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.

(How Stuff Works)   "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally." and other stupid legal warnings that prove we are a nation of total loonies. Legal Warning: slide show   (people.howstuffworks.com) divider line 145
    More: Stupid, instant noodles, warning sign  
•       •       •

10289 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 12:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 03:38:57 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: If you haven't seen this before, get off my lawn!

[moosevalley.solidwebhost.com image 406x427]


I think I love you.

I'd forgotten all about that.
 
2012-10-03 03:39:30 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: A favorite.
[files.g4tv.com image 600x499]
/hot


Oh my god! No wonder everyone was snickering as I walked by. I wish my hat had come with instructions!
 
2012-10-03 03:39:37 PM  

fredklein: Theaetetus: This text is now purple: thursdaypostal: Have you seen her thighs? No consumable liquid has any business being that hot.

Tea, perhaps humanity's oldest produced beverage, is correctly brewed and served at temperatures hotter than that.

But not consumed at temperatures that hot. So, "correctly brewed and placed to cool for a period of time before consumption" would be more accurate than "served".

That's fine - McDonald's primary argument was that most of their customers bought the coffee to bring to work and consume a half hour later... but then they should have warned people that their coffee wasn't fit for consumption yet.

If it "wasn't fit for consumption" then everyone who bought it and drank it would have burned themselves.

But the actual fact is that only one cup in 24,000,000 caused a burn (of any severity). That means, for every idiot that burned themselves, 23,999,999 managed not to.

Does that sound like something 'not fit for consumption'???

(By way of comparison, the chance of getting hit by lightning is 1 in 10,000 , or about 2400 times as high as burning yourself on McDonalds coffee.)


If I'm recalling this correctly from when I read the synopsis of the case in law school -

The particular franchise in question had -
A) faulty lids that would slip off too easily, and had been made aware of this fact
B) a broken coffee pot in which the temperature limited heating apparatus no longer turned off once the coffee got to the temperature at which it was supposed to be - meaning the broken pot got hotter than it should - and the company was already aware.

Those two things caused liability - and the warning label wouldn't have protected them from that anyway.
 
2012-10-03 03:42:57 PM  

fredklein: Neither her careless handling of a hot liquid, nor her slow response to the spill was McDonald's fault.


So if Target sells liquid nitrogen in sandwich bags, they're not liable when something bad happens?

// has anyone yet mentioned the other times McD's was warned - well before Mrs Sweatpants got cooterburned - about hot coffee?
 
2012-10-03 03:48:02 PM  

Deneb81: If I'm recalling this correctly from when I read the synopsis of the case in law school -

The particular franchise in question had -
A) faulty lids that would slip off too easily, and had been made aware of this fact
B) a broken coffee pot in which the temperature limited heating apparatus no longer turned off once the coffee got to the temperature at which it was supposed to be - meaning the broken pot got hotter than it should - and the company was already aware.

Those two things caused liability - and the warning label wouldn't have protected them from that anyway.


I'm not aware of either of those applying to this case. In fact, if the lid had indeed come off easily, the cup wouldn't have pivoted and spilled. And "During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). "- which is what it was at.
 
2012-10-03 03:56:53 PM  
Old Favorite - from a Fark Photoshop contest (wavion's work)
www.wavion.info

Original Contest
 
2012-10-03 03:57:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: fredklein: Neither her careless handling of a hot liquid, nor her slow response to the spill was McDonald's fault.

So if Target sells liquid nitrogen in sandwich bags, they're not liable when something bad happens?


Is liquid nitrogen normally sold in sandwich bags? Coffee is normally sold in foam cups.

// has anyone yet mentioned the other times McD's was warned - well before Mrs Sweatpants got cooterburned - about hot coffee?

Stella Liebeck's lawyer was able to show there were 700 previous complaints about burns... nationwide... over 10 years. Of course, he didn't bother to break it down to show how many were minor/medium/severe, or under what circumstances they happened. I already mentioned that means only one in every 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn.
 
