IronMagLabs Osta Rx

          Follow Us on Facebook        Subscribe to us on YouTube        Follow Us on Twitter        IronMagLabs on Instagram        Sign Up for our Newsletter


Good Bye to Common Sense

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Prince's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Panama
    Posts
    61,273
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Unhappy Good Bye to Common Sense






    Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in Bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

    Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

    Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

    His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student , only worsened his condition.

    Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

    It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

    Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

    Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

    Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

    Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

    He is survived only by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights,*** I Want It Now,*** Someone Else Is To Blame,*** and ***I'm A Victim**


    I apologize to Splash Log if I have posted this before, either way it's a good little read.





    IronMagLabs 15% Discount Code: Robert15



    Hardcore Peptides 20% Discount Code: Robert20



  2. #2
    Pew Pew
    PainandGain's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tx USA
    Posts
    451
    Rep Points
    31248339

    This makes me want to cry.
    When will Common sense be re-born?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Posts
    44,751
    Rep Points
    802265827



    It will only get worse.

  4. #4
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    26,853
    Rep Points
    804964429

    Socrates has a lost essay that is eerily similar to this......
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  5. #5
    Thats Dr. Keke to you!
    ELITE MEMBER
    KelJu's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    In my imagination.
    Posts
    14,629
    Rep Points
    902122528

    Common sense will be reincarnated, but until then, we will suffer.
    Fucking Determined!

  6. #6
    Registered User
    QuestionGuy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    2,804
    Rep Points
    5431238

    I like this post, i can give a million examples of how common sense is gone, it is freaking extinct and its DNA has been enilated..........But then id just be writing a loooong post, wouldnt want to upset manlicion
    You've never lived untill you've almost died, life has an excitement that the protected will never know.

  7. #7
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
    What exact case is this talking about? I am almost positive there is another reason that the court took into account for deciding this way and this case has been spun out of proportion and used as propaganda against lawyers.

    Here is an explanation of common legal myths: USATODAY.com - Legal myths: Hardly the whole truth

    Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
    This continues to be a controversial case. If you do not read the facts of the case and only evaluate it facially, it appears that our legal system is ridiculous and compensated this lady for her own stupidity. But once the facts come out: that McDonalds knew about previous serious injuries caused by their coffee, that they brewed and held the coffee at abnormally high temperatures of over 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and also the extent of this particular plaintiff's injuries.... then this decision seems more reasonable. In fact, I think the jury got it right.

    When you brew your own coffee at home, it is hot for sure. But it is most likely no where near 180 degrees Fahrenheit. If you spilled coffee that you made yourself onto your hand while pouring it, it might hurt ever so slightly, but it would not leave a permanent injury.

    If you only ever made coffee at home and had no prior knowledge of exactly how boiling hot McDonald's coffee was, nor a warning from McDonalds, then how could you see such permanent injuries occurring from a mere spill?

    Onto damages... this plaintiff was serious injured by the burning hot coffee. I do not remember the specifics, but I am sure you can google them and find just how nasty they are. Her medical expenses were accounted for, as well as pain and suffering, which is standard. Since McDonalds actually knew how hazardous their coffee could be and blatantly chose not to make it safe or warn their customers, the jury also awarded punitive damages. This was necessary to slap McDonalds on the wrist and give them an incentive to warn future customers about their coffee. In reality, the total award only represented about 2-4 days of McDonalds coffee sales.

    Now this lady was definitely contributorily negligent in putting the coffee between her legs while in her car in an attempt to put milk/sugar into the coffee. As such, her reward should have been reduced by the amount that she was contributorily negligent. I do not believe it was reduced, and this is the only part that I disagree with the court on.

    Also, consider the role of damages in this case. These damages are never meant to "reward" an injured plaintiff. The goals of damages are shifting the cost of the plaintiff's injury to the defendant who caused the injury, and deterrence to the defendant to take action to prevent similar injuries.


    Another interesting note: the plaintiff, an 81 year old lady, wanted to settle for some ridiculously low amount. McDonalds was rash enough to take this to trial. Who decides these cases? Juries. And juries are made up of regular people, who can be quite sympathetic. If some old 81 year old got SERIOUSLY injured because she did not know just how hot the coffee was and McDonalds had all this knowledge of just how damaging it could be but failed to act.... who do you think the jury will rule for?
    Last edited by maxpro2; 01-27-2009 at 11:07 PM.

