# If Anybody's Intereted in Lawsuits



## rexbobcat (Aug 22, 2012)

This is an example that you can sue for ANYTHING, and become a millionaire out of pity and connivery.

$14.5M for boy's brain injury from metal bat - Yahoo! Sports


----------



## Dr_Totenkopf (Aug 22, 2012)

I alwase thought that if playing or watching a sport you except all risk of injury, and no one is liable for any injuries you sustain... if not I need to get stabbed by an epee and sue the sword maker, the stabber, and the club hosting the torment.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Aug 23, 2012)

Only in America can you sue someone for something they did not do to you nor were they responsible in anyway. There WAS a gas can manufacture here in Oklahoma that had been in business for over 50 years. The newest versions of these gas cans as you all well know have warnings stamped into them all over the place, and of course they have that lovely EPA approved safety nozzle which is adult proofed to the point that you can get gas out of the can even when you want it out of the can to fill a lawn mower.  Some jerk managed to burn himself using the can to toss gas onto a fire after he took the safety nozzle off the can. Which was one of the things the stamped government warnings said not to do.

Even though these cans were EPA and DOT approved and had all recent mandated changes, disclaimers and warnings in them.  The jerk in question who used the can in a non reccomended manner who burned himself was allowed to sue and the settlement put the company out of business. The company was BLITZ who also made many other automotive products.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

On one hand, I agree that we are law suite happy society  and it has had unseen consequences.  For example, all the perfectly fine food that establishments throw out because they are past their "sell date" well before their "expiration date" for fear of lawsuits.  Meanwhile, we still have the hungry homeless.....

On the other hand, calling a teenager who has suffered a brain injury severe enough that his mother has to wipe his a$$ on a daily basis for possibly the rest of his life a "conniving millionaire" is a bit over the top.  I guarantee you that each and every one of us would be desperate to find care for our child in such a situation.  This is the type of stuff that can turn a middle class or even affluent family into perpetual bankruptcy and a lifetime of despair.

There are thousands of better examples to prove this point.  You picked one with such little regard.

 No... I would have rather not seen this go through the court system in the form of a lawsuit but as a society voluntarily give a helping hand.  You want to point our problems???   Point to society that backs this behavior... not some brain injured kid.

>> The measure of civilization is how it treats its weakest members.   <<


God forbid that something similar happens to you BUT if does, I sure hope you remember the high horse you put yourself on when faced between a miserable quality of life versus funding assistance through possible lawsuits.  I fully expect you to stick to your convictions and choose misery.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 23, 2012)

While I'm sorry that the boy suffered a brain injury... that lawsuit is ridiculous. If this sets precedence, then I think I'll sue the manufacturer of my coffee cup because the coffee pot brewed the water too hot.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

As for quoting the incident when a lady sued McDonalds for hot coffee... the media failed to inform the public of the details of the lawsuit.  They did so to drive up emotions in their readership without regard to presenting the facts fairly.  You should read it in detail.. it may change your mind.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 23, 2012)

I wasn't quoting the McDonalds case. What I was trying to exhibit is that I was going to sue company X because of something that Y and Z did, or did not do.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> I wasn't quoting the McDonalds case. What I was trying to exhibit is that I was going to sue company X because of something that Y and Z did, or did not do.



Ah.. in that case, I am almost 100% certain you would loose the case.  


from the article linked.


> Stephen D. Keener, president and CEO of Little League Baseball Inc., said the settlement guarantees that ''Steven Domalewski will receive the lifetime care he will require as a result of this tragic accident, a type of accident that is extremely rare in youth baseball.''


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> Ah.. in that case, I am almost 100% certain you would loose the case.




Apparently not. The parents won the case by suing the Bat Manufacturer (X), for something that the ball (Y) and other player (Z) did.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Ah.. in that case, I am almost 100% certain you would loose the case.
> ...



They didn't win the case... it was a settlement.  The family's dire situation apparently played a role in the CEO's decision.  A dire situation wouldn't be applicable in your coffee scenario.  The CEO also eluded that he wasn't worried about setting a precedence since it is "extremely rare" event.  Hence why I quoted that tid bit from the article.

If you do a little bit of googling you will find several entities banning metal bats for the same similar reasons... the little value it added to the game didn't outweigh risks.


NOTE:  I too don't agree with the lawsuit but I take offense to using this kid's injury to prove the point.  Society has left this family with little assistance nor choice.


>> The measure of civilization is how it treats its weakest members. <<


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:
			
		

> On one hand, I agree that we are law suite happy society  and it has had unseen consequences.  For example, all the perfectly fine food that establishments throw out because they are past their "sell date" well before their "expiration date" for fear of lawsuits.  Meanwhile, we still have the hungry homeless.....
> 
> On the other hand, calling a teenager who has suffered a brain injury severe enough that his mother has to wipe his a$$ on a daily basis for possibly the rest of his life a "conniving millionaire" is a bit over the top.  I guarantee you that each and every one of us would be desperate to find care for our child in such a situation.  This is the type of stuff that can turn a middle class or even affluent family into perpetual bankruptcy and a lifetime of despair.
> 
> ...



It's sad, yes.  But I guarantee you my family would not sue a bat maker for making a ball go "too fast."


Also; you're measurement sucks.  Sometimes treating its weakest members as you think they all should be treated is not feasible or practical. I'm not saying it's right. In just saying that's how it is. An example would be the Native Americans.

Quit being an ass about it. "I hope you remember your high horse." Please. This is like getting in a car crash and blaming the car manufacturer because you got debilitatingly injured.

