Reg wrote:
> By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous.

Home cooking IS dangerous. It's why we don't usually let 3 years olds climb
around on hot stoves.

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
. ..
> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:31:15 -0400, Goomba38 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vilco wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds:
>>>> the elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally
>>>> ridiculous to me, it's total nonsense.
>>> It is to some of us too.
>>>
>>
>> and most of them to whom it seems ridiculous know nothing about the
>> case, other than what they learned from late-night comedians.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
> she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
> liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on such
> tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in between
> her legs while driving.

Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car was
stopped.

Ms P

Ms P wrote:

> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car was
> stopped.
>
> Ms P

Does her being a driver versus a passenger *really* change anything? I
do recall reading that they pulled over when the coffee spilled..so what
diff did it make which seat she was in?

jmcquown wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous.
>
>
> Home cooking IS dangerous. It's why we don't usually let 3 years olds climb
> around on hot stoves.
>
>

Yup. And three year old shouldn't buy coffee at the McDonalds drive up
either.

I'm OK with that. You?

--
Reg

Dave Smith wrote:

> I feel the same way about birth control. I know that a lot of women will
> disagree with me, but I think that the ultimate responsibility for birth
> control is the female's. She is the one who is going to get pregnant. She
> is the one who is going to be saddled down with an unwanted child. She
> could trust the guy to pull out in time, to use a condom that has been
> rotting in his wallet for ten years, or believe that he had a vasectomy.
> If she has sex with a stranger or near stranger, he is not going to be
> around when she needs financial and other support. I am not saying that
> men should not take any action or any responsibility, but if I were the one
> who would left holding the bag when things go bad, I would want not be
> prepared to trust someone else.

IMO, if you do not want to have a child, then you should use
contraceptives, whether you are a male or a female. Men do not like
condoms, but without the balloons, there would be no party.

Becca

Reg wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>> By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous.
>>
>>
>> Home cooking IS dangerous. It's why we don't usually let 3 years
>> olds climb around on hot stoves.
>>
>
> Yup. And three year old shouldn't buy coffee at the McDonalds drive up
> either.
>
> I'm OK with that. You?

Perfectly happy with that. I don't let my cat climb on the counters or the
stove, either.

Becca wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> I feel the same way about birth control. I know that a lot of women
>> will disagree with me, but I think that the ultimate responsibility
>> for birth control is the female's. She is the one who is going to
>> get pregnant. She is the one who is going to be saddled down with an
>> unwanted child. She could trust the guy to pull out in time, to use
>> a condom that has been rotting in his wallet for ten years, or
>> believe that he had a vasectomy. If she has sex with a stranger or
>> near stranger, he is not going to be around when she needs financial
>> and other support. I am not saying that men should not take any
>> action or any responsibility, but if I were the one who would left
>> holding the bag when things go bad, I would want not be prepared to
>> trust someone else.
>
> IMO, if you do not want to have a child, then you should use
> contraceptives, whether you are a male or a female. Men do not like
> condoms, but without the balloons, there would be no party.
>
> Becca

LOL! Good point, Becca!

Ms P wrote:
>
>
> > Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
> > she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
> > liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on such
> > tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in between
> > her legs while driving.
>
> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car was
> stopped.

At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
prehensile thighs.

Becca wrote:

>
> IMO, if you do not want to have a child, then you should use
> contraceptives, whether you are a male or a female. Men do not like
> condoms, but without the balloons, there would be no party.

That is true, but IMO the one who is left holding the bag is the one who
needs to accept the responsibility. So that means making sure no balloon no
party.

jmcquown wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Reg wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> More like, don't eat or drink something until it's cooled down
>>>> enough. Something most of us learned as children.
>>>>
>>>> McD's sells food to go. Hotter is better for those that don't want
>>>> cold coffee by the time they get to the office. Don't want it
>>>> that hot? Wait a few minutes.
>>>>
>>>> By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous. Food is
>>>> often hot enough to hurt you straight out of the oven. It usually
>>>> is, actually. By your logic that makes it a dangerous practice
>>>> requiring government intervention.
>>>
>>>Home cooking IS dangerous. It's why we don't usually let 3 years
>>>olds climb around on hot stoves.
>>>
>>
>>Yup. And three year old shouldn't buy coffee at the McDonalds drive up
>>either.
>>
>>I'm OK with that. You?
>
>
> Perfectly happy with that.