  8. #8
    IDIOT SAVANT
    ALBOB's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    An alternate reality.
    Posts
    11,627
    Rep Points
    163513133

    Quote Originally Posted by MWpro View Post
    What exact case is this talking about? I am almost positive there is another reason that the court took into account for deciding this way and this case has been spun out of proportion and used as propaganda against lawyers.

    Here is an explanation of common legal myths: USATODAY.com - Legal myths: Hardly the whole truth



    This continues to be a controversial case. If you do not read the facts of the case and only evaluate it facially, it appears that our legal system is ridiculous and compensated this lady for her own stupidity. But once the facts come out: that McDonalds knew about previous serious injuries caused by their coffee, that they brewed and held the coffee at abnormally high temperatures of over 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and also the extent of this particular plaintiff's injuries.... then this decision seems more reasonable. In fact, I think the jury got it right.

    When you brew your own coffee at home, it is hot for sure. But it is most likely no where near 180 degrees Fahrenheit. If you spilled coffee that you made yourself onto your hand while pouring it, it might hurt ever so slightly, but it would not leave a permanent injury.

    If you only ever made coffee at home and had no prior knowledge of exactly how boiling hot McDonald's coffee was, nor a warning from McDonalds, then how could you see such permanent injuries occurring from a mere spill?

    Onto damages... this plaintiff was serious injured by the burning hot coffee. I do not remember the specifics, but I am sure you can google them and find just how nasty they are. Her medical expenses were accounted for, as well as pain and suffering, which is standard. Since McDonalds actually knew how hazardous their coffee could be and blatantly chose not to make it safe or warn their customers, the jury also awarded punitive damages. This was necessary to slap McDonalds on the wrist and give them an incentive to warn future customers about their coffee. In reality, the total award only represented about 2-4 days of McDonalds coffee sales.

    Now this lady was definitely contributorily negligent in putting the coffee between her legs while in her car in an attempt to put milk/sugar into the coffee. As such, her reward should have been reduced by the amount that she was contributorily negligent. I do not believe it was reduced, and this is the only part that I disagree with the court on.

    Also, consider the role of damages in this case. These damages are never meant to "reward" an injured plaintiff. The goals of damages are shifting the cost of the plaintiff's injury to the defendant who caused the injury, and deterrence to the defendant to take action to prevent similar injuries.


    Another interesting note: the plaintiff, an 81 year old lady, wanted to settle for some ridiculously low amount. McDonalds was rash enough to take this to trial. Who decides these cases? Juries. And juries are made up of regular people, who can be quite sympathetic. If some old 81 year old got SERIOUSLY injured because she did not know just how hot the coffee was and McDonalds had all this knowledge of just how damaging it could be but failed to act.... who do you think the jury will rule for?
    Are you intentionally being obtuse or are you really this stupid? Either way, you're living proof of the OP, common sense is truely dead.
    Rules? You mean we have RULES for that???

  9. #9
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Quote Originally Posted by ALBOB View Post
    Are you intentionally being obtuse or are you really this stupid? Either way, you're living proof of the OP, common sense is truely dead.
    Did you read my post at all? Did you read the full text of the court decision at all?

    When you do, get back to me. Until then, I say that you are what is wrong with America. This "death of common sense" that is spoken of is best epitomized by ignorant people, like you, jumping to conclusions without hearing the full story or doing any further research.

  10. #10
    Pew Pew
    PainandGain's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tx USA
    Posts
    451
    Rep Points
    31248339

    Quote Originally Posted by MWpro View Post
    What exact case is this talking about? I am almost positive there is another reason that the court took into account for deciding this way and this case has been spun out of proportion and used as propaganda against lawyers.

    Here is an explanation of common legal myths: USATODAY.com - Legal myths: Hardly the whole truth



    This continues to be a controversial case. If you do not read the facts of the case and only evaluate it facially, it appears that our legal system is ridiculous and compensated this lady for her own stupidity. But once the facts come out: that McDonalds knew about previous serious injuries caused by their coffee, that they brewed and held the coffee at abnormally high temperatures of over 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and also the extent of this particular plaintiff's injuries.... then this decision seems more reasonable. In fact, I think the jury got it right.

