Copyright gone crazy

[Stonelesscutter]

Is it just me or are most Apple users almost like a cult?

Are you worried they'll be planning on a mass suicide now that Jobs is gone?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Are you worried they'll be planning on a mass suicide now that Jobs is gone?

Did you really mean worried or did you mean hoping?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Did you really mean worried or did you mean hoping?

Ah. So you're hoping they'll do it so you can collect all them Apple toys. I'm on to you mister!

 

[Bluce Ree]

Ah. So you're hoping they'll do it so you can collect all them Apple toys. I'm on to you mister!

 

[Inara]

I fault her for her decision to put it between her legs. She did it to drink it while driving that is how she got burnt on her thighs. If she had put it in a cup holder, she would not have been burnt.

She wasn't driving. She was in the passenger seat and the vehicle was not in motion. She was trying to get the lid off to put in cream and sugar. She probably would have had it in the cup holder if she hadn't been actively trying to remove the lid. I know in my car, two of my cup holders (out of three) in the front, would be very difficult to leave a drink in and remove the lid without the potential for spilling it on your leg. I speak from experience in a non-moving car as well, but thankfully it was iced tea.

Smart idea to put it between her knees? No. But a more reasonable temperature along the lines of other restaurants would have potentially reduced her injury from days in the hospital to days of discomfort at home. Both sides share some blame in the case, which is why the judgment had been reduced anyway, but we'll never know the real outcome, because there was a secret settlement after the case.

 

[Graybrew1]

She wasn't driving. She was in the passenger seat and the vehicle was not in motion. She was trying to get the lid off to put in cream and sugar. She probably would have had it in the cup holder if she hadn't been actively trying to remove the lid. I know in my car, two of my cup holders (out of three) in the front, would be very difficult to leave a drink in and remove the lid without the potential for spilling it on your leg. I speak from experience in a non-moving car as well, but thankfully it was iced tea.

Smart idea to put it between her knees? No. But a more reasonable temperature along the lines of other restaurants would have potentially reduced her injury from days in the hospital to days of discomfort at home. Both sides share some blame in the case, which is why the judgment had been reduced anyway, but we'll never know the real outcome, because there was a secret settlement after the case.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. You are not supposed to put it between your legs in a car. You are also not supposed to pour it over you head either. If you do you will get burned. She should have lost the case.

Mickey D's had hot coffee. I worked in many a restuarant and Mickey D's when younger. That is how most coffee is kept. And Hot Cocoa and Hot soup and Hot Chili. When hot foods and drinks are prepared in mass quantities they need to be hot for the consumer's to have it hot when they get it and to prevent the bacteria as Rac noted. Cold is cold and Hot is hot. Should we start forcing them to keep temps on everything? What is this magic number that is allowable for all "hot" food and drinks?

Sharp knives will cut you. Hot liquids will burn you. Where does it stop?

How about a bit of common sense?

Once again this lawsuit was the beginning of nuisance lawsuits in the US. We live with those reprecussions to this day. I am glad they cut back the judgement, but as I said the damage was already done.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Coffee is supposed to be hot. You are not supposed to put it between your legs in a car. You are also not supposed to pour it over you head either. If you do you will get burned. She should have lost the case.

Mickey D's had hot coffee. I worked in many a restuarant and Mickey D's when younger. That is how most coffee is kept. And Hot Cocoa and Hot soup and Hot Chili. When hot foods and drinks are prepared in mass quantities they need to be hot for the consumer's to have it hot when they get it and to prevent the bacteria as Rac noted. Cold is cold and Hot is hot. Should we start forcing them to keep temps on everything? What is this magic number that is allowable for all "hot" food and drinks?

Sharp knives will cut you. Hot liquids will burn you. Where does it stop?

How about a bit of common sense?

Once again this lawsuit was the beginning of nuisance lawsuits in the US. We live with those reprecussions to this day. I am glad they cut back the judgement, but as I said the damage was already done.

In Quebec, they've instituted a law that gives judges the ability to fine the plaintiff for frivolous law suits in addition to throwing the case out of court and the fine is pretty steep. It's new so I don't know if it's been tested yet. The US can use something like that.

