@Duus Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have an inate feeling that placing something HOT that you were just handed between your legs is, well, let's say, somewhat stupid?
There is simply something that could be called basic human sense which she obviously did not apply. Yes, I feel for her burns and her pain but to me most of that was in effect self-afflicted. It was not as if somebody at McD's told her to place it between her legs; or spilled it over her, or deliberately or accidentally made the coffee extra hot to burn people, or made the cup extra flimsy so it would break easily.
Rather they served *hot coffee*, period. If I want luke-warm coffee I'd make it myself. If I get handed a hot cuppa joe then I'm not going to place it in a place where it's probably gonna burn myself.
As the case was indicated to me, she was sitting in the passenger seat in the parking lot of a non-moving car, but the accounts of what actually happened vary a lot, so I had hoped for the least frivolous version, ie, non-moving car, passenger seat. All other cases are even more ludicrous. You don't drink a hot cuppa while driving, nor do you clamp it between your legs while driving, especially when you just opened the top, thus decreasing the stability of the container drastically.
So let's return to the most reasonable version. Well, in that case there is something called a dashboard in cars. In most cars it's reasonably flat so it would have been a nearly ideal place to set a hot cup of coffee. No, instead of a *reasonable* place, clamp it between your legs. Yeah, reeeally mature and sensible.
Sorry, I definitely dont see a) litigation amount of $600.000 of either punitive payments nor b) a full number of $2.9 million to be a reasonable amount for ONE case. If there had been hundreds of such cases, maybe; but definitely not for one case.
The problem with the $2.9 mil was that the lawyers get their payment by the total amount of litigation set of by the court, iirc. So the lawyers reaped a huge cash bonus just for that.
That's where those huge sums come from. It's not the plaintives or defendents who usually get the big money; it's normally the lawyers. Slaking their thirst for big money by upping the amount of litigation to totally ludicrous levels seems to be a typical symptom of the system. Not very pleasant in my opinion.
45
@Duus Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have an inate feeling that placing something HOT that you were just handed between your legs is, well, let's say, somewhat stupid?
There is simply something that could be called basic human sense which she obviously did not apply. Yes, I feel for her burns and her pain but to me most of that was in effect self-afflicted. It was not as if somebody at McD's told her to place it between her legs; or spilled it over her, or deliberately or accidentally made the coffee extra hot to burn people, or made the cup extra flimsy so it would break easily.
Rather they served *hot coffee*, period. If I want luke-warm coffee I'd make it myself. If I get handed a hot cuppa joe then I'm not going to place it in a place where it's probably gonna burn myself.
As the case was indicated to me, she was sitting in the passenger seat in the parking lot of a non-moving car, but the accounts of what actually happened vary a lot, so I had hoped for the least frivolous version, ie, non-moving car, passenger seat. All other cases are even more ludicrous. You don't drink a hot cuppa while driving, nor do you clamp it between your legs while driving, especially when you just opened the top, thus decreasing the stability of the container drastically.
So let's return to the most reasonable version. Well, in that case there is something called a dashboard in cars. In most cars it's reasonably flat so it would have been a nearly ideal place to set a hot cup of coffee. No, instead of a *reasonable* place, clamp it between your legs. Yeah, reeeally mature and sensible.
Sorry, I definitely dont see a) litigation amount of $600.000 of either punitive payments nor b) a full number of $2.9 million to be a reasonable amount for ONE case. If there had been hundreds of such cases, maybe; but definitely not for one case.
The problem with the $2.9 mil was that the lawyers get their payment by the total amount of litigation set of by the court, iirc. So the lawyers reaped a huge cash bonus just for that.
That's where those huge sums come from. It's not the plaintives or defendents who usually get the big money; it's normally the lawyers. Slaking their thirst for big money by upping the amount of litigation to totally ludicrous levels seems to be a typical symptom of the system. Not very pleasant in my opinion.