    When you brew your own coffee at home, it is hot for sure. But it is most likely no where near 180 degrees Fahrenheit. If you spilled coffee that you made yourself onto your hand while pouring it, it might hurt ever so slightly, but it would not leave a permanent injury.

    If you only ever made coffee at home and had no prior knowledge of exactly how boiling hot McDonald's coffee was, nor a warning from McDonalds, then how could you see such permanent injuries occurring from a mere spill?

    Onto damages... this plaintiff was serious injured by the burning hot coffee. I do not remember the specifics, but I am sure you can google them and find just how nasty they are. Her medical expenses were accounted for, as well as pain and suffering, which is standard. Since McDonalds actually knew how hazardous their coffee could be and blatantly chose not to make it safe or warn their customers, the jury also awarded punitive damages. This was necessary to slap McDonalds on the wrist and give them an incentive to warn future customers about their coffee. In reality, the total award only represented about 2-4 days of McDonalds coffee sales.

    Now this lady was definitely contributorily negligent in putting the coffee between her legs while in her car in an attempt to put milk/sugar into the coffee. As such, her reward should have been reduced by the amount that she was contributorily negligent. I do not believe it was reduced, and this is the only part that I disagree with the court on.

    Also, consider the role of damages in this case. These damages are never meant to "reward" an injured plaintiff. The goals of damages are shifting the cost of the plaintiff's injury to the defendant who caused the injury, and deterrence to the defendant to take action to prevent similar injuries.


    Another interesting note: the plaintiff, an 81 year old lady, wanted to settle for some ridiculously low amount. McDonalds was rash enough to take this to trial. Who decides these cases? Juries. And juries are made up of regular people, who can be quite sympathetic. If some old 81 year old got SERIOUSLY injured because she did not know just how hot the coffee was and McDonalds had all this knowledge of just how damaging it could be but failed to act.... who do you think the jury will rule for?
    I agree with this. But coffee is much hotter than 180f, it takes it 300 just to boil water and when coffee is made the water can boil, so i'd say it was much hotter. not that this is the point, just saying

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18,563
    Rep Points
    66150404

    Quote Originally Posted by PainandGain View Post
    I agree with this. But coffee is much hotter than 180f, it takes it 300 just to boil water and when coffee is made the water can boil, so i'd say it was much hotter. not that this is the point, just saying
    212 degrees F to boil water

  12. #12
    Pew Pew
    PainandGain's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tx USA
    Posts
    451
    Rep Points
    31248339

    Quote Originally Posted by IainDaniel View Post
    212 degrees F to boil water
    Oh yea...
    I was thinking 100C for water to boil...and somehow I came up with the number 300.

  13. #13
    Thats Dr. Keke to you!
    ELITE MEMBER
    KelJu's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    In my imagination.
    Posts
    14,629
    Rep Points
    902122528

    Quote Originally Posted by MWpro View Post
    What exact case is this talking about? I am almost positive there is another reason that the court took into account for deciding this way and this case has been spun out of proportion and used as propaganda against lawyers.

    Here is an explanation of common legal myths: USATODAY.com - Legal myths: Hardly the whole truth



    This continues to be a controversial case. If you do not read the facts of the case and only evaluate it facially, it appears that our legal system is ridiculous and compensated this lady for her own stupidity. But once the facts come out: that McDonalds knew about previous serious injuries caused by their coffee, that they brewed and held the coffee at abnormally high temperatures of over 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and also the extent of this particular plaintiff's injuries.... then this decision seems more reasonable. In fact, I think the jury got it right.

    When you brew your own coffee at home, it is hot for sure. But it is most likely no where near 180 degrees Fahrenheit. If you spilled coffee that you made yourself onto your hand while pouring it, it might hurt ever so slightly, but it would not leave a permanent injury.

    If you only ever made coffee at home and had no prior knowledge of exactly how boiling hot McDonald's coffee was, nor a warning from McDonalds, then how could you see such permanent injuries occurring from a mere spill?