 

[Joelist]

Some US states have started to (against a lot of opposition from Trial Lawyer lobbying groups) enact common sense Tort Reform. Examples include allowing courts to sanction plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits, enacting the "loser pays winner's court costs" rule and in some cases limiting punitive damages (compensatory damages are not limited). The effect has been good where it has been enacted.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Some US states have started to (against a lot of opposition from Trial Lawyer lobbying groups) enact common sense Tort Reform. Examples include allowing courts to sanction plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits, enacting the "loser pays winner's court costs" rule and in some cases limiting punitive damages (compensatory damages are not limited). The effect has been good where it has been enacted.

I'll have to confirm this but I think the fine is imposed on the plaintiff's attorney, which makes sense since it is the attorney who advises the client on whether to proceed with a suit.

 

[Rac80]

Some US states have started to (against a lot of opposition from Trial Lawyer lobbying groups) enact common sense Tort Reform. Examples include allowing courts to sanction plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits, enacting the "loser pays winner's court costs" rule and in some cases limiting punitive damages (compensatory damages are not limited). The effect has been good where it has been enacted.

Indiana has instituted tort reform which has infuriated the Trial Lawyer's Association- the main effects are limiting liability (a death is covered at 1 million dollars- other punative damages may be awarded as well) and limiting what a lawyer can get paid...many lawyers do a percentage of the award...30 to 60% ion some cases. indiana limits it to 15% up to $100K. no matter what the award, the highest a lawyer (or firm) can get is $100K.

I'll have to confirm this but I think the fine is imposed on the plaintiff's attorney, which makes sense since it is the attorney who advises the client on whether to proceed with a suit.

in Indiana and several other states, law firms which institute too many nuisance suits will get a huge fine! needless to say Indiana is not the best place to file a lawsuit. This has also affected medical malpractice in this state....we have very good doctors and few leaving our state for other places. Even the rural areas of Indiana are well served because of the limits on liability.

 

[Bluce Ree]

[...]

in Indiana and several other states, law firms which institute too many nuisance suits will get a huge fine! needless to say Indiana is not the best place to file a lawsuit. This has also affected medical malpractice in this state....we have very good doctors and few leaving our state for other places. Even the rural areas of Indiana are well served because of the limits on liability.

Reading that gives me a little optimism in the USA's ability to grow up. I hope that mentality spreads.

 

[Overmind One]

Reading that gives me a little optimism in the USA's ability to grow up. I hope that mentality spreads.

I agree. Not long ago, say 20 years, the "elite" fields were Doctor/Lawyer. That was because those two fields paid the most money and the ceilings were open. Now, with HMOs and Universal Healthcare, it is much less appealing. In the 1940s and 1950s (before my time), Teachers (Educators) were considered amongst the elite, along with Doctors and Lawyers and Architects (architects?). Now in the 21st century, IT geeks, corporate sales and small business owners are the elites. All money driven parameters....

Lawyers are scum when they are filing just to make a buck. I think that politicians should not be able to make more than a certain amount as well.

 

[Bluce Ree]

I agree. Not long ago, say 20 years, the "elite" fields were Doctor/Lawyer. That was because those two fields paid the most money and the ceilings were open. Now, with HMOs and Universal Healthcare, it is much less appealing. In the 1940s and 1950s (before my time), Teachers (Educators) were considered amongst the elite, along with Doctors and Lawyers and Architects (architects?). Now in the 21st century, IT geeks, corporate sales and small business owners are the elites. All money driven parameters....

Lawyers are scum when they are filing just to make a buck. I think that politicians should not be able to make more than a certain amount as well.

Our beloved politicians. The set salaries on the books seem modest yet, somehow, they're nearly all millionaires.

 

[Inara]

Cold is cold and Hot is hot.

So ice and cold water are equally cold? Hot bread is the same temperature as the pan it's baked in? There is, pardon the pun, a huge degree of difference. That's the issue at the heart of the case.

Should we start forcing them to keep temps on everything? What is this magic number that is allowable for all "hot" food and drinks?

That's usually the health department's job. Most restaurants have temp ranges for various food and drinks, either set by the health department or their own guidelines based on those. Whether or not they stay within those ranges could literally mean life or death due to foodborne illness. In this case, the coffee was at a much higher temperature than required, and caused more damage than coffee in the normal range would have caused. From what I understand of the case, they reduced the temp back into the range other restaurants used after this incident.

Once again this lawsuit was the beginning of nuisance lawsuits in the US. We live with those reprecussions to this day. I am glad they cut back the judgement, but as I said the damage was already done.