Desperation does not exempt a family from from the fact they they profited from a tragedy. I'm very sure their hospital bills added up to being 14.5 million dollars. 

Maybe I'm just heartless, but I'm really also really not one to say that I truly care about some random human over the Internet, because I really don't. There are plenty of others going through tough times who don't feel the need to blame their problems on a frivolous aspect of their condition.

It's conniving in the same way that selling the rights of my dead wife's name to a book publisher for 14.5 million dollars right after she died might be.

I just don't think it's ethical. Maybe I am on a high horse for wanting people to take responsibility or already stop trying to blame others for accidents, but I really don't give a flying...About how I'm perceived in this sense.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Also; you're measurement sucks.  Sometimes treating its weakest members as you think they all should be treated is not feasible or practical. I'm not saying it's right. In just saying that's how it is. An example would be the Native Americans.



Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking.... its not my measurement.  Its a notion that has withstood the test of time and has been proven and proven time and time again.


You should re-read what I am saying and try to look beyond the tip of your nose.   The blame is misdirected.  You are a proponent of social darwinism yet have a problem with a family working the system to survive... two really conflicting views.  I am pretty sure that if taken to the end of the court system, the family would have lost but the defendant chose to settle (a win in court doesn't always means a long term win).


PS> this has zero to do with ethics.  Morals and Ethics play little role in legal proceedings.  They do however help guide the laws written on the books.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



Well they sure as hell didn't lose the case with 14.5M in their pocket!


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > ChristopherCoy said:
> ...



I bet 14.5M won't be enough to cover this kids lifetime medical expenses....  You guys make it sound like this kid is going to be living the life of luxury.. that is far from the reality they are facing.   Would you trade shoes with this kid?  If not, reconsider your position.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



and?  The bat maker should not be liable for what happened in ANY way.  They offer a product and the people that purchase that product decide how and when they will use it.  This would be the equivalent of Smith&Wesson, Glock, etc. getting sued anytime someone shoots somebody with one of the products they offer.  It's a sport anyway... there are known risks involved.  When you decide to engage in that sport, you acknowledge and assume all those risks.


----------



## KenC (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> Would you trade shoes with this kid?  If not, reconsider your position.



This is, after all, the bottom line in this sort of thing.  We've all seen cases where people get minor injuries and receive large amounts of money, and maybe we would trade places with some of them, but this is different.

Here, several organizations (little league, manufacturers, etc.) drew a line and said what was on one side of it was safe.  If someone nevertheless received a serious injury from a product on the approved side of the line, what is wrong with the manufacturer deciding to help them out?


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> [\
> 
> and?  The bat maker should not be liable for what happened in ANY way..



They were not found liable.  It was a settlement.  

As for you trying to connect this to guns.... guns don't kill people.. people kill people.  We should outlaw people.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 23, 2012)

Every post Usayit has made in this thread is 100% spot on.

And the fact that you don't care what happens to some random person over the internet is deplorable.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > [\
> ...



They are now, in fact, financially and legally responsible for what happened, which is the very definition of legal liability.  A settlement just means that they've AGREED to be liable.  And I know that guns don't kill people, just as that bat didn't give the kid brain damage.



JAC526 said:


> Every post Usayit has made in this thread is 100% spot on.
> 
> And the fact that you don't care what happens to some random person over the internet is deplorable.



That is your opinion, and I feel sorry for the kid.  It was a freak accident and IMO nobody should be liable.  I find it deplorable that you don't care what happens to a perfectly innocent business that is now legally responsible for paying 14.5M dollars.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 23, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



I do feel sorry for the company.  They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.

The post I was referring to was the OPs in which he unequivocally stated that he doesn't care what happens to random people he doesn't know.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I do feel sorry for the company.  They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.
> 
> The post I was referring to was the OPs in which he unequivocally stated that he doesn't care what happens to random people he doesn't know.



Ooooh, my apologies


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

This boggles my mind. Hell, most lawsuits are mind boggling these days. 
Probably should sue the kid who hit the ball for having too hard of a swing. 
The pitcher, well-he's most definitely at fault here. Wait, wasn't the kid the pitcher? He is at fault there for pitching a blatantly dangerous ball to the batter. 
Whomever the coach is who taught the kid how to swing that bat should also be held at fault too. After all , he did teach the kid to hit the ball too hard. The batter's parents should also be held liable for not teaching their kid better than to hit a ball that could possibly strike another human being. 
Probably should sue the city for having a baseball diamond there where kids can play this incredibly dangerous sport. Then don't forget the major leagues. They glamorize the sport for little kids much like the tobacco manufacturers do cigarettes. As you can see it's a lethal sport...
I certainly believe that all of those claims are just as valid as the one that won this poor kid 14+million.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> They are now, in fact, financially and legally responsible for what happened, which is the very definition of legal liability.  A settlement just means that they've AGREED to be liable.  And I know that guns don't kill people, just as that bat didn't give the kid brain damage.



Not true unless you are privy to the details of the settlement.  I never said that the lawsuit has merit but wanted to point out that the blame is misdirected and the lack of consideration for the situation reduces this to a sad state.   Yes we have a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits but this case is a bad example to prove that point.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 23, 2012)

Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?


----------



## IByte (Aug 23, 2012)

KenC said:
			
		

> This is, after all, the bottom line in this sort of thing.  We've all seen cases where people get minor injuries and receive large amounts of money, and maybe we would trade places with some of them, but this is different.
> 
> Here, several organizations (little league, manufacturers, etc.) drew a line and said what was on one side of it was safe.  If someone nevertheless received a serious injury from a product on the approved side of the line, what is wrong with the manufacturer deciding to help them out?