    Onto damages... this plaintiff was serious injured by the burning hot coffee. I do not remember the specifics, but I am sure you can google them and find just how nasty they are. Her medical expenses were accounted for, as well as pain and suffering, which is standard. Since McDonalds actually knew how hazardous their coffee could be and blatantly chose not to make it safe or warn their customers, the jury also awarded punitive damages. This was necessary to slap McDonalds on the wrist and give them an incentive to warn future customers about their coffee. In reality, the total award only represented about 2-4 days of McDonalds coffee sales.

    Now this lady was definitely contributorily negligent in putting the coffee between her legs while in her car in an attempt to put milk/sugar into the coffee. As such, her reward should have been reduced by the amount that she was contributorily negligent. I do not believe it was reduced, and this is the only part that I disagree with the court on.

    Also, consider the role of damages in this case. These damages are never meant to "reward" an injured plaintiff. The goals of damages are shifting the cost of the plaintiff's injury to the defendant who caused the injury, and deterrence to the defendant to take action to prevent similar injuries.


    Another interesting note: the plaintiff, an 81 year old lady, wanted to settle for some ridiculously low amount. McDonalds was rash enough to take this to trial. Who decides these cases? Juries. And juries are made up of regular people, who can be quite sympathetic. If some old 81 year old got SERIOUSLY injured because she did not know just how hot the coffee was and McDonalds had all this knowledge of just how damaging it could be but failed to act.... who do you think the jury will rule for?
    I usually agree with you, but not this time. Coffee is hot.

    You do not:

    A) Put dangerously hot substances between your leg unless they are in a strong container that won't spill.
    B) Mix dangerously hot substances between your legs in your car.
    c) Drive with coffee between your legs in the first place.


    I could care less how hot the coffee was. She was an idiot, she caused the damage to herself, and didn't deserve a fucking dime from McDonalds.



    Yo are not allowed to shoot an unarmed criminal that is on your property in most states. You can be sued if you do. However in a situation of panic and fear most people don't think rationally and shoot criminals on their property in self defense. They are sued all the time for this. I would look up some cases for you, but I will leave that for you.
    Fucking Determined!

  14. #14
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1860097295

    Quote Originally Posted by MWpro View Post
    This continues to be a controversial case. If you do not read the facts of the case and only evaluate it facially, it appears that our legal system is ridiculous and compensated this lady for her own stupidity. But once the facts come out: that McDonalds knew about previous serious injuries caused by their coffee, that they brewed and held the coffee at abnormally high temperatures of over 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and also the extent of this particular plaintiff's injuries.... then this decision seems more reasonable. In fact, I think the jury got it right.

    <snipped for space>
    You missed the most important part of that case. It wasn't that the coffee was at X temperature or that McDonald's had been warned before, it was that the McDonald's corporation showed disdain (not just disinterest) for the woman and her injuries.

    Read the transcripts. McDonald's completely and utterly blew her off. This attitude from the corporation towards a private citizen is what prompted the judge to level such a large fiscal punishment.

    I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the judge actually awarded the plaintiff more than she was asking for. And I say good for him!


  15. #15
    pedal pedal pedal
    ELITE MEMBER
    I Are Baboon's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    12,754
    Rep Points
    190773511

    McDonald's coffee is friggin terrible. The woman should have been fined for drinking the crap. I bet she's a BUD drinker, too.

  16. #16
    Pew Pew
    PainandGain's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tx USA
    Posts
    451
    Rep Points
    31248339

    Quote Originally Posted by I Are Baboon View Post
    McDonald's coffee is friggin terrible. The woman should have been fined for drinking the crap. I bet she's a BUD drinker, too.
    'Nuff said.

  17. #17
    ALBOB's evil twin
    ALBOB2's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In a state of confusion
    Posts
    27
    Rep Points
    8951

    Quote Originally Posted by MWpro View Post
    Did you read my post at all? Did you read the full text of the court decision at all?

    When you do, get back to me. Until then, I say that you are what is wrong with America. This "death of common sense" that is spoken of is best epitomized by ignorant people, like you, jumping to conclusions without hearing the full story or doing any further research.
    Actually, you're 100% wrong AGAIN. I asked if you were intentionally being obtuse or if you're really that stupid because you tried to take two ANALOGIES literally. ANAOGIES, by definition, cannot be taken literally. In doing so you proved you have no clue as to what they were representing and also that common sense is indeed dead.
    Bigger, stronger, more pornal than the original ALBOB.

