If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   Family of 3-year-old who died in a freak car accident sues the driver's wife's parents, the dealership, the electric company, other dead victim's families and basically anyone within a mile of the accident   (denverpost.com) divider line 281
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

32892 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2010 at 7:43 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



281 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-28 08:03:42 PM
AntiNorm: Talon: If you seriously think the McD's coffee case is "frivolous" then you really don't know much of anything about the case.

The McD's coffee case is/was more meritorious than this family and their 3 y.o.

I've read all the facts in that case. There is one important fact that usually gets left out: The plaintiff in that case spilled the coffee in her own lap. Anybody with two brain cells knows that coffee is hot, and you have to be very careful with it.

That lawsuit was frivolous.


Yes. Coffee is hot. But it shouldn't be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns... in the case, it was revealed that McDonalds deliberately heated coffee to temperatures they knew would cause severe burns in order to gain a competitive advantage. Internal memos showed McDonalds decided to pay out the occassional injury settlement rather than decrease the coffee's temperature to safe levels. That's a disgusting practice, and thus McDonald's was punished accordingly. Also, the woman who filed the suit was found to be partially at fault for spilling the coffee, thus reducing the damages McD's had to pay.
 
2010-02-28 08:04:28 PM
The way I see it, the parents were able to claim the kid as a dependent for the entire fiscal year of 2008 even though he didn't live through half the year. This should be compensation enough.

/just because your snowflake melted doesn't mean you get free stuff.
 
2010-02-28 08:04:40 PM
jagec: Talon:

If you seriously think the McD's coffee case is "frivolous" then you really don't know much of anything about the case.

The McD's coffee case is/was more meritorious than this family and their 3 y.o.

Oh, I've heard all the arguments about the McD coffee case, and I still think that it's the definition of frivolous. As is this case.


You're a damned idiot too if you REALLY read all the facts, and still believe that.
 
2010-02-28 08:05:17 PM
img.listal.com

Approves of the 'Everyone!!' principle.
 
2010-02-28 08:06:03 PM
TOSViolation: AntiNorm is a damned idiot who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

I admire your superior argumentative skills.


Sygonus: Yes. Coffee is hot. But it shouldn't be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns... in the case, it was revealed that McDonalds deliberately heated coffee to temperatures they knew would cause severe burns in order to gain a competitive advantage. Internal memos showed McDonalds decided to pay out the occassional injury settlement rather than decrease the coffee's temperature to safe levels. That's a disgusting practice, and thus McDonald's was punished accordingly. Also, the woman who filed the suit was found to be partially at fault for spilling the coffee, thus reducing the damages McD's had to pay.

She should have waited two minutes then to let it cool down. Again, this is just common sense. You have to be careful when dealing with hot liquids. Always assume that they will burn you if you spill them, and treat them accordingly.
 
2010-02-28 08:08:02 PM
Stealing from someone else:
Not-garbage:
* The car dealership for selling the immigrant the car, on the grounds that the purchaser held "an invalid driver's licence".
* The individual salesman who sold the immigrant the car, on the same grounds.
* The illegal immigrant who just got convicted of 19 counts and is facing more than a century in prison.
* The immigrant wife's parents, "because they may have provided him with the [vehicle]."
* Any police officers that had arrested or cited the immigrant without ensuring his deportation.

Garbage
* The local energy company, for "failure to reasonably supervise, control and maintain a switch box."
* The State and City due to a widening of the road that occurred five years previously to the accident.
* The parent company of the ice cream shop "because the store's wall facing the street was made of glass and did not have safety barriers."
* The owner of the land on which the shop was built.
* The family of the dead meth addict.
 
2010-02-28 08:08:16 PM
I think the wife should sue the husband for knocking her up and making her have the kid.

I think the husband should sue the wife for not letting him stick his junk in her trunk, like he wanted to, which would have prevented her from getting pregnant.
 
2010-02-28 08:09:10 PM
AntiNorm: TOSViolation: AntiNorm is a damned idiot who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

I admire your superior argumentative skills.