It wasn't a donation, it was a pending lawsuit.  I don't know, but suing a manufacturer for something that was out of their control is really scarey precedent indeed regardless if the CEO is not worried.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 23, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > I do feel sorry for the company.  They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.
> ...



No apology necessary.  These kind of topics tend to get heated.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> They were not found liable.  It was a settlement.
> 
> As for you trying to connect this to guns.... guns don't kill people.. people kill people.  We should outlaw people.




Well using your logic, bats don't injure people... People injure people. So why was the bat blamed?


----------



## ceejtank (Aug 23, 2012)

Everyone believes in survival of the fittest.. no one wants to apply it to humans.... - Joe Rogan

And I agree 100%.


----------



## skieur (Aug 23, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> While I'm sorry that the boy suffered a brain injury... that lawsuit is ridiculous. If this sets precedence, then I think I'll sue the manufacturer of my coffee cup because the coffee pot brewed the water too hot.



The lawsuit is not at all ridiculous. The boy is probably not capable of a normal life and will require care: medical, physical and financial for the rest of his life.  The cost of the lawsuit would have been more than one million dollars. Rehab costs out at well over $200 per hour.  A psychiatric report for court use is $6,000 to 10,000 dollars.  Photocopying of legal documents $20,000.  Constant supervision costs $6,000 to $10,000 per month.

The lawyer who brought the suit would have costed out every aspect of care which would have been verified by the other side and agreed upon or no settlement would have been possible.

This is standard legal and court practice in litigation.

skieur


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

Yes, but there's a difference between "can you pay for our medical bills and other general expenses brought on by the lawsuit" and, "we need 14.5 million dollars."

If all of that cost them 14.5M then the healthcare system in the US is worse than I thought...


----------



## ceejtank (Aug 23, 2012)

The bat company shouldn't be forced to pay anything, and at this time they werent. The plaintiff would have lost this suit.  You make a product, if someone uses it, and something bad happens - you won't be held at fault unless it the issue happened because of something your company did.  

In this instance the bat was used properly and showed no defects.  They should have sued the league for letting metal bats be used.  

That being said, I think the CEO of the company "settled" to be nice to be honest.  Which is why he isn't worried about precedent.  Also - since this was settled, and wasn't a court ruling "precedent" cannot be set.  It was a voluntary action.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

skieur said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > While I'm sorry that the boy suffered a brain injury... that lawsuit is ridiculous. If this sets precedence, then I think I'll sue the manufacturer of my coffee cup because the coffee pot brewed the water too hot.
> ...



So you agree that the manufacturer of a Baseball Bat is responsible for what happened rather than it being a freak accident with nobody at fault?


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> If all of that cost them 14.5M then the healthcare system in the US is worse than I thought...



Average life expectancy in the US is 78.  Kid was 12 when he was injured.  He will require constant care for approximately 66 years and will be incapable of earning an income and zero health insurance.  Throw in inflation.  They will not be living the good life.   As I eluded earlier, if you are not willing to trade positions with that kid you should seriously reconsider your stance.



Once again....

* No one knows the details of the settlement
* It was a settlement.  No fault or liability was claimed.
* No legal precedence was set
* CEO claims this is a rare event and felt a precedence for future liability by his company has been set
* More than likely the family would have lost.  CEO decided to be nice and settle (which is their right)
* This isn't a paper cut or some minor injury.  This was a serious injury.

No one here claims that frivolous lawsuits are not a problem... What is in question is whether or not ~this~ lawsuit is a representative of that problem.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > If all of that cost them 14.5M then the healthcare system in the US is worse than I thought...
> ...


14.5M is maybe 20 years of care if they are careful. Unfortunately he will eventually probably have to be institutionalized and that will eat up  the remainder REAL QUICK. If that lasts 20  years I'd be impressed.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:
			
		

> Average life expectancy in the US is 78.  Kid was 12 when he was injured.  He will require constant care for approximately 66 years and will be incapable of earning an income and zero health insurance.  Throw in inflation.  They will not be living the good life.



So let's blame it on an outside entity? I'm not saying its not sad. 

But since it was an accident not unusual to getting freakin pelted in the chest by a line drive ball, somebody's got to pay, right?  

Maybe if it was a baby carriage and it exploded, sure. But it was an already potentially dangerous tool and they're angry because...somebody got hurt?

I have two friends who work 9-5 50k a year jobs and they have a stay at home son who has been mentally handicapped since birth. He's 25 now.

 It's not something that will totally destroy a family if they don't let it. :/


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Try again.. no blame was admitted or accepted in this situation.  No one was forced to pay.     I'm not arguing that frivolous lawsuits don't exist..and are unjust... just this one you picked is not one of them.   You can't seem to get that through your head.  

History?  maybe start by reading the contents of this thread first.  For starters, the lawsuit never ended in a judge's verdict... it ended with a settlement.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:
			
		

> Try again.. no blame was admitted or accepted in this situation.  No one was forced to pay.
> 
> History?  maybe start by reading the contents of this thread first.



What is a lawsuit if not blame? You did this to my son. I think you should pay. Try again...

I'm just going by what the article said. The way they put it makes it seem petty. 

I don't know what you're referring to.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

JAC526 said:
			
		

> I do feel sorry for the company.  They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.
> 
> The post I was referring to was the OPs in which he unequivocally stated that he doesn't care what happens to random people he doesn't know.



