Haha. "Rigged for Dive", Neal?:DL

and "Brace for Impact, sound the collision alarm!" :shucks:

Yet that IS our system of justice.

I see your point but serving a beverage in a Styrofoam cup that is so hot it can cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of the human body is kind of the opposite of idiot proofing don't you think?

It's not the same in principle at all. If you're shooting naked videos of your girlfriend, you're probably in the privacy of your own home. You have an expectation of privacy. Anything that infringes upon it is a violation of your right.

This event occurred in the public space of a shopping mall. She cannot have any expectation of privacy, and therefore cannot demand it from the mall, who I'm sure has signs posted that said that the premises were under CCTV surveillance. She has no rights to any sort of privacy that could have been infringed upon.

You can walk down the street taking pictures of whomever you wish. It's completely legal as it's a public space.

The sad fact is most people that do this get a smaller offer before court. They almost always offer something, basically look at the cost of Lawyers vs lawsuit and throw them an offer. We had a small child here playing around a mall fountain, fell in, busted his head, ect...His parents won a nice lawsuit, stating like pools, the fountains should have some sort of gate around it, sure that's what she'll claim.

I guess I don't see your point. You've argued convincingly against plenty of things the government has done, but you draw the line at the fact that the law is the law? What if we were talking about regulation of firearms? It's okay to ban hot coffee through judicial action but it isn't okay to keep responsible citizens from a constitutional right through the same methods? How would you write such a law?

I'm totally lost, but I must defer to the jugement of my betters. Can you explain more?



The cup never caused burns. Also, it is assumed that people won't spill what they know is a boiling liquid onto themselves and would take proper precautions. If they didn't, why allow any liquid in any container whatsoever to be raised to a harmful temperature?

And McDonalds still serves coffee in styrofoam containers today. That wasn't the issue. The issue was that Liebeck's case implied that she didn't know that the coffee would burn her, causing her to handle it inappropriately. That is why larger warning labels were adopted, as well as a lower temperature.

Of course, the whole case is ridiculous. There has yet to be a suit over people spilling non-harmful liquids on themselves, because it is generally acknowledged that no matter what the type of container, it's a bad idea to spill things on oneself.

The only issue here was personal accountability, and that has been destroyed by the judgement. Liebeck was not the first to misuse a product in a way harmful to herself, despite clear instructions and common sense, but she reinforced the precedent that nobody is responsible for anything they do with a product.

Judgment of your betters? C'mon man. All I was doing is commenting on your statement that jury awards for punitive damages aren't the basis for our system of justice. I feel they must be or such things would not be allowed. Is that a wrong assessment?

But it's NOT supposed to be boiling liquid. It's supposed to be a cup of drinkable coffee. If a person can't get the lid off without the cup failing then it is indeed an issue, or at least a jury of her peers thought so.

Right, the important part being they lowered the temperature to a level that won't cause 3rd degree burns. And actually MD now serves it's coffee in laminated cardboard cups which are a lot less likely to crumble and crack.

She took the lid off to put in condiments. You call that misuse?

The bottom line here is all she wanted was help with her medical bills, which if you've been following the news are ridiculously high. MD chose to offer her $800 instead. Now I think it's obvious that she wasn't out to score a payday. Had they just done right by their customer it would have saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It took her all of SIX SECONDS to get herself out of the fountain. Even your favorite Caped Crusader hero of choice couldn't have gotten there that fast.:D

If she is saying no one came to help her dry off, that is another story.

HAHA reminds me Ezel's slip and fall on Friday.

Oh my neck my back, Oh my neck and my back

I'll settle for $2.50 and a jaw breaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DmEE...eature=related

What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with
...?

The point is though that there would be an expectation of privacy in the girlfriend video example that doesn't really apply to someone acting foolish in a public place like the middle of a mall.

No. In both cases it is the exposure of somebody to a wide public that has nbot been present in the incident/the shoot, nor has the victim agreed to make these materials public.

If your trouser is blasting open in public and you get shot, or you agree to your friend to have/her photographing you - it makes no difference if the result - the footage - is being made public to amuse the cxrowd without your permssion, and at cost of your reputation.

If you beat a non-consensual women in public, the laws of your country may allow her to sue you. And if you beat her without consent in the privacy of your home instead - that makes no difference for the court then. ;)

I'd have not offered her the $800.

I assume a cup of coffee is the temperature it is brewed at until proved otherwise. Coffee is not properly extracted at 150°. 185-205° is typical. If I were to add cream (I only drink it black, so that's hypothetical) I'd not do so in my lap, that would be stupid.

While I understand the argument that it would be sensible for MD to have made coffee lower temp just to CYA, it's a shame that people have to even think about CYA.

P.S. It has become common amongst school-teens that porno snippets of their girls get handed around, too. These shots often are taken in the public space, in restaurant toilets, at school, during class travels, and in hotel rooms then. Some even do it without the girls being aware that they are filmed. Some girls get talked into it by saying it would be an "evidence" of their love.

That it is happening outside a private, protected area, does not matter. Morally, handing around such footage withoiut consent of the girl (or her being under 18), is an abuse, and it may even be legally relevant if the shooting itself took place without consent and knowledge of the girl, allowing the girl to sue the offender.

The women in the fountain may have been victim of her own silliness, but bviously she did not give consent to her embarassement being made known to the wide public. The responsible people acted wrong when publishing these videos. They also would if they hand around videos of women changing dresses in a shop's dressing cabin. That the shop is outside the privacy of their homes, is meaningless.

If not the lap where exactly is one supposed to add condiments to coffee that is served into an automobile?

Well get used to it. Public demand for a high standard of product safety is not going to change.