I get that this lawsuit was the beginning, but it wasn't necessarily that the case was completely without merit, it was the media spin on it that allowed others to think they could get a golden ticket without realizing there was a lot more to it than simply spilling hot coffee and get tons of money. It was about burns that wouldn't have happened with "normal" temp coffee, and I really don't see a problem with taking McDonald's to court if it was believed they acted with gross negligence, even if it was unknowingly. It's up to the court to decide.

I've been on the bad side of a case before at previous employer, so I have an inkling how bad it can get. I don't think we should prevent people from trying to sue, otherwise corporations would own the country more than they already do, but rules to kick out obviously frivolous suits are fine. I don't mind caps on what people can get out of it either.

 

[Graybrew1]

So ice and cold water are equally cold? Hot bread is the same temperature as the pan it's baked in? There is, pardon the pun, a huge degree of difference. That's the issue at the heart of the case.



That's usually the health department's job. Most restaurants have temp ranges for various food and drinks, either set by the health department or their own guidelines based on those. Whether or not they stay within those ranges could literally mean life or death due to foodborne illness. In this case, the coffee was at a much higher temperature than required, and caused more damage than coffee in the normal range would have caused. From what I understand of the case, they reduced the temp back into the range other restaurants used after this incident.



I get that this lawsuit was the beginning, but it wasn't necessarily that the case was completely without merit, it was the media spin on it that allowed others to think they could get a golden ticket without realizing there was a lot more to it than simply spilling hot coffee and get tons of money. It was about burns that wouldn't have happened with "normal" temp coffee, and I really don't see a problem with taking McDonald's to court if it was believed they acted with gross negligence, even if it was unknowingly. It's up to the court to decide.

I've been on the bad side of a case before at previous employer, so I have an inkling how bad it can get. I don't think we should prevent people from trying to sue, otherwise corporations would own the country more than they already do, but rules to kick out obviously frivolous suits are fine. I don't mind caps on what people can get out of it either.

Okay, well you will NEVER convince me of that this case had merit. I will obviously never convince you it did not. Most other Americans agree with me on this case. The fact that people feel that way is just total facepalm for me. But I will agree to disagree and drop it.

 

[Overmind One]

Okay, well you will NEVER convince me of that this case had merit. I will obviously never convince you it did not. Most other Americans agree with me on this case. The fact that people feel that way is just total facepalm for me. But I will agree to disagree and drop it.

Im on your side. The stupid $%#^ should not have put it between her legs. Did she think it was her boyfriend? Legs are not a cup holder, and the gross negligence was the woman's. not McDonalds. Good thing Starbucks has very few drive thru stores. The ones that ARE drive thru will give you a holder with the cups already snugly place within them. The Barista will ALWAYS give the warning "the coffee is very hot". In that sense, McDonald's is negligent, and I cant recall the last time anyone I know got their food in a carrier like they used to.

TBH, McDonald's should be sued for contributing so much to the obesity of America and peddling processed sugars and carbs.

 

[Overmind One]

Our beloved politicians. The set salaries on the books seem modest yet, somehow, they're nearly all millionaires.

Yep. Many of them make MORE in their public appearances than they do as a politician. There should be a tax for that, especially when that revenue is DIRECTLY related to the office they hold. Furthermore, those visits should be APPROVED by the state legislature before they can be made. Take away the financial incentive and then we dont have greedy businessmen trying to get into the White House. Citizens should be able to sue the state when damages occur with regard to losing civil rights or being unfairly represented.

 

[mzzz]

I say McDonalds countersues her for being an idiot and wasting their time.

 

[Overmind One]

i say mcdonalds countersues her for being an idiot and wasting their time.

hear hear!

 

[Illiterati]

Yep. Many of them make MORE in their public appearances than they do as a politician. There should be a tax for that, especially when that revenue is DIRECTLY related to the office they hold. Furthermore, those visits should be APPROVED by the state legislature before they can be made. Take away the financial incentive and then we dont have greedy businessmen trying to get into the White House. Citizens should be able to sue the state when damages occur with regard to losing civil rights or being unfairly represented.

Hell, there are so many politicians out there who want to put a cap on how long people can receive welfare...they seem to like a figure of about five years.

How about we put a five year cap on how long a former politician can receive his pension and benefits? Say...five years?