  18. #18
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Quote Originally Posted by DOMS View Post
    You missed the most important part of that case. It wasn't that the coffee was at X temperature or that McDonald's had been warned before, it was that the McDonald's corporation showed disdain (not just disinterest) for the woman and her injuries.

    Read the transcripts. McDonald's completely and utterly blew her off. This attitude from the corporation towards a private citizen is what prompted the judge to level such a large fiscal punishment.

    I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the judge actually awarded the plaintiff more than she was asking for. And I say good for him!

    That is hardly the most important part of the case. The most important part was that McDonald's had been put on notice that their coffee was severely burning hundreds of their customers but then they did nothing about it.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    TrojanMan60563's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The U-S of A
    Posts
    4,214
    Rep Points
    55339487

    The lady that burned herself on coffee by age 81 should know coffee is hot, and I doubt it wasn't her first trip to McDonalds. Surely by this age she should know better then to drive with it between her legs or try to add stuff to it while driving. Should McDonalds put on the cup, HOT caution: do not put between legs while driving? How far does a company need to go with their warnings to avoid lame lawsuits like this one? FYI BUNN the makers of many commercial coffee makers recommends that coffee holds best between 175-185 degrees. So IMO McDonalds shouldn't be in trouble unless their coffee is unreasonably higher then 185 degrees based on this info. It can't hold at too much hotter or it would boil, or evaporate fairly quickly. Have you drank their coffee? You know that shit has been there for quite awhile.

    People hurting themselves breaking in homes and trying to sue the home owners is CRAZY!!!!....let me say that again...CRAZY!!! I saw a story on the news of a guy climbing on top of a building to try and break in and fell through a skylight....he sued the building owners! Or in Chicago when like 80 college students were at a condo having a party and they piled onto a wooden balcony and it fell down. The parents of the kids sued the building owner for not adequatly posting the weight limit on it, AS IF THAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE DRUNK KIDS FROM GOING OUT THERE!! Please give me a break here.....how the hell did they even get that many people on the damn balcony is what I want to know, and who wasn't sober enough to say, "should we all be out here like this"? Last but not least in Chicago there was a fat kid breaking into a home via bedroom window. He opened it up and tried to climb in. Well he didn't fit and got stuck. He sat there so long not wanting to get caught by shouting for help OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE WRONG....he stayed stuck until he couldn't breath anymore and died. He basically constricted his own breathing and died....his parents sued the home owners for their kids stupidity. How the hell does that even make it to the Judge?????????????????????

  20. #20
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Quote Originally Posted by KelJu View Post
    I usually agree with you, but not this time. Coffee is hot.

    You do not:

    A) Put dangerously hot substances between your leg unless they are in a strong container that won't spill.
    B) Mix dangerously hot substances between your legs in your car.
    c) Drive with coffee between your legs in the first place.


    I could care less how hot the coffee was. She was an idiot, she caused the damage to herself, and didn't deserve a fucking dime from McDonalds.

    You are operating under the assumption that she knew to what extent the coffee was hot.

    You are also assuming that she was driving while doing this. She was not. She was merely in her car. She was not driving.

    Yo are not allowed to shoot an unarmed criminal that is on your property in most states. You can be sued if you do. However in a situation of panic and fear most people don't think rationally and shoot criminals on their property in self defense. They are sued all the time for this. I would look up some cases for you, but I will leave that for you.
    You are talking about using reasonable force.

    If the mere sight of a gun is enough to deter a criminal, why you shoot him? If it is not, however, you do not have a duty to retreat in your own home. If you seriously fear for your own safety, shooting an unarmed criminal (if he is rushing at you, for example) your actions will be reasonable.

  21. #21
    Registered User
    TrojanMan60563's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The U-S of A
    Posts
    4,214
    Rep Points
    55339487

    To add, should the label on their cup read: Your legs might hold your husbands head real securely in place, but not intended for replacement of a CUP HOLDER.