2012-10-03 04:01:39 PM  
dicks don't have this warning. cause in the heat of passion who cares about a little E-coli
 
2012-10-03 04:01:49 PM  

Debby7813

These stupid warnings exist only because of stupid people...and smart lawyers.


The idiots that hurt themselves are only minority idiotic. The true fools and dangers to our society are the 12 idiots in the jury boxes that keep handing out millions.
 
2012-10-03 04:04:00 PM  

OnlyM3



Debby7813

These stupid warnings exist only because of stupid people...and smart lawyers.



The idiots that hurt themselves are only minority idiotic. The true fools and dangers to our society are the 12 idiots in the jury boxes that keep handing out millions.

Farking spell checker... that should be minorly...
 
2012-10-03 04:04:06 PM  

fredklein: Theaetetus: This text is now purple: thursdaypostal: Have you seen her thighs? No consumable liquid has any business being that hot.

Tea, perhaps humanity's oldest produced beverage, is correctly brewed and served at temperatures hotter than that.

But not consumed at temperatures that hot. So, "correctly brewed and placed to cool for a period of time before consumption" would be more accurate than "served".

That's fine - McDonald's primary argument was that most of their customers bought the coffee to bring to work and consume a half hour later... but then they should have warned people that their coffee wasn't fit for consumption yet.

If it "wasn't fit for consumption" then everyone who bought it and drank it would have burned themselves.


I'm not sure if this is selective reading or what, but you've skipped over a crucial part here:
1. No human on earth could possibly have drank that coffee at that instant without burning themselves.
2. "Everyone who bought it and drank it" and didn't burn themselves consumed it half an hour later when it was substantially cooler.
Hence, "their coffee wasn't fit for consumption yet."

Also:
But the actual fact is that only one cup in 24,000,000 caused a burn (of any severity). That means, for every idiot that burned themselves, 23,999,999 managed not to.
That assumes that every person who burned themselves reported it. That's a huge unsupported assumption, and is directly contradicted by things you've said before in these discussions: you have said that you've sipped hot coffee, burned your tongue, and gone on with your day. The coffee vendor wouldn't have had a report of that, so trying to argue that the lack of a report means no burns is false, as you've shown.
 
2012-10-03 04:05:32 PM  

fredklein:
Stella Liebeck's lawyer was able to show there were 700 previous complaints about burns... nationwide... over 10 years. Of course, he didn't bother to break it down to show how many were minor/medium/severe, or under what circumstances they happened. I already mentioned that means only one in every 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn.


lolz
 
2012-10-03 04:08:04 PM  
Also, you're wrong about not breaking it down, and you're also wrong about Liebeck's lawyer being the one to show 700 previous complaints. Rather, it was McDonald's showing it, and they included severity: "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."
 
2012-10-03 04:15:56 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
willowfeller.files.wordpress.com
cdn.ebaumsworld.com

And finally, a warning label for Fark.com:

coolrain44.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-03 04:22:37 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: My personal favorites are "may contain nuts" on a package of nuts, and "may cause drowsiness" on sleep aids. No shiat, if my Ambien didn't cause drowsiness, I'd be pretty pissed.


Have you seen that the makers of Nyquil have come out with a sleep aid (Zzzquil)? Fark me - I thought Nyquil *was* a sleep aid!
 
2012-10-03 04:31:08 PM  
"No, wait...THIS goes in your mouth, and THIS goes in your ass..."
 
2012-10-03 04:36:31 PM  
farm3.static.flickr.com

Sounds like what they really wanted was a wall, not a door.
 
2012-10-03 04:41:01 PM  

Debby7813: These stupid warnings exist only because of stupid people...and smart lawyers.

/// Here's Yer Sign!!!


This odds are for most of them there is a law suit connected to the warning being their.
/either that or very nervous corporate lawyers.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:10 PM  

fredklein: Dr Dreidel: fredklein: Neither her careless handling of a hot liquid, nor her slow response to the spill was McDonald's fault.