It's all in bold, so it carries more weight. Only all caps has more of an impact.
 
2010-02-28 08:09:35 PM
I'm rooting for the Plaintiffs.
Hope the law enforcement loses the most money for letting an illegal alien go free on several occasions.
 
2010-02-28 08:09:53 PM
A big part of it is all about managing to include parties that will actually pay you if you manage to win, such as the ice cream store, as the person who is really at fault is broke.
 
2010-02-28 08:10:57 PM
I don't think it's illegal to buy a car of you don't have a license. I also don't think you have to be a citizen to buy a car.

A car would be illegal to drive without a license but not to own it.
 
2010-02-28 08:11:17 PM
Why not sue the parents for child neglect for taking child to such an obviously looking unsafe place to begin with.
 
2010-02-28 08:11:41 PM
Personally I'm torn because while I love suing the crap out of people who really deserve it, I think that most safety barriers are too short and painting them yellow does nothing to make them apparent when they are close enough to your car to cause property damage. Plus, I don't want to live in a world where car dealers have the job to enforce the law. I do enjoy line-of-sight laws though.

I guess these guys lost me when they sued the family of the woman who hit the building, that's ridiculous.
 
2010-02-28 08:11:57 PM
The kid died doing what he loved.

Getting crushed in a car accident.
 
2010-02-28 08:12:20 PM
And why hasn't The Grim Reaper been named as a defendant? Surely a case can be made against him?
 
2010-02-28 08:12:42 PM
House of Tards: I am very sorry that their child is dead. I really would like them to die however. In a painful, painful manner.

This! I know their kid died in a tragedy, but this feels like a money grab. Could they at least sue on the basis of one coherent theory? They're suing the car dealership for potentially selling the car to Hernandez and the in-laws for buying the car. WTF?
 
2010-02-28 08:12:57 PM
I would sue Baskin-Robbins on general principle. The fact that they are allowed to call their frozen candy product ice cream is the worst crime in the story.

So an illegal hits a meth head, who then hits the kid. Remind me to stay out of Arizona. We're having a rash of drunken unlicensed illegals killing normal people up here in the New York suburbs. The persons fronting for the illegals in the car purchase are just as culpable, but no one is going after them as far as I know. Good for the dead kids parents for attacking that angle. And if the Baskin-Robbins really was 7 feet from the road with no barrier, then someone made a bad decision. Find that someone.
 
2010-02-28 08:13:00 PM
ZAZ: They are suing the car dealer for selling him the car and suing his wife's parents for providing him with the car. Perhaps suitably placed electrodes could help reduce these inconsistent theories to one consistent theory.

The government defendants should get out easily enough. Discretionary function immunity and all that.


still gotta pay lawyers
 
2010-02-28 08:14:13 PM
TOSViolation: jagec: Talon:

If you seriously think the McD's coffee case is "frivolous" then you really don't know much of anything about the case.

The McD's coffee case is/was more meritorious than this family and their 3 y.o.

Oh, I've heard all the arguments about the McD coffee case, and I still think that it's the definition of frivolous. As is this case.

You're a damned idiot too if you REALLY read all the facts, and still believe that.


...Or I have a different idea of the level of risk that people should expect in their day-to-day lives than you do. The idea that people can cruise around all day at 80MPH in their deathmobiles but can't be expected to be responsible with hotter-than-average coffee is just a little bit too much cognitive dissonance for me.
Hot beverages like coffee and tea should always be treated as if they're fresh off of the boil. It is thermodynamically impossible for McDonald's to have been serving their coffee hotter than that, and so they are not liable. Don't get me wrong, their corporate attitude was callous and I hate them as a company, but I can call them irresponsible dicks all day long without believing that they should be LEGALLY LIABLE.
 
2010-02-28 08:14:19 PM
When your time's up, your time's up.

And yet, whether the child dies at the age of a few seconds or 65 years, it's the worst that can happen to a surviving parent.
 