  22. #22
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,717
    Rep Points
    2111034614

    Quote Originally Posted by PainandGain View Post
    I agree with this. But coffee is much hotter than 180f, it takes it 300 just to boil water and when coffee is made the water can boil, so i'd say it was much hotter. not that this is the point, just saying
    Quote Originally Posted by IainDaniel View Post
    212 degrees F to boil water
    maybe he makes the coffee at mcdonalds




    jk

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  23. #23
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1860097295

    Quote Originally Posted by MWpro View Post
    That is hardly the most important part of the case. The most important part was that McDonald's had been put on notice that their coffee was severely burning hundreds of their customers but then they did nothing about it.
    If you bother to read the transcript, you'll find this to be THE reason why the judge dropped the hammer on McDonald's. He literally said so.

    You may not think that's the most important part of the case, but the judge did.


  24. #24
    Pew Pew
    PainandGain's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tx USA
    Posts
    451
    Rep Points
    31248339

    Why are you judging this old lady so harshly lol.
    Have you never set a drink somewhere you shouldn't just for a second? of course everyone has. Sometimes you just get lazy or are busy, whatever.
    That's common sense.

  25. #25
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanMan60563 View Post
    People hurting themselves breaking in homes and trying to sue the home owners is CRAZY!!!!....let me say that again...CRAZY!!! I saw a story on the news of a guy climbing on top of a building to try and break in and fell through a skylight....he sued the building owners!
    Most of these cases are RUMORS, especially propagated by the internet. You should know better than to believe random stuff like this, even if politicans (Ronald Reagan is highly guilty of this) believe it and incorporate it into their speeches about tort reform. Who decides who wins? The jury. Do you really think a jury, composed of the most regular Americans, are going to find for a burglar? This is the lacking of common sense, that people like you will believe anything without researching it for yourselves.

    But anyway, I think the case you are trying to refer to, but cannot because of your ignorance, is Bodine v. Enterprise High School. Know the facts of it before you quote it, asshole. This case involved students who were not burglarizing a building, but merely trespassing on it. It was known that such trespasses occurred... and wen you have a known trespasser then you must warn them of dangerous conditions. Why? Because if we know someone trespasses on our property (using it as a shortcut, for example, which is wrong but in good faith... if there is a giant hole on the property, why should the good faith trespasser have to suffer with HIS LIFE? The dangerous condition here was a skylight that had been painted over.

    http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/...Final%20ii.doc
    Sometime after 10 pm on March 1, 1982, Ricky, Larry, and Duane were joined at 2380 Nebula Street by Roy Olmstead, an 18-year-old Midas Muffler mechanic who had attended and graduated from Enterprise High with Larry. The four young men had been in the house for about twenty minutes when Duane and Ricky decided to go over to Enterprise High to steal a floodlight from the school’s tennis courts. They wanted a portable light that they could use in their weight room as well as to light a basketball hoop they planned to put up outside. Roy, who had prior arrests for drunk driving and stealing vehicles’ CB radios, did not want to go along, so Ricky and Duane left the house alone at around 11 pm. It was raining, and a police report from later in the night noted that Ricky, who didn’t like cold weather, was wearing five shirts, two pairs of long johns, and jeans. The two boys drove to Enterprise in Duane’s car. They took two gym bags containing rope and a wrench to loosen the bolts on the light.

    Around 15 minutes later, Larry and Roy decided to drive over to the school to scare Ricky and Duane. They snuck across the football field and watched as their friends tried to make a rope ladder and throw it over the tennis court light. When the rope broke, Ricky and Duane decided instead to take a light from the roof of the building that housed the school’s weight room and girls’ gymnasium. Larry and Roy went along to help them.

    The gymnasium building had numerous ledges, and Ricky was able to climb to the roof easily. The other boys stayed on the ground, with Roy standing nearby while Larry and Duane went to keep a lookout. At around 11:30 pm, Ricky unbolted the light on the southeastern corner of the building, attached it to a rope, and lowered it to Roy. He then proceeded to walk across to the other side of the gymnasium’s aluminum roof, either to climb down or to unbolt a second light. A few moments later, the three boys on the ground heard breaking glass and a crash. Duane and Larry thought that Ricky had dropped a light, but Roy ran to them in a panic and said that he thought Ricky had fallen through the roof.