So if Target sells liquid nitrogen in sandwich bags, they're not liable when something bad happens?

Is liquid nitrogen normally sold in sandwich bags? Coffee is normally sold in foam cups.

// has anyone yet mentioned the other times McD's was warned - well before Mrs Sweatpants got cooterburned - about hot coffee?

Stella Liebeck's lawyer was able to show there were 700 previous complaints about burns... nationwide... over 10 years. Of course, he didn't bother to break it down to show how many were minor/medium/severe, or under what circumstances they happened. I already mentioned that means only one in every 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn.


1 in 24 million. McD's boasts "billions and billions served". 1 in 24 million equates roughly to 41 or 42 in a billion. Is McD's really telling us we can expect 42 (well, 84, really) burnt thighs for every billion people they serve? Is the cost of settling negligence lawsuits built into the price?

And that's just for the first billion people. "Billions and billions", conservatively, suggests 4 billion people or more - about 160-170 people have been burned? How many were burned after McD's knew about this ratio?

// 1/24,000,000 results in COMPLAINTS about a burn
 
2012-10-03 05:22:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Hence, "their coffee wasn't fit for consumption yet."


And 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 people are smart enough to wait before drinking. :-) Oh- and smart enough to not spill it on themselves.

That assumes that every person who burned themselves reported it. That's a huge unsupported assumption,

Well, considering I could possibly get a multi-million dollar award, why wouldn't I report it??

and is directly contradicted by things you've said before in these discussions: you have said that you've sipped hot coffee, burned your tongue, and gone on with your day. The coffee vendor wouldn't have had a report of that, so trying to argue that the lack of a report means no burns is false, as you've shown.

And if the 'burn' is so minor that no one bothers to report it, then it can safely not be counted.
 
2012-10-03 05:34:39 PM  

Theaetetus: fredklein:
Stella Liebeck's lawyer was able to show there were 700 previous complaints about burns... nationwide... over 10 years. Of course, he didn't bother to break it down to show how many were minor/medium/severe, or under what circumstances they happened. I already mentioned that means only one in every 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn.

lolz


Again, if it's so trivial that no one bothered to report it, then it's to trivial to discuss.

Also, you're wrong about not breaking it down, and you're also wrong about Liebeck's lawyer being the one to show 700 previous complaints. Rather, it was McDonald's showing it,

Wiki says "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, ..."

"Documents obtained from McDonald's"... by who??? Stella's lawyer. He's the one who subpoena'd McDonalds for them, and introduced them at the trial.

and they included severity: "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

"Some" 3rd degree burns. Does that mean 1 out of 700? Or 699 out of 700? Or 347 out of 700? "Some" is useless.

Also, please note that the circumstances of those previous burns (some of which McDonalds did pay $$$ for) were not disclosed. If a McDonalds employee spilled the coffee on someone, then it is very different than a customer spilling it on themselves.

Simply saying "OMFG! There were, like, 700 previous Cases!!!1!!11!" is not a valid argument.
 
2012-10-03 05:37:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 1 in 24 million equates roughly to 41 or 42 in a billion. Is McD's really telling us we can expect 42 (well, 84, really) burnt thighs for every billion people they serve?


Who said they were all burnt thighs? Most were probably first degree burns* on fingers.

*you know, red skin, like a sunburn
 
2012-10-03 05:43:52 PM  

fredklein: if the 'burn' is so minor that no one bothers to report it, then it can safely not be counted.


It should be reported - not sued for, but reported.

like "hey dude, this shiat is too hot, this is too cold, this is just right"

//What's the difference between Mummy Bear's porridge, Daddy Bear's porridge and Baby Bear's porridge?
/Well, one is Mummy Bear's, one is Daddy Bear's, and one is Baby Bear's!
 