Then why on earth did you bring it up?

> I don't let my cat climb on the counters or the
> stove, either.

You're descending into mindless non sequiturs here. The drugs
must be taking effect.

--
Reg

In article om>,
Sheldon > wrote:
>Lot's of folks are TIAD afflicted, they eat fish smothered with cream
>of mushroom soup too.

"TIAD"? A google search didn't reveal anything enlightening about
that acronym in the context of this thread.

-A

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:38:42 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Ms P wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
>> > she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
>> > liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on such
>> > tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in between
>> > her legs while driving.
>>
>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car was
>> stopped.
>
>At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>prehensile thighs.


The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:

>> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>> stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>> is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>> That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>> few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>> prehensile thighs.
>
>
> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.
>
> Boron

She was taking the lid off a paper cup of hot coffee which was sitting
between her legs. That she put it there in the first place was risky, no
matter if it were 10 degrees cooler or not?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ms P wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
>> > she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the
>> > hot
>> > liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on
>> > such
>> > tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in
>> > between
>> > her legs while driving.
>>
>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car was
>> stopped.
>
> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
> stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the
> matter
> is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
> That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
> few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
> prehensile thighs.

She put the coffee between her knees and took the lid off to add cream and
sugar. The cup collapsed and dumped the coffee in her lap. She recieved
3rd degree burns. The car was not moving.

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

Ms P

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>
> >
> >At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
> >stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
> >is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
> >That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
> >few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
> >prehensile thighs.
>
> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.


If the car was not moving, how did it get from the drive thru window to
where they claimed they stopped momentarily. I can just imagine. They are
driving a long.... hold it a sec, I have to add the creamer.... come to a
full stop. the story just doesn't add up. What sort of a moron tries to
hold a styrofoam cup of coffee between their knees?

Ms P wrote:

>
> She put the coffee between her knees and took the lid off to add cream and
> sugar. The cup collapsed and dumped the coffee in her lap. She recieved
> 3rd degree burns. The car was not moving.
>
> http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html


Frankly, if it had been a fatal accident she should have made it in the
Darwin Awards. Think about it for a second..... holding a styrooam cup
between her legs..... of course it spilled. The round and formed lid would
add some strength to it, but even the stupidest people know that Styrofoam
cups are easily crushed.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:05:20 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>> >stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>> >is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>> >That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>> >few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>> >prehensile thighs.
>>
>> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.
>
>
>If the car was not moving, how did it get from the drive thru window to
>where they claimed they stopped momentarily. I can just imagine. They are
>driving a long.... hold it a sec, I have to add the creamer.... come to a
>full stop. the story just doesn't add up. What sort of a moron tries to
>hold a styrofoam cup of coffee between their knees?


Probably the same sort of moron who spouts off about a lawsuit he
knows nothing about.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.
> >
> >
> >If the car was not moving, how did it get from the drive thru window to
> >where they claimed they stopped momentarily. I can just imagine. They are
> >driving a long.... hold it a sec, I have to add the creamer.... come to a
> >full stop. the story just doesn't add up. What sort of a moron tries to
> >hold a styrofoam cup of coffee between their knees?
>
> Probably the same sort of moron who spouts off about a lawsuit he
> knows nothing about.


So sue me. If you get the same idiots on a jury you might win. I had read
up on it the last time it was discussed.

Things we learned from the case..... coffee is hot..... the lady held a
styrofoam cup between her knees..... surprise surprise the cup spilled.
Read a little more and you will see the reason the award was slashed was
because some of the "facts" presented were wrong.

