RE: $18m for Paralysed Bloke
Friday 11th April 2003
$18m for Paralysed Bloke
Jury awards huge damages to pick-up driver
Discussion
wedgepilot said: If someone shot themselves, do you reckon they would sue the gun and/or bullet manufacturers? Daft lot...
I heard a few months back that the families of those killed by the 'Washington Sniper' are planning to sue the makers of the weapon that was used.....
As you say, daft.
Soon we will be forced to drive tanks speed restricted to 5mph so nobody gets hurt. One of the light plane manufacturers (piper I think) almost went under because they were inundated with litigation by 'crashees'. My fathers company had to lay off an entire factory 'cos Californian Law favours eco do-gooders who had no understanding of the product (fighting the case would have wiped out profits for 10 years)
Rant over.
Rant over.
I now live in CA and I'm constantly shocked by what they sue for. A burgler got stuck in the garage of the housse he was trying to rob. He was in there for a week as they were away. He sued for 'mental distress', as all he had to eat was dog food. He won and got $5 million for his trouble!! Even though he was a multiple offender he dedn't even get jail time. And they say crime doesn't pay
Litigation is ridiculous. I read that a cyclist in America was hit by a car when riding at night without any lights. He sued the makers of the bicycle for not informing him he should use lights at night-time. Duh. Why can't people accept that they've done something wrong instead of trying to blame other companies to earn a few quid. Seems unethical...
I agree absolutely. We all think it's mad and wrong that someone could get themselves into trouble through their own fault and then successfully sue some large organisation for allowing them to do something stupid and avoidable.
RearAdmiral said: <snip> Duh. Why can't people accept that they've done something wrong instead of trying to blame other companies to earn a few quid. Seems unethical...
However, these PH forums are full of people who have screwed up by breaking a speeding law and are absolutely enraged that they've been caught out. I wait with interest to see how many of these people roundly condemn as daft the lawsuits like the example you've given, while simultaneously glossing over the hypocrisy of their own arguments that their speeding conviction is unfair and not their fault...
I'm just off to sue the local authority in Lincoln for prosecuting me for speeding in 1996, when the police motorcyclist had hidden himself behind a hedge and made himself invisible to speeding motorists.
The fact that I was doing 83 in a 60 zone doesn't matter. I suffered embarassment when I was stopped and I blame the Lincolnshire police force entirely. It's entirely their fault that I suffered. Not my fault at all. Oh no.
Can anyone see the link here?
The fact that I was doing 83 in a 60 zone doesn't matter. I suffered embarassment when I was stopped and I blame the Lincolnshire police force entirely. It's entirely their fault that I suffered. Not my fault at all. Oh no.
Can anyone see the link here?
Incidentally, and getting off my soapbox again, you remember the case some time back when a woman bought a coffee in McDonalds and then successfully sued them when it scalded her as she drove along with it between her legs? At the time we all scoffed at this ridiculous lawsuit and tutted about what the world was coming to.
I read recently that in fact this was a serious case, and that this was the last in a long series of prosecutions of McDonalds in the US by people who had suffered serious scalding injuries because the coffee they'd bought had simply been ridiculously hot. McDonalds had been quietly paying off all these plaintiffs to prevent publicity while knowingly and maliciously failing to do anything about the problem. The woman who had the balls to see her case through to the end did us all a big favour and forced McD's to change things.
For those who are interested, this site is worth a read: www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
I read recently that in fact this was a serious case, and that this was the last in a long series of prosecutions of McDonalds in the US by people who had suffered serious scalding injuries because the coffee they'd bought had simply been ridiculously hot. McDonalds had been quietly paying off all these plaintiffs to prevent publicity while knowingly and maliciously failing to do anything about the problem. The woman who had the balls to see her case through to the end did us all a big favour and forced McD's to change things.
For those who are interested, this site is worth a read: www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
sublimatica said: Incidentally, and getting off my soapbox again, you remember the case some time back when a woman bought a coffee in McDonalds and then successfully sued them when it scalded her as she drove along with it between her legs? At the time we all scoffed at this ridiculous lawsuit and tutted about what the world was coming to.
I read recently that in fact this was a serious case, and that this was the last in a long series of prosecutions of McDonalds in the US by people who had suffered serious scalding injuries because the coffee they'd bought had simply been ridiculously hot. McDonalds had been quietly paying off all these plaintiffs to prevent publicity while knowingly and maliciously failing to do anything about the problem. The woman who had the balls to see her case through to the end did us all a big favour and forced McD's to change things.
For those who are interested, this site is worth a read: www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
If ever there was an urban myth thats got to be it. Most companies would kill to reduce their energy expenditure, but you're telling us that Maccy D's deliberately hid the fact their coffee was hot so as to burn their customers? Most retailers keep drinks as COLD as they can, to save money.
Oh, and the thing about litigation against Lincolnshire police?
What the two cases have in common is that everyone I've ever read a post from on here WOULDN'T DO EITHER
sublimatica said: I'm just off to sue the local authority in Lincoln for prosecuting me for speeding in 1996, when the police motorcyclist had hidden himself behind a hedge and made himself invisible to speeding motorists.
The fact that I was doing 83 in a 60 zone doesn't matter. I suffered embarassment when I was stopped and I blame the Lincolnshire police force entirely. It's entirely their fault that I suffered. Not my fault at all. Oh no.
Can anyone see the link here?
Nope, I can't see the link. Perhaps it's just me, or perhaps you have missed the point by a wide mile and are trying to invent a link where there isn't one? How many people try to sue the Police after getting stopped by speeding?
The issue here is litigation following an incident caused by someone who should know better. The "outrage" over speeding is down to the governments own hipocrisy over saftey on the roads.
I was just being facetious and suggesting that I would sue an authority for my own stupidity, just like these people who bring these bizarre litigations against companies in the US.
My point was simply that we all scoff at these litigations, but many people in these forums similarly seem to think that speeding prosecutions are not their own fault.
My point was simply that we all scoff at these litigations, but many people in these forums similarly seem to think that speeding prosecutions are not their own fault.
sublimatica said: My point was simply that we all scoff at these litigations, but many people in these forums similarly seem to think that speeding prosecutions are not their own fault.
I think it's safe to say most people acknowledge their guilt, they just don't agree with the fairness, or even necessity of the offence they're being charged with.
"many" might think that.. I think most speeding fines (particularly ones from twatso cameras) are punishment for transgression of an arbitrary and often inappropriate speed limit, borne out of the Government's paradoxic desire to combine the impression of caring about road safety with abolishing traffic policing and making a few quid out of the punters to boot.
sublimatica said:My point was simply that we all scoff at these litigations, but many people in these forums similarly seem to think that speeding prosecutions are not their own fault.
World of difference, dear boy.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 14th April 16:48
You may be right. A few of the posts, though, have given me the impression that some people think that speeding prosecutions are an unnecessary infringement of civil liberties and to be challenged at every opportunity. This is a position I find as unreasonable as that of the people who sue companies for their own stupidity when they injure themselves driving home pissed.
Alan420 said: I think it's safe to say most people acknowledge their guilt, they just don't agree with the fairness, or even necessity of the offence they're being charged with.
Anyway, I'm going to go and put another record on...
>> Edited by sublimatica on Tuesday 15th April 00:27
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff