Jury Idiocy Comes to Montana

[MoeFoes]

Let me guess??
The uniforms wont let the body maintain the correct temp?
Or with a bat that light could cause injury to the elbow?
Or the pitcher stands a chance of getting their finger caught in the little wiffle hole?

[Joe]

Take the high tech bats away, go back to wood bats ....

But...but, then we'd have to kill all those trees???

[GIMNEPIWO]

Hey Sam,
I think I found exactly what your talking about.....

How about a big rubber bat instead?

[Joe]

How lucky for that family that they got the same jury that awarded that lady tons of $$$

because McDonalds failed to put a notice that their coffee is hot..!!!

The McDonald's case, despite being the poster child for over-litigiousness and runaway juries, was actually correctly decided.

McDonald's served its coffee at extremely hot temperatures, and it did so to reduce the number of refills that would be requested. Most people would leave the store before finishing (or even beginning) a single cup. McDonald's knew that people were being seriously burned by their coffee, but elected to continue to serve it excessively hot in order to increase profits. To compensate, they used lids that were very difficult to take off. The problem was that, when you did try to take the lid off (like the lady did in order to add cream), the cup would jerk violently, causing spills. The woman had no reason to expect that the coffee would be THAT hot, or that taking the lid off would lead to serious spillage.

It was not necessary for McDonald's to serve its coffee that hot. The decision was purely profit driven, and had nothing to do with the marketability of the product. As such, this is precisely the type of case for which punitive damages were conceived. When a company knowingly creates a dangerous situation in order to make extra money, a jury may take that money away (and then some) to discourage other businesses from making the same type of calculated decision.

I don't know about this one Skarp. I'm pretty sure the end user is the problem here. Any spaz who's driving and trying to remove the lid off their coffee probably deserves a few singed pubic hairs.

[sftball1]

I'm on the fence on this issue too as I see valid reasons for both sides. However, with that said, I agree that more pitchers need to be taught how to defend themselves. When my dd started pitching, her dad did the same thing, took her out and started hitting tennis balls back at her and made her learn to react. Is she going to be able to stop every ball? No and of course there's always the risk of being hit for whatever reason. My heart aches for these parents because I can't imagine the anguish of losing a child. And who's to say they didn't go through defensive drills with him? But there's always the chance of an accident, and this was a very tragic accident. But I have also seen the pitcher that I cringe every time she makes a pitch because she's off balance, standing up there with her glove down, etc and it just makes her a sitting duck. I always want to go shake her parents and say, ARE YOU CRAZY?? Either teach her some defensive drills or get her off the mound!!

[Seven's Mom]

It is tragic that this family lost their child. That being said, softbal1 makes a very good point. When our dd started to learn to pitch, we worked and worked her defensive skills. If something comes back at he she instinctively stops it. Many of the pitchers at her age (14U) appear to have very good reflexes and good defensive skills. As parents, we have to know that we are taking a risk by having our child play a sport. We just prepare them as best we can, use whatever protection we can (mask?), and pray for the best. Unless the equipment was defective or the umpire allowed an illegal bat, there's no one to blame unless we look to the parents for not adequately protecting their child with available safety equipment or ensuring he had the skills to defend his position.

[Skarp]

I don't know about this one Skarp. I'm pretty sure the end user is the problem here. Any spaz who's driving and trying to remove the lid off their coffee probably deserves a few singed pubic hairs.

Singed pubes are a far cry from 3rd degee burns. And she wasn't driving...they were parked.

The burns she suffered had two causes: her carelessness and the ridiculously hot coffee. But there are several reasons why McDonald's should bear the lion's share of culpability. First, the coffee was served much hotter than coffee elsewhere is typically served, and thus the woman was likely not as careful as she would have been had she known the real danger. Second, the coffee was served far too hot for its intended purpose...namely, drinking. It was literally unsafe for the purpose for which it sold. Third, McDonald's was fully aware that its coffee was hot enough to cause serious injuries, and that it was in fact causing serious injuries in relatively large numbers. And finally, even if McDonald's hadn't been aware of the injuries, it was reasonably foreseeable that its product would cause serious injuries when used for its intended purpose. I don't care how careful people are...when you have millions of them drinking your coffee every day, some accidents are bound to happen. The only issue, then, is whether the accidents result in temporary pain or permanent injury. McDonald's consciously opted for the latter.

In any event, MTR's brilliantly conceived principle is easily testable by applying it to other situations. Let's say, for instance, that MTR wants to buy his daughter a new car for her 16th birthday. So he goes to the Toyota dealership and opts for a brand new Sentra. Two days later, his daughter, who likes to text people while driving, rear-ends someone at 15 mph. In most cars, this would have resulted in perhaps minor injuries, but Toyota chose to cut some corners on this model. Specifically, they didn't employ the usual precautions that prevent the engine from being deposited in the driver’s lap, which is exactly what happens. His daughter is permanently disabled.