2012-10-03 06:13:56 PM  

fredklein:
And 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 people are smart enough to wait before drinking...
And if the 'burn' is so minor that no one bothers to report it, then it can safely not be counted.


Then why are you counting them in the 23,999,999 column? I think you're not being honest with your numbers.
 
2012-10-03 06:18:25 PM  

fredklein:
Also, you're wrong about not breaking it down, and you're also wrong about Liebeck's lawyer being the one to show 700 previous complaints. Rather, it was McDonald's showing it,

Wiki says "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, ..."

"Documents obtained from McDonald's"... by who??? Stella's lawyer. He's the one who subpoena'd McDonalds for them, and introduced them at the trial.


Oh, come on, Fred, do you think that really fools anyone?
"It was Stella's lawyer who claimed there were 700 injuries, and you can't trust him."
"No, it was McDonald's own internal records."
"Well, yeah, but they only showed them because of Stella's lawyer, so you can't trust them."

and they included severity: "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

"Some" 3rd degree burns. Does that mean 1 out of 700? Or 699 out of 700? Or 347 out of 700? "Some" is useless.

Also, please note that the circumstances of those previous burns (some of which McDonalds did pay $$$ for) were not disclosed.


[Citation needed]. Extraordinary claims require at least some scintilla of evidence, Fred. Isn't it likely that McDonald's internal records, obtained only under a subpoena and threat of contempt, included some circumstances of what those records were reporting? Isn't that why they required the subpoena before they released them?
You claim those records were silent on circumstances of what they were recording... so let's see your proof. Show us the blank records, or admit that you're making things up.
 
2012-10-03 06:19:53 PM  

Theaetetus: fredklein:
And 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 people are smart enough to wait before drinking...
And if the 'burn' is so minor that no one bothers to report it, then it can safely not be counted.

Then why are you counting them in the 23,999,999 column? I think you're not being honest with your numbers.


Because they didn't burn themselves [in any significant way].

I didn't think I had to spell it out. Don't worry, I'll type slower from now on.
 
2012-10-03 06:32:21 PM  
www.needstolaugh.com

Can we quarantine all McDonald's coffee lawsuit arguments to their own special thread/tab/website/universe, so it doesn't always shiat all over what could've been a fun thread about funny stupid warnings?
 
2012-10-03 06:32:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Oh, come on, Fred, do you think that really fools anyone?
"It was Stella's lawyer who claimed there were 700 injuries, and you can't trust him."


Straw man argument, i never said "you can't trust him". I only correctly pointed out that he was the one who introduced the evidence. And he was the one who didn't break it down as to severity.

You claim those records were silent on circumstances of what they were recording... so let's see your proof.

I never claimed McDonalds records didn't contain the circumstances. I never claimed the data they turned over to Stella's lawyer didn't include those circumstances (although, depending on how the request was worded, they might very well not have. If you want to claim they did, the burden of proof is on you).

I said that the circumstances have not been released to the public. For all we know, 699 of those 700 burns were caused by defective cups (McDonalds fault, if they knew of the defect), OR 699 of them could have been caused by clumsy customers (not McDonald's fault) OR 699 could have been Act-of-God-type accidents(no ones fault). WE DON'T KNOW. So, any claims based on the incomplete data we have are useless.

making things up

Speaking of making stuff up, You sure do seem to be making a lot of strawman arguments.
 
2012-10-03 06:42:07 PM  

fredklein: Theaetetus: Oh, come on, Fred, do you think that really fools anyone?
"It was Stella's lawyer who claimed there were 700 injuries, and you can't trust him."

Straw man argument, i never said "you can't trust him". I only correctly pointed out that he was the one who introduced the evidence. And he was the one who didn't break it down as to severity.

You claim those records were silent on circumstances of what they were recording... so let's see your proof.

I never claimed McDonalds records didn't contain the circumstances. I never claimed the data they turned over to Stella's lawyer didn't include those circumstances (although, depending on how the request was worded, they might very well not have. If you want to claim they did, the burden of proof is on you).