I don't understand why that's deplorable. And please don't say "what's wrong with you?" just explain to me why you think it's deplorable.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2012)

Good lord you need to read more...

Look up the legal definition of lawsuit...

Look up the legal definition of settlement...


Blame is irrelevant... no blame was assigned... only liability matters of which the judge never gave his final word.




PS>  JAC526 used "deplorable"... I personally would have chosen "extreme lack of empathy"....   I'm not sure which is better...  my terminology  is used to describe a condition in DSM 4.  So maybe that's too strong.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:
			
		

> Good lord you need to read more...
> 
> Look up the legal definition of lawsuit...
> 
> ...



Good lord, I'm not going off of the settlement, or what the f ever.

I'm going off the fact that they sued in the first place. Just because the blame wasn't "legally" given doesn't mean that it's not there.

*Gets ready for one-up starting with the words "Jesus Christ!"*


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2012)

usayit said:


> Good lord you need to read more...
> 
> Look up the legal definition of lawsuit...
> 
> ...



Regardless of semantics, an innocent manufacturer is out 14.5M over a freak accident in which they were uninvolved in.  Not only that, but the parents sued the friggin store that sold the bat, whom also had zero involvement in the freak accident.  You may like that kind of precedent, but I sure dont


----------



## IByte (Aug 23, 2012)

All I'm going to say thankfully Mrs. Irwim didn't sue the hotel, Animal Planet, camera crew, or the boatman because of Steve Irwins(RIP) freak accident.  Reason over emotion rules...goodnight all


----------



## unpopular (Aug 23, 2012)

You never hear about the second degree burns which the woman who successfully sued McDonalds suffered, or their statement about excessively hot coffee as more or less: we keep our coffee undrinkably hot because people don't drink it at their destination and we want it to stay hot for when they arrive. The medias BS-O-METER wasn't there to report that one, only that what an outrage it was that this woman would sue over hot coffee - which severally burned her in a way that required hospitalization.

Often times the media spins these kinds of stories all out of proportion and in weird ways.

Was the bat manufactured in a way that made it unusually dangerous?
Was the cage properly maintained and erected, and did this have any effect on the boy's injuries?
Were the players encouraged or permitted to throw the bat in a hazardous or unnecessary way?
Were adults responsible for the safety of the game supervising the players?
Was the bat properly maintained, was the grip in tact?

It's interesting to me, because we always assume that everything is always in order all the time, that under these kinds of circumstances that everything is typical and expected. I think when we hear about these kinds of things we don't want to think that negligence had actually occurred - otherwise in some way it puts us all at risk.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 23, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> You never hear about the second degree burns which the woman who successfully sued McDonalds suffered, or their statement about excessively hot coffee as more or less: we keep our coffee undrinkably hot because people don't drink it at their destination and we want it to stay hot for when they arrive. The medias BS-O-METER wasn't there to report that one, only that what an outrage it was that this woman would sue over hot coffee - which severally burned her in a way that required hospitalization.
> 
> Often times the media spins these kinds of stories all out of proportion and in weird ways.
> 
> ...



That's the only way I could see justification in this lawsuit. If the bat had some kind of anomaly during manufacturing that made it more dangerous...Yes...I can understand that.

But if the lawsuit is because "metal bats make things go faster than wooden bats" then, no...just...no...

But if it's the latter, I wonder they're going to have to puts warning on their products about safety. 

It would be really messed up if this was like the case where a guy sued a small lawnmower company into oblivion because he picked the mower up to chop hedges (???) and got his fingers cut off. But since there was no label that says not to do that, he won the case. At least that's how I think it went. Let us protect people from themselves. Lol


----------



## unpopular (Aug 23, 2012)

I never EVER trust mass media when it comes to civil lawsuits.

Frankly, this is a HUGE settlement, and I really don't think that they would have settled unless the lawsuit had some standing.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> That's the only way I could see justification in this lawsuit. If the bat had some kind of anomaly during manufacturing that made it more dangerous...Yes...I can understand that.
> 
> But if the lawsuit is because "metal bats make things go faster than wooden bats" then, no...just...no...
> 
> ...



Kind of off-topic but the lawn mower thing seems to happen often. Just the other day on FB somebody was complaining about all the safety recalls on baby products and how the stupid people who make them obviously don't do enough testing. The person was talking about a specific product - the bumbo seat for infants. Now there was a safety recall in 2007 for this seat. Why you ask? Because they needed to put warnings on it warning people not to use this seat on elevated surfaces. Mind you this is for a very young infant - like around 3 months. It was just recalled again because there had been cases of infants falling and getting skull fractures. The majority of the injuries were with the seat placed at unknown elevations. Now they are recalling to put safety restraints on it. 

Common sense dictates, at least to me, that you don't place a very young infant in a seat on any elevated surface. Plus it's not meant to be a babysitter. It's not a seat that is meant for a child to just sit in and lounge around. Parental supervision is required. This type of thing is due to plain ole stupidity IMO. It's pretty silly that everything has to be spelled out so clearly otherwise people don't understand what common sense should tell them.....


----------



## skieur (Aug 24, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Yes, but there's a difference between "can you pay for our medical bills and other general expenses brought on by the lawsuit" and, "we need 14.5 million dollars."
> 
> If all of that cost them 14.5M then the healthcare system in the US is worse than I thought...