Toyota’s lawyers, who are nearly as brilliant as MTR himself, use his own argument against him. They say that it doesn’t matter how poorly the car was designed, because it was her fault for not driving carefully enough. Do you buy that argument, or do you believe that Toyota is partly (or mostly) culpable for the severe injuries caused by a typical and entirely predictable accident that any other car on the market would have adequately protected her against?

[Joe]

I don't know about this one Skarp. I'm pretty sure the end user is the problem here. Any spaz who's driving and trying to remove the lid off their coffee probably deserves a few singed pubic hairs.

Singed pubes are a far cry from 3rd degee burns. And she wasn't driving...they were parked.

The burns she suffered had two causes: her carelessness and the ridiculously hot coffee. But there are several reasons why McDonald's should bear the lion's share of culpability. First, the coffee was served much hotter than coffee elsewhere is typically served, and thus the woman was likely not as careful as she would have been had she known the real danger. Second, the coffee was served far too hot for its intended purpose...namely, drinking. It was literally unsafe for the purpose for which it sold. Third, McDonald's was fully aware that its coffee was hot enough to cause serious injuries, and that it was in fact causing serious injuries in relatively large numbers. And finally, even if McDonald's hadn't been aware of the injuries, it was reasonably foreseeable that its product would cause serious injuries when used for its intended purpose. I don't care how careful people are...when you have millions of them drinking your coffee every day, some accidents are bound to happen. The only issue, then, is whether the accidents result in temporary pain or permanent injury. McDonald's consciously opted for the latter.

In any event, MTR's brilliantly conceived principle is easily testable by applying it to other situations. Let's say, for instance, that MTR wants to buy his daughter a new car for her 16th birthday. So he goes to the Toyota dealership and opts for a brand new Sentra. Two days later, his daughter, who likes to text people while driving, rear-ends someone at 15 mph. In most cars, this would have resulted in perhaps minor injuries, but Toyota chose to cut some corners on this model. Specifically, they didn't employ the usual precautions that prevent the engine from being deposited in the driver’s lap, which is exactly what happens. His daughter is permanently disabled.

Toyota’s lawyers, who are nearly as brilliant as MTR himself, use his own argument against him. They say that it doesn’t matter how poorly the car was designed, because it was her fault for not driving carefully enough. Do you buy that argument, or do you believe that Toyota is partly (or mostly) culpable for the severe injuries caused by a typical and entirely predictable accident that any other car on the market would have adequately protected her against?

Do you think she used any of that money for pube replacement therapy?

[Skarp]

I don't know about this one Skarp. I'm pretty sure the end user is the problem here. Any spaz who's driving and trying to remove the lid off their coffee probably deserves a few singed pubic hairs.

Singed pubes are a far cry from 3rd degee burns. And she wasn't driving...they were parked.

The burns she suffered had two causes: her carelessness and the ridiculously hot coffee. But there are several reasons why McDonald's should bear the lion's share of culpability. First, the coffee was served much hotter than coffee elsewhere is typically served, and thus the woman was likely not as careful as she would have been had she known the real danger. Second, the coffee was served far too hot for its intended purpose...namely, drinking. It was literally unsafe for the purpose for which it sold. Third, McDonald's was fully aware that its coffee was hot enough to cause serious injuries, and that it was in fact causing serious injuries in relatively large numbers. And finally, even if McDonald's hadn't been aware of the injuries, it was reasonably foreseeable that its product would cause serious injuries when used for its intended purpose. I don't care how careful people are...when you have millions of them drinking your coffee every day, some accidents are bound to happen. The only issue, then, is whether the accidents result in temporary pain or permanent injury. McDonald's consciously opted for the latter.

In any event, MTR's brilliantly conceived principle is easily testable by applying it to other situations. Let's say, for instance, that MTR wants to buy his daughter a new car for her 16th birthday. So he goes to the Toyota dealership and opts for a brand new Sentra. Two days later, his daughter, who likes to text people while driving, rear-ends someone at 15 mph. In most cars, this would have resulted in perhaps minor injuries, but Toyota chose to cut some corners on this model. Specifically, they didn't employ the usual precautions that prevent the engine from being deposited in the driver’s lap, which is exactly what happens. His daughter is permanently disabled.

Toyota’s lawyers, who are nearly as brilliant as MTR himself, use his own argument against him. They say that it doesn’t matter how poorly the car was designed, because it was her fault for not driving carefully enough. Do you buy that argument, or do you believe that Toyota is partly (or mostly) culpable for the severe injuries caused by a typical and entirely predictable accident that any other car on the market would have adequately protected her against?

Do you think she used any of that money for pube replacement therapy?

Couldn't say...but you could definitely buy a butt-load of Rogaine with that kind of cash...

Great question though.

[Skarp]

So he goes to the Toyota dealership and opts for a brand new Sentra.

Sentra is made by Nissan you bookworm

Lmao.