I said that the circumstances have not been released to the public. For all we know, 699 of those 700 burns were caused by defective cups (McDonalds fault, if they knew of the defect), OR 699 of them could have been caused by clumsy customers (not McDonald's fault) OR 699 could have been Act-of-God-type accidents(no ones fault). WE DON'T KNOW. So, any claims based on the incomplete data we have are useless.

making things up

Speaking of making stuff up, You sure do seem to be making a lot of strawman arguments.



Maybe it's just my misplaced faith in humanity, but I'd like to think that the jury, after hearing all the evidence presented, didn't just stick their collective fingers in their noses and decide to fark McDonald's out of spite. I know it's tempting to pin the verdict solely on the stupidity of the jury and claim that it's just a case of "dumb consumer", but I think that's a facile response.
 
2012-10-03 06:50:55 PM  

TheHighlandHowler: The dishwasher one made me think. My newish dishwasher has a similar latch as those of old-timey refrigerators that used to kill kids, i.e. once you're in you can't get out. What's with that?



It's so they sit still for the whole rinse cycle.
 
2012-10-03 07:03:28 PM  

RobSeace: [www.needstolaugh.com image 400x263]

Can we quarantine all McDonald's coffee lawsuit arguments to their own special thread/tab/website/universe, so it doesn't always shiat all over what could've been a fun thread about funny stupid warnings?


THIS
 
2012-10-03 07:11:50 PM  

ScottRiqui: Maybe it's just my misplaced faith in humanity, but I'd like to think that the jury, after hearing all the evidence presented, didn't just stick their collective fingers in their noses and decide to fark McDonald's out of spite.


http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
"At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill.""..."told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs."...

They were emotionally swayed by the graphic pics of granny's burns. they didn't think logically- they thought emotionally.

I know it's tempting to pin the verdict solely on the stupidity of the jury and claim that it's just a case of "dumb consumer", but I think that's a facile response.

Have you ever been on a jury? I have. Two, in fact. In one, a criminal case, the police had audio and video evidence of the defendant dealing drugs. Two of the jurors refused to acknowledge any of the evidence, and voted not-guilty on all counts. Funny thing- their skin was the same color as the defendant. In the other case, a civil one, a man was knocked down by a car and broke his collarbone. He admitted not paying attention to where he was going, admitted leaving the crosswalk and strolling diagonally down the street, and lied on the stand. Yet the other jurors disregarded the evidence and awarded him money. "Well, if you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want a lot of money?" (That's a direct quote!) 

So, don't think juries are necessarily made of smart, people. They are, after all, filled with people too dumb to get out of jury duty. :-)
 
2012-10-03 07:13:47 PM  
Really?

We live in a country in which one popular television show features a family, made famous by their role in another popular television show in which they fed their female toddler stimulants prior to dressing her up as a sexual object to be judged by others, demonstrates that their favorite dish is white pasta over which a mix of equal proportions melted margarine and ketchup has been poured.

We don't have enough warnings, frankly, to legally protect companies and sane individuals from such sheer idiocy.
 
2012-10-03 07:14:23 PM  

WTFDYW: RobSeace: [www.needstolaugh.com image 400x263]

Can we quarantine all McDonald's coffee lawsuit arguments to their own special thread/tab/website/universe, so it doesn't always shiat all over what could've been a fun thread about funny stupid warnings?

THIS


If everyone would just acknowledge the fact that suing a company because you spilled coffee on yourself is stupid, there will be no more McDonald's coffee lawsuit arguments.

/Next after the break, man sues knife company because he cut himself
 
2012-10-03 07:17:00 PM  

fredklein: ScottRiqui: Maybe it's just my misplaced faith in humanity, but I'd like to think that the jury, after hearing all the evidence presented, didn't just stick their collective fingers in their noses and decide to fark McDonald's out of spite.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
"At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill.""..."told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs."...

They were emotionally swayed by the graphic pics of granny's burns. they didn't think logically- they thought emotionally.