One time on Usenet, Peter A > said:
> In article >,
> says...
> > Peter A wrote:
> >
> > > But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
> > > asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
> > > is that right?
> >
> > Christ man, it's not as if the cheese was cleverly disguised inside the
> > burger. It was sitting right on top.
> >
>
> Why do you avoid responding to my points?
>
> Do you peel apart all your food to see what's inside? Or, do feel that
> you should be able to trust the restaurant to give you what you ordered?

<snip>

I do at McD's -- they're notorious for screwing up orders...

--
Jani in WA

In article >,
Becca > wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > I feel the same way about birth control. I know that a lot of women will
> > disagree with me, but I think that the ultimate responsibility for birth
> > control is the female's. She is the one who is going to get pregnant. She
> > is the one who is going to be saddled down with an unwanted child. She
> > could trust the guy to pull out in time, to use a condom that has been
> > rotting in his wallet for ten years, or believe that he had a vasectomy.
> > If she has sex with a stranger or near stranger, he is not going to be
> > around when she needs financial and other support. I am not saying that
> > men should not take any action or any responsibility, but if I were the one
> > who would left holding the bag when things go bad, I would want not be
> > prepared to trust someone else.
>
> IMO, if you do not want to have a child, then you should use
> contraceptives, whether you are a male or a female. Men do not like
> condoms, but without the balloons, there would be no party.
>
> Becca

Vasectomy.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Becca wrote:
>
> >
> > IMO, if you do not want to have a child, then you should use
> > contraceptives, whether you are a male or a female. Men do not like
> > condoms, but without the balloons, there would be no party.
>
> That is true, but IMO the one who is left holding the bag is the one who
> needs to accept the responsibility. So that means making sure no balloon no
> party.

An old boyfriend used to say "The Best Dressed Men wear Latex". ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> Becca > wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> > I feel the same way about birth control. I know that a lot of women
>> > will
>> > disagree with me, but I think that the ultimate responsibility for
>> > birth
>> > control is the female's. She is the one who is going to get pregnant.
>> > She
>> > is the one who is going to be saddled down with an unwanted child. She
>> > could trust the guy to pull out in time, to use a condom that has been
>> > rotting in his wallet for ten years, or believe that he had a
>> > vasectomy.
>> > If she has sex with a stranger or near stranger, he is not going to be
>> > around when she needs financial and other support. I am not saying
>> > that
>> > men should not take any action or any responsibility, but if I were the
>> > one
>> > who would left holding the bag when things go bad, I would want not be
>> > prepared to trust someone else.
>>
>> IMO, if you do not want to have a child, then you should use
>> contraceptives, whether you are a male or a female. Men do not like
>> condoms, but without the balloons, there would be no party.
>>
>> Becca
>
> Vasectomy.

Anyone out there better be reallllllly sure of who they are dealing with
before they agree to anything without a condom. Pregnancy is not the only
thing to worry about.

axlq wrote:


> In article om>,
>
> Sheldon > wrote:
> >Lot's of folks are TIAD afflicted, they eat fish smothered with cream
> >of mushroom soup too.
>
> "TIAD"? A google search didn't reveal anything enlightening about
> that acronym in the context of this thread.


"TIAD" = "Taste In Ass Disease"


HTH


:-)


--
Best
Greg

Dave Smith wrote:
> Ms P wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady
>>> because she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her
>>> pants and the hot liquid was held against her skin which helped
>>> extend the burn time on such tender skin. She was an idiot for
>>> putting a hot cup of coffee in between her legs while driving.
>>
>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car
>> was stopped.
>
> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something
> as stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs.

I may not drive the most expensive vehicle on the planet but even my car has
this little thing called a cup holder.

jmcquown wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Ms P wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady
>>>> because she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her
>>>> pants and the hot liquid was held against her skin which helped
>>>> extend the burn time on such tender skin. She was an idiot for
>>>> putting a hot cup of coffee in between her legs while driving.
>>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car
>>> was stopped.
>> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something
>> as stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs.
>
> I may not drive the most expensive vehicle on the planet but even my car has
> this little thing called a cup holder.
>
Well, *my* car doesn't have a cup holder.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

ChattyCathy > wrote in
:

> jmcquown wrote:

>> I may not drive the most expensive vehicle on the planet but
>> even my car has this little thing called a cup holder.
>>
> Well, *my* car doesn't have a cup holder.