All of that will cost 14.5 million over his projected lifespan according to the legal team that costed it out,...and that is not unreasonable.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Aug 24, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> The bat company shouldn't be forced to pay anything, and at this time they werent. The plaintiff would have lost this suit. You make a product, if someone uses it, and something bad happens - you won't be held at fault unless it the issue happened because of something your company did.
> 
> In this instance the bat was used properly and showed no defects. They should have sued the league for letting metal bats be used.
> 
> That being said, I think the CEO of the company "settled" to be nice to be honest. Which is why he isn't worried about precedent. Also - since this was settled, and wasn't a court ruling "precedent" cannot be set. It was a voluntary action.



Sorry, but you are wrong.  With more experience in the law and litigation, you and several others here would have a better understanding of this case.

Legally, the decision was correct and legally the amount was correct as well.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh yay! More of Skieur's "take my word for it" baloney!

But I agree. there is something that we're not seeing here. The company's attorneys would not have suggested settlement unless it would have cost more to litigate. At $14M, this isn't likely the case unless they felt they couldn't win.

The mere fact that they settled at such a huge amount says to me that the case was pretty open and shut in favor of the plaintiff.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Oh yay! More of Skieur's "take my word for it" baloney!



This I agree with 100%



unpopular said:


> But I agree. there is something that we're not seeing here. The company's attorneys would not have suggested settlement unless it would have cost more to litigate. At $14M, this isn't likely the case unless they felt they couldn't win.
> 
> The mere fact that they settled at such a huge amount says to me that the case was pretty open and shut in favor of the plaintiff.



This, however, I don't really agree with.  Just because they settled for that amount doesn't mean they didn't feel like they couldn't win.  Maybe it was just not worth the bad publicity if they had a trial over it.  I also think that the 14.5M was a combined ruling between the Manufacturer of the bat, the Little League organization, AND the store that sold the bat.  Since the parents went after all 3, I highly doubt it was because of a result in the way the bat was manufactured that would have caused it to be _more dangerous_ than usual.


----------



## ProsPhotos (Aug 24, 2012)

I wonder if anyone got any pictures of it...


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 24, 2012)

skieur said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you are wrong.  With more experience in the law and litigation, you and several others here would have a better understanding of this case.
> 
> Legally, the decision was correct and legally the amount was correct as well.
> 
> skieur



Lol. Yes. Objectively the legal decision and amount was correct? XD

I wish I could apply the thought process of this lawsuit to all of the bad things that happened to me.

Get in a car wreck? Medical bills up in the hundred thousands? Car manufacturer's fault!

**** happens. And sometimes that **** is very, very bad. Don't always expect someone else to pay for it.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Good lord you need to read more...
> ...



I believe the lawsuit was totally unwarranted. However, we have not considered here that this was the company's way of donating to a cause that they felt for. 
I am guessing a portion of that lawsuit or all of it is covered by some type of insurance-we preach insurance in here for this very reason. 
So... Who is to say that the guy who made the call on this lawsuit said, "you know what? This kid needs any help he can get for the rest of his life. Let's come to a settlement and give a little back to a kid who got injured playing the game?"


----------



## KmH (Aug 24, 2012)

If I read the story correctly, *3* entities were sued and will share in paying the award, making one wonder about some previously made comments.



> ...lawsuit against the bat manufacturer, Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain....
> .......Domalewski was playing in a Police Athletic League game, but Little League was sued because the group certifies that specific metal bats are approved for - and safe for - use in games involving children
> 
> Rick Redman, a spokesman for Hillerich and Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger brand bat, confirmed a settlement had been reached, but declined further comment.
> ...


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

KmH said:


> If I read the story correctly, *3* entities were sued and will share in paying the award, making one wonder about some previously made comments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's what I read as well.



mjhoward said:


> I also think that the 14.5M was a combined ruling between the Manufacturer of the bat, the Little League organization, AND the store that sold the bat.  Since the parents went after all 3, I highly doubt it was because of a result in the way the bat was manufactured that would have caused it to be _more dangerous_ than usual.


----------



## sapper6fd (Aug 24, 2012)

EDITED to remove my stupidity.  

In regards to my stupidity I have this to say....

"You should never underestimate the  predictability of stupidity."


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

sapper6fd said:


> After reading this guys site, it sounds to me like he couldnt care less about the sale of his photos.  Its written in such a way that it apears as if he is posting his work in the hopes someone will take the image so he can proffit off of a lasw suit.
> 
> I honest believe this guy wants people to rip his work.  He has no interest in the sales.  He's only interest is in suing those who take them becaue he knows its more valuble this way.



 What the hell are you talking about!


----------



## sapper6fd (Aug 24, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> What the hell are you talking about!




Bwaaahahaha!  I pulled a stupid.  Wrong thread.  Disregard!  Hahahaha.  Had three windows open and wanted to reply to one of them, didnt look at the thread before posting.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?

Semantics aside and all the other irrelevant crap like "would you trade places", why should there be a lawsuit in the first place?


----------



## sapper6fd (Aug 24, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?
> 
> Semantics aside and all the other irrelevant crap like "would you trade places", why should there be a lawsuit in the first place?



Did you ever wonder why McDonalds coffee cups say "Caution! Contents Hot!"?  Its because oneone pilt it on themself and sued McDonalds becuase they werent warned the contents were hot.  Yes its a given, but unless there is a warning label on the product warning of every thing that ***might happen***, you probably have a case on your hands.  The next batch of bats from this manufacturer will probably have a label that states "WARNING!  Do not stand in front ball after struck by bat".