I know it's tempting to pin the verdict solely on the stupidity of the jury and claim that it's just a case of "dumb consumer", but I think that's a facile response.

Have you ever been on a jury? I have. Two, in fact. In one, a criminal case, the police had audio and video evidence of the defendant dealing drugs. Two of the jurors refused to acknowledge any of the evidence, and voted not-guilty on all counts. Funny thing- their skin was the same color as the defendant. In the other case, a civil one, a man was knocked down by a car and broke his collarbone. He admitted not paying attention to where he was going, admitted leaving the crosswalk and strolling diagonally down the street, and lied on the stand. Yet the other jurors disregarded the evidence and awarded him money. "Well, if you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want a lot of money?" (That's a direct quote!) 

So, don't think juries are necessarily made of smart, people. They are, after all, filled with people too dumb to get out of jury duty. :-)


You have a point - the only time I've been on a jury was a military courts-martial. I found the other jurors to be thoughtful and fair, but I have no experience with civilian juries.
 
2012-10-03 07:25:55 PM  

RobSeace: [www.needstolaugh.com image 400x263]

Can we quarantine all McDonald's coffee lawsuit arguments to their own special thread/tab/website/universe, so it doesn't always shiat all over what could've been a fun thread about funny stupid warnings?


I'm just waiting for a discussion on how Doggy Door manufacturers haven't been taken to task for their lethal to children business practices.
 
2012-10-03 07:26:41 PM  
Mine has to be the short stepladder I saw with "Do not stand on or above this step" on the bottom step.
 
2012-10-03 08:07:58 PM  

Joe Peanut: The Third Man: Caution: cape does not enable user to fly.

Holly crap. I did that when I was a kid. Don't remember how young, but pretty young. Put on something like a cape pretending to be superman, and jumped down from some high thing. Don't remember any details. Just remembered the fact just now after reading this. Had completely forgotten about it. Will have to ask my parents about it when I visit them in January.

Come to think of it, my parents may not remember it either. I was found of performing stunts when I was a kid, and got injured quite often. Now that I'm in my late 40's, my body often reminds me that I shouldn't have done those things. Oh, to be young and immortal..... And with a full head of hair......


My uncle broke both of his farking legs jumping off a third story porch onto cement while wearing a Superman costume. My grandmother's first words to him when she learned what happened, "It never dawned on you to try from the ground first?!"

The women in my family have a very low tolerance for idiocy. Unfortunately the males have a high occurrence of idiocy. Somehow they put up with us.
 
2012-10-03 08:31:03 PM  
just be careful out there
 
2012-10-03 08:34:50 PM  

ScottRiqui: You have a point - the only time I've been on a jury was a military courts-martial


That seems a bit... redundant...
 
2012-10-03 08:59:22 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 12:35:38 AM  

Sybarite: So you never go ass to mouth?


+1. You owe me a new keyboard.

/done in one
//that's an ass to mouth joke
 
2012-10-04 06:13:42 AM  

fredklein: If everyone would just acknowledge the fact that suing a company because you spilled coffee on yourself is stupid, there will be no more McDonald's coffee lawsuit arguments.


I actually agree with you... I'm just really sick of reading you and Theaetetus go over the same damn arguments over and over and over and over every time there's a vaguely related thread... You two are never going to convince one another... Just give up...

/Of course, it would help if others didn't provoke the argument in every such thread by bringing it up in the first place...
 
2012-10-04 06:19:04 AM  
About the cases that result in disclaimers warning of the obvious, I've always wondered why the courts don't recognize the "We shouldn't have to warn the plaintiff because it should be obvious, that the plaintiff did not have enough common sense to see the obvious is not our fault" argument.
 
2012-10-04 05:45:22 PM  
You'll pick up more feces just touching other people's keyboards, mice, doorknobs, etc. every day than you will by putting a poop-covered thermometer in your mouth.
 
Displayed 45 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report