    Duane and Larry told Roy to take the light, stash it somewhere, run back to Larry’s house, and drive home. The boys were likely concerned about Roy’s prior arrests and wanted to try to keep him out of trouble since he had expressed reluctance about the night’s activities from the beginning. While Roy hid the light in the bushes near Larry’s car, the other two boys used a tetherball pole to break into the gym. The room was pitch dark, and the boys could not find a light switch, but they could see a hole in the roof 30 feet above, and they could hear Ricky breathing. When Duane was unable to awaken Ricky, he told Larry to go and call an ambulance. Larry drove to the nearby Redding Fire Department and rang the emergency buzzer.

    When Larry returned to the gymnasium with the firefighters, the lights were still off and Ricky had not woken up. Investigators D. Brownfield and Gary Hughes of the Redding Police Department arrived soon after. They noticed that Ricky’s many layers of clothing were soaked through due to the rainstorm. They also noticed something unusual about the glass that was scattered around him. The police report noted that while the inside of the glass was tinted green, the exterior side was coated with a silver-type roof adhesive.

    After investigating the scene, Brownfield and Hughes took Larry outside to question him. Larry claimed that the boys had lost a football on the roof and that Ricky was trying to recover it. The officers were suspicious of the story because of the time of night and the weather, but Larry insisted that the trio played night football all the time regardless of the conditions. Brownfield and Hughes then questioned Duane, who admitted that he and Ricky had planned to “steal several floodlights.” After hearing that Duane had confessed, Larry admitted that he had invented his earlier account out of fear. Larry and Duane eventually told the police that Roy had been with them earlier in the night, and when the investigators questioned him, Roy corroborated Larry and Duane’s description of the evening’s events.

    The police also later questioned Enterprise High School’s vice principal, who estimated the value of the light that Ricky had unbolted at around $35.
    Or in Chicago when like 80 college students were at a condo having a party and they piled onto a wooden balcony and it fell down. The parents of the kids sued the building owner for not adequatly posting the weight limit on it, AS IF THAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE DRUNK KIDS FROM GOING OUT THERE!!
    You are truly an ignorant asshole here. First of all, you are citing this case from hearsay. But either way this judgment is correct. You are evaluating what could have happened from insane assumptions. If the balcony was dangerous, there should have been a warning. First of all, I don't know if you get piss-ass drunk, but who is to say that everyone on the balcony was drunk, and to what extent they were drunk? And how about if these kids were not drunk... should they have recovered then if they got injured because of this dangerous balcony? You would probably say yes. So that means you agree they had a duty to warn the students. Who fucking cares if they were drunk... what difference does it make? Liability is liability.

    in Chicago there was a fat kid breaking into a home via bedroom window. He opened it up and tried to climb in. Well he didn't fit and got stuck. He sat there so long not wanting to get caught by shouting for help OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE WRONG....he stayed stuck until he couldn't breath anymore and died. He basically constricted his own breathing and died....his parents sued the home owners for their kids stupidity. How the hell does that even make it to the Judge?????????????????????
    This is a myth. Do a little research before you post stupid shit like this. Do you honestly think a jury would award for this? Give me a fucking break.

  26. #26
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Any outcome of a lawsuit that seems too weird to be true:
    1) has a lot more going on than what is on the face of it, and especially what you hear from the media (or worse, asshole politicians like Ronald Reagan); or
    2) is probably a fake story

  27. #27
    Amor Fati
    Yanick's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,231
    Rep Points
    3126249

    MWpro, are you a lawyer or otherwise involved in law? You seem to be taking a lot of this stuff to heart.
    "The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge." -Barry Marshall, Nobel Laureate

  28. #28
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    A more concise summary of Bodine

    A Tort Protector’s Must Read: “Distorting the Law” | Tortdeform
    There is the famous story of the burglar who falls through the skylight, falls on a knife and sues the homeowners for leaving the knife out. The actual case involved a teenager who was on the roof of a school and, by the best accounts we can find, was trying to redirect a light because they were trying to play basketball. And while he was on the roof he stepped through the skylight, which had been painted over black. So this may have been a trespasser, but it wasn't a burglar.