----------



## IByte (Aug 24, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> I believe the lawsuit was totally unwarranted. However, we have not considered here that this was the company's way of donating to a cause that they felt for.
> I am guessing a portion of that lawsuit or all of it is covered by some type of insurance-we preach insurance in here for this very reason.
> So... Who is to say that the guy who made the call on this lawsuit said, "you know what? This kid needs any help he can get for the rest of his life. Let's come to a settlement and give a little back to a kid who got injured playing the game?"



Sounds like borderline extortion to me.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

sapper6fd said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?
> ...



Again. The woman who spilt that coffee cup experienced second degree burns that required medical treatment. After the lawsuit, McDonalds admitted that the coffee she was served was too hot to drink, stating that they served overly hot coffee so that it would remain hot during transport. McDonalds was not sued because they did not warn the coffee was hot, but rather because the coffee was so hot that it caused injury. Mcdonalds even had in the past received complaints about burns prior to the lawsuit from other customers.

You also can't just put a warning up and be void from any lawsuit, and I do not believe that simply saying "Caution: Hot Coffee" will protect you if the coffee is unusually and dangerously hot. If anything, that would suggest that you _knew_ the coffee was dangerous and served it regardless.

My wife's paralegal instructor, who is an attorney, often said that it is not advisable to post "Beware of Dog" signs, as this can be used to say the same thing: that you have knowledge the dog was dangerous and when it bit someone you neglected to properly prevent injury.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > If I read the story correctly, *3* entities were sued and will share in paying the award, making one wonder about some previously made comments.
> ...


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

sapper6fd said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?
> ...


 
Sueing for burning yourself on coffee is ridiculous, but the coffee burned the individual. The bat did not injure this person.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

I swear to god, people will believe anything they read.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I swear to god, people will believe anything they read.



Meaning what exactly.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 24, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?



But - All gods were created by humans.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.



I read your post, doesn't make it any less ridiculous. It's still someone suing for being burned by something that she knew was hot, especially how she were burned. She put a hot cup of coffee between her thighs and spilled the coffee onto her lap while trying to open it to add cream and sugar. And she experienced 3rd degree burns, not 2nd.  

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

"Hey the hot coffee you ordered? It's hot. Don't pour it on yourself."


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Ron Evers said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?
> ...



holy hell.

this thread is going to get super awesome now!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > read my previous posts. that lawsuit was not nearly as ridiculous as the newspapers made it out to be.
> ...



And if the coffee was not excessively hot, then spilling the coffee would have sucked real bad, but would not have resulted in injury. We've all spilled coffee on ourselves from time to time, experiencing medical treatment is not a reasonable thing to expect.

This lawsuit is not about the spill itself, and how it spilled is completely irrelevant, it's about the coffee being dangerously and excessively hot - and more precisely, it's about McDonalds having *known* that this product has in the past resulted in burns, yet having failed to address the problem.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh, and also, law is based on evidence and procedure, not opinions.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Yeah, which is ridiculous. Her damages including medical fees and loss of work were around $20,000 and the settlement was somewhere around $600,000.
To me, her medical bills shouldn't even be paid for, for putting hot coffee in between her legs in a moving vehicle. You are buying hot coffee. Coffee is brewed at
boiling temperatures and served that way.  

The lawsuit did not result in McDonald's serving the coffee at a lower temperature, but to now have warning labels and foam cups telling people that it's hot.
It's silly to me.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Oh, and also, law is based on evidence and procedure, not opinions.



That's false. A verdict is an opinion based on facts and evidence.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

You are clearly not familiar with the case. The car was not moving, she was not even the driver. In fact she was in the back seat. As far as the coffee temperature being decreased, I am unsure about that, but I find that very hard to believe. Being that McDonalds has self-serve coffee I especially have my doubts.

this case was specifically about the TEMPERATURE of the coffee, not that she did not receive notice or warning. It wouldn't make sense to simply add a warning when the lawsuit was whether the coffee was excessively hot.

My wife studied this case pretty closely in school, and she had read a lot of the actual court material (which I don't currently have access to). When we hear about these cases we have a certain idea about how the circumstances played out, and that's exactly the problem.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You are clearly not familiar with the case. The car was not moving, she was not even the driver. In fact she was in the back seat. As far as the coffee temperature being decreased, I am unsure about that, but I find that very hard to believe. Being that McDonalds has self-serve coffee I especially have my doubts.
> 
> My wife studied this case pretty closely in school, and she had read a lot of the actual court material (which I don't currently have access to). When we hear about these cases we have a certain idea about how the circumstances played out, and that's exactly the problem.



I'm pretty familiar with the case and watched the documentary on it. She was in a Ford Probe as a passenger and her grandson was driving. And you are wrong. She was in the passenger seat. You are right about the car not moving, but that doesn't sway my opinion in the opposite direction. 

You're wife studied it closely, and that means what? 

You said she received 2nd degree burns. She received 3rd degree burns.
You said she was in the backseat. She was in the passenger seat.

Regardless of how you spin it, this women sued McDonald's for her spilling coffee on herself. Her own negligence. She didn't put her coffee on a table, she put it in between her thighs. She put scolding hot coffee, in between her thighs.  She initially sued for Medical and Employment compensation which came to around $20,000. When MCDs declined to pay and offered her $800, she went to an attorney and then sued for negligence.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.

Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know about the case than you, having watched some A&E documentary.

I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.
> 
> Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know more than you having watched some A&E documentary.
> 
> I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.



Wow. You get more and more mature with every post. You studied it now. First it was your wife who studied it closely, now it was you. 
You know so much, you got most of the details wrong, and aren't even aware that they still serve the coffee at the same temperature. Roger that.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.
> ...