Mine does... for the people in the back seat but NOT up front. :-(

On Aug 15, 7:33?am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >> Ms P wrote:
>
> >>>> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady
> >>>> because she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her
> >>>> pants and the hot liquid was held against her skin which helped
> >>>> extend the burn time on such tender skin. She was an idiot for
> >>>> putting a hot cup of coffee in between her legs while driving.
> >>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car
> >>> was stopped.
> >> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something
> >> as stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs.
>
> > I may not drive the most expensive vehicle on the planet but even my car has
> > this little thing called a cup holder.
>
> Well, *my* car doesn't have a cup holder.

Well... you just like something hot between your legs!

Sheldon Therm

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:45:49 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>>> stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>>> is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>>> That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>>> few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>>> prehensile thighs.
>>
>>
>> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.
>>
>> Boron
>
>She was taking the lid off a paper cup of hot coffee which was sitting
>between her legs. That she put it there in the first place was risky, no
>matter if it were 10 degrees cooler or not?


I advise you, too, to read up on the case. The court found her
partially responsible for her injuries.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> >
> >She was taking the lid off a paper cup of hot coffee which was sitting
> >between her legs. That she put it there in the first place was risky, no
> >matter if it were 10 degrees cooler or not?
>
> I advise you, too, to read up on the case. The court found her
> partially responsible for her injuries.


You are starting to sound like a parrot. Goomba doesn't need to read up on
the case because that is what your own cited reference indicated. She held
it between her knees while she took the top off. That is when the coffee
slopped all over her lap and scalded her and that is why she was scalded.

On Aug 14, 9:37 am, Dave Smith > wrote:

> FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
> civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
> had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
> could be levied and the state would get the money.

Well, a fine would basically amount to punitive damages. The only
difference
is who would get the money. I don't see any reason why the state
should
get it; they'd likely waste it.

> > Even the value of a human life can be calculated. I'd say mine is
> > worth about as
> > much as the life insurance that I carry, although it might be more
> > generous to
> > calculate the value of my future earnings.
>
> That is a tricky one.

Yes, it is. My example was pretty simplistic.

>Just for arguments sake..... suppose the plaintiffs
> are the family of a severely disabled child. In order to look after the
> child they have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on
> renovations. They need to hire nurses to provide 24/7 care and it costs a
> small fortune for medication and treatment. The person stands no hope of
> getting an education and getting a job, but the cost of sustaining his life
> is enormous. If some individual or company were to be found liable for the
> loss of that person's life it might possibly be argued that they actually
> saved the plaintiffs a hell of a lot of money. I don't think I would go so
> far as to suggest that the defendant should actually be paid on account of
> the financial savings that resulted from their negligence.

I'd be willing to have the defendent pay for a nice funeral. Or
possibly we
could put some minimum threshold on the value of a person's life, even
if they are not likely ever to have earnings. I don't know enough
about
medieval Norse law to really talk about it, but the weregild principle
appeals
to me.

Cindy Hamilton

> Well, *my* car doesn't have a cup holder.
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy
>
And some are practically useless.
Dee Dee

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Well, a fine would basically amount to punitive damages. The only
> difference
> is who would get the money. I don't see any reason why the state
> should
> get it; they'd likely waste it.


The advantage of the State getting the money is that it provides a
dis-incentive to the individual to bring frivilous law suits. Let's say
I suffer an injury, and I decide to get rich off it. I sue a giant
corporation and say it is their fault. If it really isn't their fault,
then I've used the courts to perpetuate a scam. But if it really IS
their fault, the punitive damages serve to make sure the corporation
isn't negligent in the future.


--Lia

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>
> > FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
> > civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
> > had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
> > could be levied and the state would get the money.
>
> Well, a fine would basically amount to punitive damages. The only
> difference is who would get the money. I don't see any reason why the state
> should get it; they'd likely waste it.

