OFF TOPIC: This just burns my ***!!!!

[BktBallRef]

Everybody is to blame except the person who got drunk, got behind the wheel of an SUV, sped, didn't wear a seatbelt, and was on a cell phone when he ran into the back of a tow truck.

Hey dad, how about accepting the fact that no one is more responsibile for your son's death than YOUR SON!?!

Hancock's Dad Sues Restaurant Over Son's Death

[Mark Dexter]

But Tony, doesn't society share the blame for everything nowadays?

[BktBallRef]

This isn't sharing. He's blaming everyone for his son's death, except the one who is truly responsible.

[rockyroad]

Twice the legal blood-alcohol level, maryjane found in the car, speeding, cell phone, no seat belt - yep, sounds like the tow truck driver, broken down car owner, and restaurant killed that poor man...the pain his family is feeling has to be paid for by someone...

This creep dad will take whatever settlements the insurance companies offer and buy himself a fancier house...

[dblref]

Unbelievable! So, he is suing the driver of the car for allowing the car to breakdown. This suit should never get to court.

[DC_Ref12]

While I may not agree with the particulars of this case specifically, I think there is some merit in holding bars and restaurants accountable for serving ridiculous amounts of alcohol to people who are driving.

[Adam]

what an azz!
The tow company ought to counter-sue Hancock's estate for his negligence in driving drunk. Unreal.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

While I may not agree with the particulars of this case specifically, I think there is some merit in holding bars and restaurants accountable for serving ridiculous amounts of alcohol to people who are driving.

In some situations, there can be some merit to that. But this guy is in denial with regards to his son and simply going after everybody.

[Dan_ref]

In related news Cory Lidle's widow sues Peter Stuyvesant's estate for allowing high rise development on the east side of Manhattan.

Wright Brothers named as co-defendants.

btw...I joked with my son (yes, I joke about death) that this guy plowed into the rear end of a disabled car on the side of the road while driving drunk, hi on coke, speeding and on the cell phone. You know, as a lesson in life. His response was I bet he was fixing his eye make-up too.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

While I may not agree with the particulars of this case specifically, I think there is some merit in holding bars and restaurants accountable for serving ridiculous amounts of alcohol to people who are driving.

I disagree. That is the person's choice. The bars and resaurants don't pour it down their throat. If a person wants to consume too much that is their choice. That's like saying "I had a heart attack because McDonald's served me an extra burger" and "The tobacco companies gave me cancer becuse I kept buying their products even though there was a huge warning on the label". People that drink too much and get themselves into trouble only have themselves to blame. When I was younger, I got myself into trouble because I had too much to drink and decided to drive home. It wasn't the bar's fault. It was mine. I payed my fines and did what I was supposed to do. Holding the bars responsible just gives people another place to point the finger. Ok, I'm stepping off the soapbox now.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

But this guy is in denial with regards to his son and simply going after everybody.

Agreed.......

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

In some situations, there can be some merit to that. But this guy is in denial with regards to his son and simply going after everybody.

Well, not everybody - he apparently has not included the team or MLB in his suit.

Yet.

I do know why he filed this suit: because he can. That's the way the legal system is set up, not only to allow these very types of lawsuits, but there are precedents in winning as well. Everyone remembers the lady that sued McDonalds, and won, for burning herself with the hot coffee she placed between her legs. Probably what isn't as well known is the initial damage award was overturned, but she still received plenty for what most of us would consider a frivilous lawsuit.

There are laws that allow for suing bars and restaurants for overserving, so his dad might have a case. I would hope it would get dismissed before going very far. But what will probably happen is the case will be allowed, then the insurance companies will settle to avoid the cost of a full trial. That's the system.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Everyone remembers the lady that sued McDonalds, and won, for burning herself with the hot coffee she placed between her legs. Probably what isn't as well known is the initial damage award was overturned, but she still received plenty for what most of us would consider a frivilous lawsuit.

This is one of the great urban legends that will not go away.

Here are the facts of the case:
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

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.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager 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 a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics 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.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.

Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Jimgolf]

I plead not guilty due to diminished capacity because I was drunk, your honor.

[ChrisSportsFan]

An Attourney was on the radio this morning and he said that they teach them in school to "cast their nets as wide as they can". The more you catch in the net the better, then as the case proceeds, you begin releasing those who it appears you will not be a ble to charge. To me this seems incredibly unfair that innocent people have to incure unnecessary legal expenses.