... well, it's a good thing for Stella that I was not on
that jury.

In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the
sea. There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over
the
edge because they stood too close to it.

There has got to be some "Peter Principle" at work here. Something
along the lines of morons being able to harm themselves no matter
how clearly hazards are marked.

The thing is 800 feet in the air ... that's marking enough!
Coffee, even at 160 degrees, is hot. That's warning enough.

Bill

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

mea culpa....

A lawyer friend told me that that story was an urban myth, apparently he
should have done more research, as I should have.

I still find it hard to believe that coffee can cause full thickness burns
unless it was literally boiling and being poured continuously onto the
victims skin. Even being held against the skin by the clothing, it seems
very unlikely that a hot liquid could burn thru the epidermal layers of the
skin. Blisters, yeah, burned through? I don't think so.

Whatever the terms of the "secret" agreement between the woman and McDonalds
were, she didn't get rich suing them.

John E.


"Dan Coby" wrote in message
...
"John E." wrote in message
...
If this is in reference to the "3rd degree burns from the McDonalds'
coffee"
story, that particular story has been discredited for years now. Not
only
did no one receive any money, it is virtually impossible to receive 3rd
degree burns, which means burns through the full epidermal layers of the
skin resulting in charred flesh, from even scalding hot liquid.

Are you claming that this story is an urban myth? If so then a quick
google search
shows quite a few articles that indicate that the lawsuit was real.


For instance here are a couple of references to the lawsuit in the NY
Times:


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...AA2575BC0A9629
58260


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A25753C1A9629
58260&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fMcDona ld%27s%20Corporation


Here are a few commentaries on the lawsuit:

http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/...offeecase.aspx

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla_liebe.html

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"BillinDetroit" wrote in message

In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the sea.
There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over the edge
because they stood too close to it.

Just nature's way of insuring they won't pass on the stupid gene.

No kidding. If those cliffs were in North America and was prone to be hit
by hurricanes we would see new TV reporters every few years.

Here ya go, If your interested here is a link
to the facts of the case. I am not sure why
someone would attempt to sound demeaning instead
of just posting a link to the facts. I am however
not the demeaning kind of guy so I will post the
link for you.
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?eve...wPage&pg=facts
Puff

"John E." wrote in
message
...
mea culpa....

A lawyer friend told me that that story was an
urban myth, apparently he
should have done more research, as I should
have.

I still find it hard to believe that coffee can
cause full thickness burns
unless it was literally boiling and being poured
continuously onto the
victims skin. Even being held against the skin
by the clothing, it seems
very unlikely that a hot liquid could burn thru
the epidermal layers of the
skin. Blisters, yeah, burned through? I don't
think so.

Whatever the terms of the "secret" agreement
between the woman and McDonalds
were, she didn't get rich suing them.

John E.


"Dan Coby" wrote in
message
...
"John E." wrote in
message
...
If this is in reference to the "3rd degree
burns from the McDonalds'
coffee"
story, that particular story has been
discredited for years now. Not
only
did no one receive any money, it is virtually
impossible to receive 3rd
degree burns, which means burns through the
full epidermal layers of the
skin resulting in charred flesh, from even
scalding hot liquid.

Are you claming that this story is an urban
myth? If so then a quick
google search
shows quite a few articles that indicate that
the lawsuit was real.


For instance here are a couple of references to
the lawsuit in the NY
Times:


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...AA2575BC0A9629
58260


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A25753C1A9629
58260&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fMcDona ld%27s%20Corporation


Here are a few commentaries on the lawsuit:

http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/...offeecase.aspx

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla_liebe.html

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"BillinDetroit" wrote in message

In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the sea.
There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over the edge
because they stood too close to it.

Just nature's way of insuring they won't pass on the stupid gene.

No kidding. If those cliffs were in North America and was prone to be hit
by hurricanes we would see new TV reporters every few years.

If there is a herd anywhere that cries out for a good thinning, it would be
TV reporters.