My wife went to cosmetology school, I guess that makes me an expert on hair.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 24, 2012)

Yeah, I don't care about the details either. If you put a cup of hot coffee in your crotch...here's your sign.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> First it was your wife who studied it closely, now it was you.



I never said I did, my wife is in the other room. If I have any questions about it, then I've asked her. She is quite certain she was in the back seat, but that doesn't even matter at all. It has about as much significance to the case as the fact that she was the one who spilled it and not the CEO of McDonalds. It's called proximate cause and contributory negligence. The fact that she played a roll in her own injuries is beside the point.

I just don't believe that they didn't decrease the temperature. It doesn't make any sense, not from a fiscal perspective nor from a liability perspective. Why wouldn't they take this simple step when notice was never the issue.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

Just to make things clear, the documentary 'Hot Coffee' has both the woman and her grandson doing a play by play of the incident. Check it out, the information is coming from the horses mouth.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

ok then, so I was wrong about where she was sitting.

why don't you go watch some other documentary now.


----------



## skieur (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Oh yay! More of Skieur's "take my word for it" baloney!
> 
> But I agree. there is something that we're not seeing here. The company's attorneys would not have suggested settlement unless it would have cost more to litigate. At $14M, this isn't likely the case unless they felt they couldn't win.
> 
> The mere fact that they settled at such a huge amount says to me that the case was pretty open and shut in favor of the plaintiff.



Pretty dumb response. My word is supposedly baloney but you agree with me. 

skieur


----------



## skieur (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I never EVER trust mass media when it comes to civil lawsuits.
> 
> Frankly, this is a HUGE settlement, and I really don't think that they would have settled unless the lawsuit had some standing.



Not a huge settlement at all. You obviously have no knowledge, understanding or experience in litigation.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> god the gravy train of stupid just keeps coming.



Yup and you are the conductor.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> god the gravy train of stupid just keeps coming.



You have a problem. That problem is, that you think that your opinion is superior to everyone else's. You
talk down to people for sharing a difference in opinion, and then call them stupid. 

You down play my comments because you know so much about it, and claim that I am unfamiliar with the case, 
yet you make multiple false comments. Looks like we're in the same boat. You're wife studied in school, I watched a documentary about it.
But you have the nerve to downplay my basis of information lol.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

ok. it's time I start using my ignore list before I make more of an ass out of myself today than I already have.



Sorry folks. Sometimes I just don't know when to walk away from a thread.


----------



## IByte (Aug 24, 2012)

Guys, guys come on all this talk about coffee and hot...THESE PRETZELS ARE ME THIRSTY!!  Cool down and enjoy the Friday night with some beer, pints, and wings  ..sauce optional.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

I hope the people that think this was a legitimate lawsuit remember their stance should the bizarre incident of a customer of theirs having to get limbs amputated ever arise.  Even though it would be a freak accident, receiving infections from a papercut from some prints you sold them resulting in amputation COULD happen and obviously someone other than them should be held accountable.  You've agreed that you should be financially responsible since I'm sure none of you have the warnings for every possible paper related injury printed on the back or have made any efforts to make your prints' edges less sharp.


----------



## mishele (Aug 24, 2012)

Get your asses over to my 80's dance party!!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

Well. Their has to be negligence involved.

If you printed the image on paper which was well known to cause paper cuts then you could be held liable for an amputee. The fact that amputations as a result of paper cuts is unusual is not important, what is important is that you sold a product which is unsafe.

See this:

"But for" Rule legal definition of "But for" Rule. "But for" Rule synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

So even if the amputee was sitting in a pile of manure when the paper cut occurred doesn't matter because the reason the papercut happened in the first place was because you willingly and knowingly sold him a paper cut prone print.

"But For" also applies to the hot coffee case.

However selling the print alone would not make you negligent, even if it were on paper cut prone paper provided that you were not aware the paper was paper cut prone (at least as far as I understand it). Negligence requires that a reasonable person would assume that the conduct is dangerous, and there are several specific criteria which makes negligence:

negligence legal definition of negligence. negligence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that I am not an attorney and that the above is intended only as conjecture. What was posted nor the above citation is legal advice and should not be nor is intended to be applied to any specific circumstance.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

Ok so by that, how is a bat manufacturer negligent in this case?


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Well. Their has to be negligence involved.
> 
> If you printed the image on paper which was well known to cause paper cuts then you could be held liable for an amputee. The fact that amputations as a result of paper cuts is unusual is not important, what is important is that you sold a product which is unsafe.
> 
> ...




You couldn't have picked a more appropriate avatar.


----------



## usayit (Aug 24, 2012)

Give  up unpopular... people just don't want to read and educate themselves.  We are a society of  5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.

I already pointed out that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was not what it seems... several pages back.  No one actually took the time to read the details I presume.


----------



## usayit (Aug 24, 2012)

Ron Evers said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?
> ...



Oh my gods!!!!  Love this comment!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> You couldn't have picked a more appropriate avatar.



:facepalm:


----------



## sapper6fd (Aug 24, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.
> 
> Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know about the case than you, having watched some A&E documentary.
> 
> I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.



Look. The moral of this story is, she should have named Ford in the lawsuit for failing to warn her putting coffee between your legs in a vehicle that is moving or stationary can result in burns. This is what the back seat is provided for. Please use the cup holder.  

