Should you be able to sue because of your own stupidity?

[sparkofcreation 0]

Shades of the hot coffee spillage suit against McDonald's!

By which I assume you have no actual idea of the circumstances of that case. For example, that the woman was a passenger in a parked car, not driving a moving one. And I bet you also didn't know that she sued only for the costs of her medical bills, and the jury were the ones who awarded an outrageous amount. And I'm 100% sure you didn't know that there are federal regulations dictating how hot coffee is supposed to be served specifically so that it won't seriously injure people, and that McDonald's served theirs tens of degrees hotter? And that if the coffee had been served at the temperature dictated by the regulations, she would have had only minor burns?

Oh, and also that the jury decided that the woman was 20% at fault, so she got 20% less.

I bet most people don't know that if you sue someone, the jury decides how much of the fault belongs to whom, and your award is reduced by the amount of fault that is yours.

[Fuzzness 2]

Shades of the hot coffee spillage suit against McDonald's!

By which I assume you have no actual idea of the circumstances of that case. For example, that the woman was a passenger in a parked car, not driving a moving one. And I bet you also didn't know that she sued only for the costs of her medical bills, and the jury were the ones who awarded an outrageous amount. And I'm 100% sure you didn't know that there are federal regulations dictating how hot coffee is supposed to be served specifically so that it won't seriously injure people, and that McDonald's served theirs tens of degrees hotter? And that if the coffee had been served at the temperature dictated by the regulations, she would have had only minor burns?

Oh, and also that the jury decided that the woman was 20% at fault, so she got 20% less.

I bet most people don't know that if you sue someone, the jury decides how much of the fault belongs to whom, and your award is reduced by the amount of fault that is yours.

I had no idea of all of this whatsoever. In Canada, a jury is only used for criminal cases if the accused choses so.

[almaty 19]

Shades of the hot coffee spillage suit against McDonald's!

By which I assume you have no actual idea of the circumstances of that case. For example, that the woman was a passenger in a parked car, not driving a moving one. And I bet you also didn't know that she sued only for the costs of her medical bills, and the jury were the ones who awarded an outrageous amount. And I'm 100% sure you didn't know that there are federal regulations dictating how hot coffee is supposed to be served specifically so that it won't seriously injure people, and that McDonald's served theirs tens of degrees hotter? And that if the coffee had been served at the temperature dictated by the regulations, she would have had only minor burns?

Oh, and also that the jury decided that the woman was 20% at fault, so she got 20% less.

I bet most people don't know that if you sue someone, the jury decides how much of the fault belongs to whom, and your award is reduced by the amount of fault that is yours.

I had no idea of all of this whatsoever. In Canada, a jury is only used for criminal cases if the accused choses so.

canada has a better systen than the usa

[meddykomp 0]

I do not know enough about this particular case to make an assessment. I do know that there are a lot of instances where I could have technically sued someone but chose not to. The reason is that I believe a lot of law suits are frivolous.

I did slip on someone elses porch. There was an ice storm and no one had been home all day. I get there before they were able to clear that porch (they were shoveling and salting the sidewalks that they are also responsible for even though anyone in the city can use them). Why should I hold them responsible? They did not put the ice there. As it was there were 2 of them out shoveling and trying to clear the sidewalk.

Each person should take reasonable steps towards the safety of themselves and others, but a lot of people do not take even a reasonable amount of responsibility for their own actions.

[Jasman0717 9]

[faith 0]

Shades of the hot coffee spillage suit against McDonald's!

By which I assume you have no actual idea of the circumstances of that case. For example, that the woman was a passenger in a parked car, not driving a moving one. And I bet you also didn't know that she sued only for the costs of her medical bills, and the jury were the ones who awarded an outrageous amount. And I'm 100% sure you didn't know that there are federal regulations dictating how hot coffee is supposed to be served specifically so that it won't seriously injure people, and that McDonald's served theirs tens of degrees hotter? And that if the coffee had been served at the temperature dictated by the regulations, she would have had only minor burns?

Oh, and also that the jury decided that the woman was 20% at fault, so she got 20% less.

I bet most people don't know that if you sue someone, the jury decides how much of the fault belongs to whom, and your award is reduced by the amount of fault that is yours.

I had no idea of all of this whatsoever. In Canada, a jury is only used for criminal cases if the accused choses so.

Actually, you have the choice whether or not to have a jury in our county on lawsuits. The jury (or judge if there isn't a jury) then has the decision to make on how much punative damages you can get. The amount also depends on the tort laws in your state.

[Dixie_Peach 1]

Should I then start posting NO TRESPASSING signs all over our yard and place NO CLIMBING signs on our fence? Will that absolve us of any responsibility if a trespasser gets hurt within our property?

That's another thing that really amazes me here. Nobody wants to take responsibility. It is always someone else's fault. And people wonder why the cost of insurance is so high (and lawyers have so much money ). And that is also why we have all those silly warning labels on everything!! When parents sue someone when their kids do something like in the original post, then we are teaching our kids that it is ok to pass the blame on someone. You can continue doing stupid things because, in the end, it will be someone else's fault.

well... reading this thread brought to mind a song...

Signs, Signs - Everywhere are signs

Blocking out the scenery

Breaking my mind

Do this ... don't do that..

Can't you read the signs?

Whatever happenened to parents TEACHING children right from wrong? Sure, curiosity is good... and healthy... but not when it involves danger...

[JAYKE 0]

Shades of the hot coffee spillage suit against McDonald's!

Oh, and also that the jury decided that the woman was 20% at fault, so she got 20% less.

I bet most people don't know that if you sue someone, the jury decides how much of the fault belongs to whom, and your award is reduced by the amount of fault that is yours.

Actually, this depends on the negligence laws in your state.... Some states still have contributory negligence laws, which means even if you are 1% at fault, you are barred from recovery.

Others have modified comparative negligence, which bars you at 50 or 51% negligence.

Additionally, only special and general damages are reduced by your percentage of fault. Punitive damages are not pro-rated.

As for the OP's post....

There is something called "Attractive nuisance" which would imply there is definitely liability for the land owner.

"Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, and swimming pools."

As a claims adjuster, I see (and pay for) stupidity ALL the time!!!!!!

Edited March 28, 2006 by JAYKE