Natural Selection at work

[Rudeboyelvis]

I don't know, maybe it wasn't the most brilliant idea in the world to "teach" a 9yo how to handle semi-automatic weaponry? Unfortunately, this poor girl is going to be traumatized by the whole experience, one of which she probably never wanted any part of anyway - not that a 9 yo should be able to make that decision by herself, but I digress...

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us...ss_igoogle_cnn

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I don't know, maybe it wasn't the most brilliant idea in the world to "teach" a 9yo how to handle semi-automatic weaponry? Unfortunately, this poor girl is going to be traumatized by the whole experience, one of which she probably never wanted any part of anyway - not that a 9 yo should be able to make that decision by herself, but I digress...

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us...ss_igoogle_cnn

i first saw the story two days ago, on slate. unreal. the instructor was at fault, followed closely by the poor girls parents. and it's the kid who will be the who needs therapy.
i was reading an article this morning about all the tourist places set up to shoot various weapons. that's all well and good...but who puts an uzi on full auto for a nine year old?!
i said at the time that the guy committed suicide by stupidity.
i'm just glad the kid didn't get hurt; a genius gave a nine year old boy one of these guns to shoot at a gun show, kid killed himself when he lost control of the gun.

[dellinger63]

Hope she doesn't get assigned a "What I Did Over the Summer" paper to write.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i first saw the story two days ago, on slate. unreal. the instructor was at fault, followed closely by the poor girls parents. and it's the kid who will be the who needs therapy.
i was reading an article this morning about all the tourist places set up to shoot various weapons. that's all well and good...but who puts an uzi on full auto for a nine year old?!
i said at the time that the guy committed suicide by stupidity.

Whoever (the Owner?) made up the rules that a 9-year old girl be allowed to fire a fully automatic weapon is at fault.

The instructor was doing his job albeit poorly and the parents are obviously idiots. Hopefully they do the right thing and cease from breeding anymore future idiots.

[GenuineRisk]

The late instructor's Facebook page includes some interesting highlights:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/08/26/bitter-irony/

Soooo... for all his braggadocio, he was killed by a nine-year-old girl (since he says guns don't kill people, people kill people). And a nine-year-old, according to him, is a killer. Nice.

That said, it f*cking sucks that a kid has no dad because that dad was a total ammosexual. Sucks. I just feel sick for that poor fatherless kid. And terrible for his widow. Vacca, of course, is beyond pain, but they'll have a lifetime of it.

And I am considering blocking the feed of the husband of a friend of mine on FB, who proudly made his 4-year-old daughter pose for pictures looking through the barrel of his automatic weapon, with an angry post that anyone who didn't like it should take him off their friends list. I guess I should respect his wishes. Le sigh.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Whoever (the Owner?) made up the rules that a 9-year old girl be allowed to fire a fully automatic weapon is at fault.

The instructor was doing his job albeit poorly and the parents are obviously idiots. Hopefully they do the right thing and cease from breeding anymore future idiots.

According to authorities, no one is as fault because the place was licensed and operating legally. It was just one of those things. Like how the pregnant woman killed by her friend was just one of those things.

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local...ille/13244051/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

According to authorities, no one is as fault because the place was licensed and operating legally. It was just one of those things.

I'm sure the civil court will have something to say.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm sure the civil court will have something to say.

Civil cases are brought by private citizens. Who's going to sue? The dead man's family? It's the only ones I can see making sense, but I find it hard to believe a court will buy that the guy was pressured into this by his job, judging from his ammosexual history which is easily accessible on Facebook and which, I have no doubt, Burgers and Bullets has now saved to hard drives. Who else? The parents suing for their daughter's trauma seems a little crazy, as they were clearly complicit, seeing as how they videoed the thing.

Though this is America, where our motto is not "In God We Trust" so much as it is, "I'll Sue!". So, you never know. But it's not the state that brings civil cases, though they sometimes partner with private citizens. Usually that is in a case of civil rights violations, but I find it hard to believe there's any grounds for that here.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Who's going to sue? The dead man's family?.