2010-02-28 08:14:20 PM
jpallan: Just whenever I think I've seen it all, now I see parents hiring attorneys to exploit their 3-year-old son's death for profit.

This is new to you? Typical lawyer behavior is to throw a bunch of shiat in the air and see what sticks. Aircraft accidents are notorious for this.
 
2010-02-28 08:14:27 PM
Are they suing themselves for patronizing a baskin robbins that is too close to the city road that an unlicensed driver and electric company were incompetent?
 
2010-02-28 08:15:21 PM
I think their lawsuit is imcomplete, they forgot these;
1) The dealer who sold the Meth
2) The person who made the Meth
3) The people who built the cars
4) The Native Americans- If they had kept their land then there wouldn't have been an ice cream store there
5) The United States- For not keeping the illegal immigrant out
6) Whatever country the illegal immigrant came from for not keeping him there.
7) The illegal immigrant's parents for having him in the first place
9) Any person who saw the illegal immigrant speeding and didn't report it.
10) All divine beings- That whole "Act of God" thing.
11) All Farkers who have mocked them

Did I leave anyone out?
 
2010-02-28 08:15:37 PM
I bet the Ice Cream Kid's folks have (had) money, I don't think any lawyer would do so much work on contingency with little chance of collecting on each case, and this would take quite a few billable hours. I'm pretty sure that in their urge to spread the pain they are going to bankrupt themselves, and still have a dead kid.
/also 100years for negligent homicide should be a crime in itself, and the migrant and the dead tweaker are the only people who should be open to legal attacks(in a perfect world).
//Got my GED in LAW
 
2010-02-28 08:15:48 PM
bighasbeen: Kids, just like other people, can and do die. It's no more sad than when an adult dies.

I doubt there are many kids whose death would bring joy to others. Can't say the same for adults.
 
2010-02-28 08:16:00 PM
Canadian and American culture is more similar than not, however there are a few distinct differences. The profound and ubiquitous need to sue, often and everyone, regardless of merit is one of those differences.
 
2010-02-28 08:16:39 PM
AntiNorm: TOSViolation: AntiNorm is a damned idiot who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

I admire your superior argumentative skills.



NightOwl2255: AntiNorm: TOSViolation: AntiNorm is a damned idiot who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

I admire your superior argumentative skills.

It's all in bold, so it carries more weight. Only all caps has more of an impact.




The fact that I'm right is just a bonus.
 
2010-02-28 08:16:46 PM
AntiNorm: She should have waited two minutes then to let it cool down. Again, this is just common sense. You have to be careful when dealing with hot liquids. Always assume that they will burn you if you spill them, and treat them accordingly.

Yes, it's important to deal carefully with hot liquids. That's why the woman was found to be partially at fault in the case (I think it was 20% contributory negligence on her part).

However, just because she was not careful, it does NOT excuse McDonalds from a certain duty of care towards its customers. Again, they were *knowingly* serving a product at extremely dangerous temperatures. Let's say I'm driving a car and I get into a fender-bender... and the car explodes in a massive fireball. Should my next of kin be unable to sue the manufacturer because I "should have known getting ino an accident was bad, and excercised more caution"? Any sane person would realize that while I was careless in getting into the fender bender, the car should not have exploded from such a minor accident... the manufacturer can still be held liable.

Also, the McDonalds trial was a jury trial. If it was truly frivelous, why did twelve ordinary people award such massive damages? Shouldn't they have all realized how "excessive" it was?
 
2010-02-28 08:17:43 PM
radioman_: I would sue Baskin-Robbins on general principle. The fact that they are allowed to call their frozen candy product ice cream is the worst crime in the story.

So an illegal hits a meth head, who then hits the kid. Remind me to stay out of Arizona. We're having a rash of drunken unlicensed illegals killing normal people up here in the New York suburbs. The persons fronting for the illegals in the car purchase are just as culpable, but no one is going after them as far as I know. Good for the dead kids parents for attacking that angle. And if the Baskin-Robbins really was 7 feet from the road with no barrier, then someone made a bad decision. Find that someone.