That may be true, but it wouldn't be any different for the rest of the
money they waste :-(
However, my concern is that the damage award is basically a fine for a
crime that isn't really a fine because they didn't violate any laws. If the
defendant's action was wrong and serious problem there should be a law.

In article >, "cybercat" >
wrote:

> > Vasectomy.
>
> Anyone out there better be reallllllly sure of who they are dealing with
> before they agree to anything without a condom. Pregnancy is not the only
> thing to worry about.

True, but we were talking about unwanted pregnancies.
Condoms can break.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Sammy wrote:
> It's old news. Didn't you read this:
>
> Houston said his clients were in Morgantown in October 2005 and
> stopped at the Star City McDonald's on the way home to Clarksburg
>
Of course I read it; I posted it. So what, they waited until 2007 to file a
lawsuit. Apparently there's not a statute of limitations on being an idiot.
Oh sorry, was I talking about you?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:20:28 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>> >FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
>> >civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
>> >had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
>> >could be levied and the state would get the money.
>> >
>>
>> the punitive damages are to 'discourage' the company from continuing
>> the practice that led to harm. in the mcdonald's case, they had
>> burned many people before this old lady, and had ignored the
>> complaints. i would waste no sympathy on them.
>
>
>If the state thinks there is a problem they have the authority to enact
>legislation or to pass regulations to prohibit or to control the practice.
>That was not the case, so what the courts are doing with punitive damages
>in essentially fining them for something that is not illegal. Perhaps
>punitive damages should be limited to cases where the defendant was shown
>to have disobeyed the law.

um, it's illegal to maim people with your products?

your pal,
blake

On Aug 15, 9:30 am, Julia Altshuler > wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Well, a fine would basically amount to punitive damages. The only
> > difference
> > is who would get the money. I don't see any reason why the state
> > should
> > get it; they'd likely waste it.
>
> The advantage of the State getting the money is that it provides a
> dis-incentive to the individual to bring frivilous law suits. Let's say
> I suffer an injury, and I decide to get rich off it. I sue a giant
> corporation and say it is their fault. If it really isn't their fault,
> then I've used the courts to perpetuate a scam. But if it really IS
> their fault, the punitive damages serve to make sure the corporation
> isn't negligent in the future.

I never said I was against punitive damages. I just don't think they
should
go to the plaintiff. My original proposal was that they should go to
charity.

Attorneys should be paid by the hour rather than as a percentage of
the award.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:04:02 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:31:15 -0400, Goomba38 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vilco wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
>>>> elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
>>>> me, it's total nonsense.
>>> It is to some of us too.
>>>
>>
>> and most of them to whom it seems ridiculous know nothing about the
>> case, other than what they learned from late-night comedians.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
>she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
>liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on
>such tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in
>between her legs while driving.

i can see you've read about the case extensively. she wasn't driving.
and as i recall, the court did apportion some blame to her. they just
thought it a tad unreasonable to be selling a product *intended to be
drunk* that could cause third-degree burns. jeez, these crazy judges.

your pal,
blake

On Aug 15, 9:57 am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > > FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
> > > civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
> > > had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
> > > could be levied and the state would get the money.
>
> > Well, a fine would basically amount to punitive damages. The only
> > difference is who would get the money. I don't see any reason why the state
> > should get it; they'd likely waste it.
>
> That may be true, but it wouldn't be any different for the rest of the
> money they waste :-(

Why encourage them?

> However, my concern is that the damage award is basically a fine for a
> crime that isn't really a fine because they didn't violate any laws. If the
> defendant's action was wrong and serious problem there should be a law.

Often there isn't a law until it's needed, or until progress indicates
that there
should have been one all along. Nowadays we have laws against dumping
industrial waste, but before those laws were enacted punitive damages
would
have had the same effect on the dumpers.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:38:42 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Ms P wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
>> > she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
>> > liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on such
>> > tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in between
>> > her legs while driving.
>>
>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The car was
>> stopped.
>
>At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>prehensile thighs.

a few degress hotter? suppose she didn't like cream, so chugged it
black? yum, burned esophagus.

your pal,
blake