Were the ones I was referring to

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Were the ones I was referring to

I just don't see how they'll have a case. How do you prove negligence when the facility was clearly adhering to state law? I mean, the thing is on video. If there's any negligence, it's personal negligence on the part of Vacca himself.

Best case, the state will tighten rules on age restrictions and weaponry at shooting ranges, but honestly, fat chance that'll happen; the NRA would have a fit. If a classroom full of dead 6-year-olds didn't change anything, one dead Gen-Xer isn't going to, either.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I just don't see how they'll have a case. How do you prove negligence when the facility was clearly adhering to state law? I mean, the thing is on video. If there's any negligence, it's personal negligence on the part of Vacca himself.

Was McDonalds adhering to State law when they served hot coffee?

And wasn't it the woman who spilled the hot coffee on her crotch who was negligent?

You underestimate the ridiculousness of our civil court system.

Did Vacca provide the girl the gun? Buy the property where the gun range was on? Create the range's rules?

Or because Vacca was a gun enthusiast, he's the only one to blame?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Was McDonalds adhering to State law when they served hot coffee?

And wasn't it the woman who spilled the hot coffee on her crotch who was negligent?

You underestimate the ridiculousness of our civil court system.

No, you just don't bother to google anything to make sure you know what you're talking about before you go off about it. Here are some actual facts about the McDonald's Hot Coffee case:

"McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. I'll add, her initial request was for less than $10,000

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."

That, Dell, is how a business loses a civil case. There has to be a pattern of wanton recklessness and disregard for human safety. I just don't see how anyone proves that here. I mean, I have my own opinions about letting kids play with guns, but this place has not, as best I could tell, ever had a fatality or even serious injury.

Although I'm frustrated that untrue tropes get trotted out again and again (like the hot coffee one) I do highly recommend you watch the documentary "Hot Coffee" which is about civil lawsuits against companies and tort reform. I did a quick google search and it's currently available in its entirety on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx7jAop3srA

It's very entertaining and very informative. It also comes down hard on our legal system, but not because people file frivolous suits.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, you just don't bother to google anything to make sure you know what you're talking about before you go off about it.

It's very entertaining and very informative. It also comes down hard on our legal system, but not because people file frivolous suits.

In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.

In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.

In May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph's lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit.

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris's family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn't have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn't like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station's "whimsical tiger logo" with Kellogg's mascot, "Tony the Tiger." It didn't matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg's "Tony."

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn't doing him much good during the ten years he's serving for armed robbery.

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn't earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer's large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like "cement blocks" hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What does any of those examples have to do with the suit against McDonalds?

Oh, right. Nothing. Not to mention, all but two of those cases were thrown out or dismissed, which really doesn't help your argument about frivolous lawsuits, since they were recognized as frivolous. Anyone can file a suit. It's whether they make their case that counts.

Again, a little research before you post will do you wonders.

[GenuineRisk]

Speaking of research, Dell, my curiosity was piqued by the first case listed and I decided to do a little more poking around online about that case. And, not surprisingly, the case is not what you presented. What you presented:

"In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles."

First off, "troubles" means that one of the two men was burned over 70 percent of his body and lost the tips of all ten of his fingers, along with most of his hearing and eyesight. The other would have escaped with minor injuries, but he went back in to save his friend, who was burning to death, and so ended up seriously injured himself. The explosion was so strong it threw the homeowner through two rooms and out of the front door of her home. It blew out windows and set a neighbor's tree on fire.

The chemical company first argued that that didn't really count as an "explosion." They then argued they shouldn't have to list "explosive" on the packaging, despite the fact that they USED TO list it on an earlier version of the product.

http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryC...7780/Page1.htm

(This is the document denying Para Chem an appeal. It's a judge making the determination to deny appeal, not a jury)

"Frivolous lawsuits" is a favorite of the Right to trot out ever so often, because limiting damages benefits Big Business, basically giving them more freedom to market unsafe products without fear of liability. And in this case, there were no punitive damages awarded against Para Chem; just compensatory damages. If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If someone offered me 5 million dollars but said I'd have to be burned over 70 percent of my body and lose the tops of all ten of my fingers, along with most of my hearing and eyesight, I would turn them down flat. You?