In suburban chicago, there is a dealership on North Avenue that reads (in spanish, No license, no problem.
 
2010-02-28 08:18:22 PM
jagec: TOSViolation: jagec: Talon:

If you seriously think the McD's coffee case is "frivolous" then you really don't know much of anything about the case.

The McD's coffee case is/was more meritorious than this family and their 3 y.o.

Oh, I've heard all the arguments about the McD coffee case, and I still think that it's the definition of frivolous. As is this case.

You're a damned idiot too if you REALLY read all the facts, and still believe that.

...Or I have a different idea of the level of risk that people should expect in their day-to-day lives than you do. The idea that people can cruise around all day at 80MPH in their deathmobiles but can't be expected to be responsible with hotter-than-average coffee is just a little bit too much cognitive dissonance for me.
Hot beverages like coffee and tea should always be treated as if they're fresh off of the boil. It is thermodynamically impossible for McDonald's to have been serving their coffee hotter than that, and so they are not liable. Don't get me wrong, their corporate attitude was callous and I hate them as a company, but I can call them irresponsible dicks all day long without believing that they should be LEGALLY LIABLE.




Luckily, for the rest of us, you are not in any position of political power.
 
2010-02-28 08:19:02 PM
http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard.html
 
2010-02-28 08:19:20 PM
image1.mapmuse.com

/31 Defendants
 
mgf
2010-02-28 08:20:09 PM
ensjoeski: Stealing from someone else:
Not-garbage:
* Any police officers that had arrested or cited the immigrant without ensuring his deportation./i>

Agree with most of these, and agree that the perp should have been deported long ago. However, with the current legal climate, there are many organizations on the other side ready to sue law enforcement/citizens groups for some imagined violation of civil rights whenever an illegal immigrant is attempted to be deported. The convoluted appeals process they have created would result in him not being driven across the border, but held in a processing center for months while trust-fund law students with no concept of the real world try to convince a judge he should be allowed to stay.

This comes from talking with several law enforcement personnel from different agencies that HAVE tried to deport arrestees but call ICE/INS/whatever it is now and the criminals are simply turned away because there are so many people packed into the holding/appeals centers.

 
2010-02-28 08:20:54 PM
TOSViolation: The fact that I'm right is just a bonus.

I actually agree, the lawsuit did have merit. I just like to think I can make a point without using bold.
 
2010-02-28 08:22:38 PM
TOSViolation:


Luckily, for the rest of us, you are not in any position of political power.


Ha! Like the clowns in Congress are so much better. At least my admittedly libertarian beliefs are consistent and fair.
 
2010-02-28 08:23:09 PM
The US is such a baby worshipping culture.

"OMFG KIDS ARE TEH FUTURE!!!"

This crap needs to stop. In countries like Japan, it's adults who are more valued than the young - they're hard to replace (experience, knowledge, etc.) With kids, it's just 'bang bang, wait nine months', and you've got yourself a replacement.
 
2010-02-28 08:23:47 PM
I live about 1.4 miles away, so I'm off the hook, getting a kick...
 
2010-02-28 08:23:52 PM
Mentat: Just for the record, I have decided to sue Drew Curtis and every registered member of TotalFark for creating and promoting Fark which has had a negative impact on my financial future by providing me a means for avoiding work.

No, your doing it wrong, forget the slacker total farkers- never sue poor people. Drew is fine, drop the total farkers. Add whatever computer manufacturer made his servers, whatever software company who made the software that runs the Fark site, whatever company made your computer,your employer for not properly webfiltering Fark, Al Gore for creating the internet, etc. Large companies and celebrities are the way to go when getting unnecesarily litigious. Settling is better than fighting for them.
 
2010-02-28 08:23:54 PM
jpallan: Just whenever I think I've seen it all, now I see parents hiring attorneys to exploit their 3-year-old son's death for profit.

I'm guessing it has more to do with revenge and misplaced grief than profit, but what do I know?
 