    Secondly, the incident took place in a school and not a private home. And there had been a previous claim where someone else had stepped through one of these skylights that had been painted black, which made them invisible. So the school knew about it, which was an important part of the case. And there was no knife. So that's an example of the way a story bears some resemblance to the actual events. (The teenager was rendered quadriplegic in the accident and ended up settling with the school.)

  29. #29
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Points
    31826508

    Quote Originally Posted by Yanick View Post
    You seem to be taking a lot of this stuff to heart.
    Why?

    1) People are ignorant. The very fact that his comes up in a thread about common sense shows just how little common sense people do have. They will readily believe urban legends and myths about ridiculous lawsuits that in no way are true... without researching it at all! And then they will use that to give the legal system and perpetuate the bad reputation of lawyers.

    2) For the most part, our laws make sense. If you looked at typical cases, they more likely than not have good outcomes that further good public policy. But hardly anyone can see this because they are so ignorant to look past hearsay and myths.

    And lawyers? Sure there are bad ones out there who are unethical and prey on clients with high contingency fees, especially in class action lawsuits. But I have also seen amazing lawyers, who will stop at nothing to represent their clients. When their rights are being threatened, the first thing people do is call a lawyer to advocate for them. But after that, it's back to the jokes and misperceptions of ignorance.

    Same with the police. It's all fun and games about "pigs" and "bacon." Again, there are a lot of bad cops out there. But that is not the norm. If your car gets stolen, what is the first thing you do? People can whine and bitch and moan all they want, but the truth is that our society would not be possible without cops.

  30. #30
    Registered User
    TrojanMan60563's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The U-S of A
    Posts
    4,214
    Rep Points
    55339487






    I am not going to re-quote you from above MWpro as it would take up large amounts of space.

    It story I saw on the news was not a child nor did it happen at a school. It was an adult male at an office complex. Your reference to trespassing is why people sue for lame things. If you are where you don't belong you should take the risks involved. In the case above the kids were not trespassing by climbing up on a roof. It wasn't a "shortcut" as you put it. It was crimal activity gone sour. Its not the same as walking across a field to save time in good faith that the land owner hasn't put out bear traps, AND if the owner did to trap animals from eating his livestock then so be it. You shouldn't tread on land that isn't yours without asking first.

    Secondly the two stories involving Chicago I know are true because I live here. So before you start spewing at the mouth about how everyone is an ignorant asshole maybe you should validate the source.

    The fat kid story is true, and I know it because it was all over the radio the morning it happened. The home owners discovered the body and called the police. It was all over the news here. It was also later announced the family was seeking legal action against the home owners. I never said the people received money for it. If nobody received money for these types of lawsuits then people would't waste their time filing them.

    First off a building owner shouldn't have to warn people that you cannot pile people onto a wooden balcony. That is common sense. Nor should that man lose his property over a huge suit that could have been avoided if the kids used their heads...drunk or sober it doesn't change anything. Would you go to a lake with 80 of your friends to jump on the ice because the water is frozen? If you all fell through is the forest preserve at fault for your stupidity?

    The US government already rewards ignorant stupid people by funding their mistakes i.e. having children while not being financial stable enough to feed and house themselves. I think the US might be the only country where ignorance pays. The guy working a honest job but cannot get healthcare goes without while some little idiot that pops out a kid gets full benefits for his child and himself, or herself.

    I am getting off topic, but this country is sue happy and its for a reason, and that is because people have and do make money for SUPER lame shit. One more example of this and I am done. If you know anything about Chicago you have heard of Portillo's.... The owner was sued for serving a "pint scooner" of beer. A man was awarded something like $110,000 for being shorted a little beer. He took the mug and measured its capacity and it was shy of 16oz. So he sued AND HE WON. It is silly crap like that that puts small business owners out of business. Mr. Portillo isn't crying over it I am sure, but if that was a smaller place they could have lost everything.

Similar Threads

  1. Common Sense From Canada
    By GearsMcGilf in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 07:33 PM
  2. Cure For Hypertension..Common Sense Cure...Farts
    By Hoglander in forum General Health & Awareness
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 03:37 AM
  3. Good info on common ph's out there
    By clayu86 in forum Anabolic Zone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 04:28 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 06:27 PM
  5. Overtraining or good sense?
    By clouddancerss in forum Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2004, 01:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
DISABLED END -->