Pretty sure I'd never have an open can of flammable anything near my water heater or my refrigerator. I don't even leave my clothes dryer on when I leave the house. Mind as well asked me what I'd like for dinner when I visit the moon.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What does any of those examples have to do with the suit against McDonalds?

I stubbed my toe this w/e and it still really hurts. Wonder if I should sue Cobalt, the pier owner, the pier installer or the State of Wisconsin for leaving a 'dangerous' lake open without warning signs?

Seriously, I made a decent living for almost 20 years off 'frivolous/fraudulent' lawsuits, not by filing them but by exposing them.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Pretty sure I'd never have an open can of flammable anything near my water heater or my refrigerator. I don't even leave my clothes dryer on when I leave the house. Mind as well asked me what I'd like for dinner when I visit the moon.





I stubbed my toe this w/e and it still really hurts. Wonder if I should sue Cobalt, the pier owner, the pier installer or the State of Wisconsin for leaving a 'dangerous' lake open without warning signs?

Seriously, I made a decent living for almost 20 years off 'frivolous/fraudulent' lawsuits, not by filing them but by exposing them.

First, actually read the judge's statement on the Para Chem case and get back to me. It's not enough to say "flammable" on a label anymore.

Second, again, none of what you've said has anything to do with the McDonald's case.

Speaking of getting back from tangents, here's more on the shooting range death:

http://gawker.com/9-year-old-shootin...gic-1629808348

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

First, actually read the judge's statement on the Para Chem case and get back to me. It's not enough to say "flammable" on a label anymore.

That's because 'stupidity' instead of common sense is presumed nowadays

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Second, again, none of what you've said has anything to do with the McDonald's case.

The McDonald case was an example of a frivolous suit. This thread never was about McDonald's despite your yearning to make it so.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Speaking of getting back from tangents, here's more on the shooting range death:

http://gawker.com/9-year-old-shootin...gic-1629808348

Wow it would be ironic if the family of the little girl, who shot the instructor, filed a lawsuit.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The McDonald case was an example of a frivolous suit. This thread never was about McDonald's despite your yearning to make it so.

Explain what about the suit was frivolous. Let me remind you of McFact number 5 from my earlier post. Actually, I'm probably minding you of it, as I doubt you bothered to read any of the facts of the case in the earlier post. Nevertheless:

"McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible."

I also suggest you google images of the women's burns. Or hell, just watch the documentary. It's all in there. There was nothing frivolous about that lawsuit. And if McDonald's had just been willing to pay for her hospital bill in the first place, they'd never have been sued. They brought it on themselves by negligence and then greed.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Explain what about the suit was frivolous. Let me remind you of McFact number 5 from my earlier post. Actually, I'm probably minding you of it, as I doubt you bothered to read any of the facts of the case in the earlier post. Nevertheless:

"McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible."

I also suggest you google images of the women's burns. Or hell, just watch the documentary. It's all in there. There was nothing frivolous about that lawsuit. And if McDonald's had just been willing to pay for her hospital bill in the first place, they'd never have been sued. They brought it on themselves by negligence and then greed.

I guess I'm just in the minority of the customers the McDonald's quality assurance manager speaks of in thinking that spilling hot coffee on one's self can and will cause severe burns. Especially when you can barely hold onto the cup with one of those cardboard holders without feeling your fingers burning.

I also believe the woman's age and steadiness of hand or lack of it likely was a contributing factor. Although McD's does contribute to this situation by offering seniors free coffee refills.

And shouldn't the McD's employee who served her bear some blame for participating in an obviously dangerous action, you know like the gun range instructor (was blamed)?