2010-02-28 08:24:17 PM
To those who think the McDonald's case is frivolous: You have no idea what you're talking about. There's much better examples of "frivolous" lawsuits out there. That one isn't one of them.

1) The woman tried to settle for $20000, which would have just covered her medical expenses (from 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body). McDonalds refused.
2) McDonald had been warned about the heat of their coffee before. From 1982-1992 over 700 complaints had been filed about the heat of the coffee, many with similar burns to the plaintiff. McDonalds did nothing.
3) Coffee you make at home is usually around 135-140 degrees. McDonalds served theirs at 180-190 (which is 20-30 degrees below boiling)
4) McDonalds was screwed by their own testimony. I quote: "McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

"The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee."

"McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving."

"The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' ""

5) In addition, the plaintiff's testimony was fairly damning.

"Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds."

"Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

http://www.baumlaw.com/mcDonalds.html
 
2010-02-28 08:26:00 PM
generaltimmy: In suburban chicago, there is a dealership on North Avenue that reads (in spanish, No license, no problem.

While the laws might defer state to state and it might not be illegal to sell a car to a person with no license, if you sell a car to a person with no license and allow them to drive the car off the lot and they get in a accident, you are most likely screwed.
 
2010-02-28 08:26:22 PM
Do you have to have a driver's license to buy a car? I'm sure I've always shown one just so they know who I am, but if I has a passport (for example) to satisfy the ID requirement, would they still sell me the car?

What if I bought a car and had a friend drive it home so I could give it to my wife as a gift?
 
2010-02-28 08:27:47 PM
NightOwl2255: TOSViolation: The fact that I'm right is just a bonus.

I actually agree, the lawsuit did have merit. I just like to think I can make a point without using bold.


I've never liked Fark's quoting style. The quote should be more easily distinguishable from the response than a simple italicization. I'd prefer a box around the quote, possibly a horizontal rule, or a different font color. I decided to go with bold, though.
 
2010-02-28 08:28:07 PM
Barakku: In addition, the suit names the parent company of Baskin-Robbins because the store's wall facing Havana was made of glass and did not have safety barriers. The owner of the property where the shop sits is also a defendant.

FFS people


They should also sue the city, for zoning the property to allow restaurants to have glass store fronts; the glass manufacturer for making the glass in such a way as to shatter into shards like it did; the corporation that dug up the sand (because there might have been better sand that wouldn't have made such fragile glass); the makers of the frame of the window because the glass shouldn't have popped free of the frame like that; the individual employees who didn't fling their bodies across the window to save the child; and anyone else in the shop who could have done the same.

Then they can sue the owner of the adjacent properties for not forcing the Baskin-Robbins to have safety rails; and for not having rails themselves that they could have forced the Baskin-Robbins to comply with; and the city council for not foreseeing that safety rails might have prevented the accident and ordering all stores fronting the road to have rails and to brick up their windows.

These parents are just missing so many opportunities to cash in.
 
2010-02-28 08:28:18 PM
I hereby invoke my right to refuse to comment on the grounds that it may in someway get me sued.
 
2010-02-28 08:29:56 PM
They should name themselves in the suit for having sex and producing a child they might lose due to an accident one day.
 
2010-02-28 08:29:58 PM
jpallan:

When you have attorneys refusing the opportunity to appear in the newspaper, you know something is seriously farked.


This is not true. I have worked on some (locally) high profile cases in my time and I ALWAYS refuse to comment. The case should be tried in the court room not in the press.

 
2010-02-28 08:31:30 PM
Anza: To those who think the McDonald's case is frivolous: wall of text

Please don't get em started. That lawsuit is second only to gun control on the list of Fark Flaming Threads.
 
2010-02-28 08:33:03 PM
They should dig up the kid's corpse and sue it for getting in the way of dumb luck.
 
2010-02-28 08:33:58 PM
Anyone hear of the "deep pocket" theory of tort law?

Anybody......?

...
 
Displayed 50 of 281 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report