She could have doubled her settlement to make 1.6 million.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 25, 2012)

usayit said:


> Give  up unpopular... people just don't want to read and educate themselves.  We are a society of  5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.
> 
> I already pointed out that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was not what it seems... several pages back.  No one actually took the time to read the details I presume.



The hot coffee documentary was an unbiased hour and a half long documentary that gave both sides and was exclusively about Tort Reform. Longer than 5 minutes. Now, if you want to keep insulting the intelligence of others, that's fine. However, the fact of the matter is, the evidence shown does not make me believe that McDonald's is at fault. Not at least to be paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, the jury ruled her 20% at fault, and initially awarded her 2.9 million dollars, which is 2 days worth of revenue from coffee sales, for both compensation and punitive damages. However, it was later appealed and they settled out of court for an undisclosed number under $600,000. So therefore, she was found to be at fault somewhat. That 20% of fault, came from the fact that she spilled the coffee. It was said that if the coffee was no extremely hot, she would not have been burned. The counter argument would be, if she didn't open her coffee and attempt to stabilize the coffee with her legs, she wouldn't have been burned.

WARNING: Graphic.
http://truecrimejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/6a00d8341c716c53ef0105367f1793970b-pi.jpg
http://truecrimejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/burn.jpg

Here are the images of the plaintiffs thighs and foot after third degree burns. These wounds are unfortunate, but not the fault of anyone but the dummy who decides to knowingly put scolding hot fluid in between their thighs, and then removing the lid in a vehicle with no cup holders. You know what, I'm surprised she didn't sue Ford for the Probe not having cup holders. 


How's that for details and being educated.

You can tell me all day how the media twisted and manipulated the facts and painted an ugly picture and blah blah blah, but the fact is, unless the woman had her coffee delivered to her via the barrel of a cannon at the drive through, McDonald's is not at fault for providing super hot coffee, imho. That's where I stand. Unless you can shine the light onto something I don't know, since documentaries, wikipedia and the media have it all wrong. What am I missing that would change my mind?

A side note: There's a lot of high horse riding and belittling on this forum lately. Keep in mind, that there are educated and intelligent people who have the ability to disagree.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 25, 2012)

As for the child who is now severely brain damaged - It's horrifying. I have 2 little boys, one of which who plays on a little league team. He's 5. If anything like this happened to him, I would be in shambles. 
However, while a settlement isn't an admission of guilt, someone not responsible is still paying for the damages. Asking rhetorical questions like "would you trade places with him" is cheap and a cop out and doesn't say anything. Of course no one would trade places. That doesn't make suing the bat company moral, o.k., ethical, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that people find this outrageous?


----------



## usayit (Aug 25, 2012)

Yo.. read again... and again....  just for kickers READ AGAIN (if you consider this an insult to your intelligence... then its your problem)

How many times do I have say that I do not think the lawsuit has merit but pure fact is that there was a settlement in this case.   The issue I have is lumping this case with the other frivolous cases that plague our system.  If you actually read my "trade places comments" in the context they were written, you would have known they are directed towards lumping this injured child with those greedy "conniving" (OPs term) individuals that file lawsuit as a purely for profiteering.  

The settlement doesn't mean this kid and family will be buying a mansion and living the good life... quite the opposite.

As for McDonalds incident, here is my comment:



usayit said:


> As for quoting the incident when a lady sued McDonalds for hot coffee... the media failed to inform the public of the details of the lawsuit.  They did so to drive up emotions in their readership without regard to presenting the facts fairly.  You should read it in detail.. it may change your mind.



The key is ... you should read in detail.... it MAY change your mind.  In other words, its not a clear and cut case that it is made out to be.  Lawsuits have winners and losers, neither of the outcomes in this case has anything to do with this discussion... but simply whether or not it is another example of a frivolous case that it has been perpetuated by the public.

Now excuse me Ballistic... since you simply just skimmed this thread.. I think any further response to you is a waste of time.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 25, 2012)

usayit said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



That's the issue, the fact that I didn't skim the thread brought me to this conclusion. You quoted MJHoward about who said he won the case, and then asked if you would trade places, and then went on to say that a settlement is saying that they were not found liable. That's not the point, now is it. It's not taking it out of context, I'm using it in the context you gave in the context of the conversation between yourself and MJ. The fact is, they sued the bat company. My question was, how is the act of suing remotely justifiable.   



First you say:


> Give up unpopular... people just don't want to read and educate themselves. We are a society of 5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels.
> 
> I already pointed out that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was not what it seems... several pages back. No one actually took the time to read the details I presume.


Then you say:


> The key is ... you should read in detail.... it MAY change your mind. In other words, its not a clear and cut case that it is made out to be. Lawsuits have winners and losers, neither of the outcomes in this case has anything to do with this discussion... but simply whether or not it is another example of a frivolous case that it has been perpetuated by the public.



That's one hell of a back pedal. The key is, I read about the case from multiple sources, watched the documentary. You keep repeating an obscure phrase "read in detail". The insult to my intelligence is specifically: 



> _people just don't want to read and educate themselves. We are a society of 5 min attention spans that rely on cliff note over hyped news media channels._



   You're telling someone to give up, as in he is well educated and I am not. The important detail is that he said she had 2nd degree burns, meanwhile if he had known so much about the case, he would have at least seen the graphic pictures of 3rd degree deep thickness burns. That's not a matter of semantics, that's a pretty big deal and was the main factor in her winning the case.

That's what people resort too, you don't have a direct line of information to support your argument, so you resort to derogatory remarks like that. You keep telling people to "read in detail", so what am I not seeing? What about anything I said about the McDonalds case am I missing?


----------

