Sharing IM's is against TOS.. but what about local chat?

[solstyse]

See, there are 3 main things that make me take issue with that particular case.

1. If the number was flipped, and Mcdonalds was found to be 20% responsible, instead of 80, I might consider that to be a valid judgement. But not the way it happened. Sorry, but the woman did 100% of the spilling. How a product is handled once in the hands of the end user is the end user's responsibility. Take pity, say since it's too hot, she deserves a bit more than what medical and legal costs were, then fine. I could get behind that. But not to the tune of  "An entity that was not present at the time of the incident is 80% responsible..." No, no way. That set a horrible precident, and many, many small businesses suffered and fell under the weight of similar judgements.

2. The punitive damages were found for a law that was created because of this incident. Meaning at the time that it happened, there was nothing to punish McDonalds for. Regardless of how many other people may have spilled coffee, the law that they were found negligent for breaking didn't exist at the time that it was "broken."

3. The jury didn't make up the number. They agreed to the number. I maintain my theory that no 79 year old lap is worth that kind of money. Neither is the lap of 90% of young people. For anybody other than a model, as long as they can still walk, sit, and move like normal, the monetary damages they suffer will never come close to that amount. I'll even venture to say that the emotional trauma a person suffers after something like that falls steeply by the time they pass the height of their "vain years" (very young adulthood) Before the jury could award the number, the lawyer had to come p with it, and the old lady had to say, "Yeah, that's what I want." So yes, she is greedy.

Anyone who even attempts to get such a settlement is nothing but a parasite. The pool example I mentioned in an earlier post is only one business that closed. Then there are roller skating rinks that either never opened, or closed due to a threat. Skate parks that never opened because some kid's parents might sue over a skinned knee.

Do you know what assault victims get told when they try to get a lawyer? They get told, "Well, we could sue the bar that sold the alcohol to the perpetrator." As if that's justice. As if it's somehow the bar's fault that someone picked a fight with a stranger walking home. And as if in the middle of recieving grievous injuries, the victim would have been able to have a conversation with their assailant about the bar. when the question is, "So I can't sue because it was a willful act... Are you saying if I would have tripped and landed on his fist you'd be more willing to represent me?" The answer is yes. That's sick. So, accidents are punishable, while willful acts are not.

Now, whenever there is a shooting, there's a rush to point fingers. Whenever a fan of a certain band does something dumb, it's the band's fault. Is it video games? Is it violent movies? Is it comic books? Nobody looks at the logical place to point the blame anymore... At the perpetrator. And this case is probably the first, if not the most famous, where it was deemed that a person's own actions have no bearing on what actually happened.

[Charolotte Caxton]

It's really quite simple.

The coffee was too hot. McDonald's knew the coffee was too hot. Someone got hurt. McDonald's had to pay.

When the lady decided to pursue the matter, do you honestly think she was thinking, oh great, now everyone who sees this case will try to get hurt so they can sue and get tons of money and also on top of that small businesses will have to close or never open because I got burned by coffee that was knowingly served at a very dangerous temperature. Yay for me, I have ruined solstyse's life and shut down his pool.

I think you should be mad at bureaucracy and the legal system, not a human who was seriously injured. The fact that she spilled it herself is acknowledged, what made it wrong is that the coffee was too hot. Not coffee hot, third degree burn on an old lady hot. 

If you were to go to a restaurant and order a steak and then you bit into it and it was so hot that your tongue got burned to the point where it had to be amputated, would you shrug and say, silly me, I should have known a chunk of flesh seared over fire would burn me, or would you instead wake up in the hospital tongueless and demand, wtf?

How much would your burns be worth?

 

ps, funny story, I once heard about a woman who chopped off her own hand in order to collect insurance money. She was convicted of fraud. I guess she should have just ordered coffee at McDonald's. 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

It's really quite simple.

The coffee was too hot. McDonald's knew the coffee was too hot. Someone got hurt. McDonald's had to pay.

---

 

Yes, it is.

You're right. They did. Had they paid the expenses requested, the lawsuit would not have happened. It's probably better that the suit DID happen, else they'd have continued to serve coffee at a temperature about forty degrees hotter than the temperature of homemade coffee (that is, the temperature most people expect).

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

solstyse wrote:

 

2. The punitive damages were found for a law that was created because of this incident. Meaning at the time that it happened, there was nothing to punish McDonalds for. Regardless of how many other people may have spilled coffee, the law that they were found negligent for breaking didn't exist at the time that it was "broken."

---

I suggest you read a bit on tort law before making statements such as this. In a law suit such as this the defendant only had to prove a tort was committed due to negligence, not because they broke a specific law.  It would be impossible to make a law against all types of negligence as there are just too many.  That is why tort law exists.

I'll quite a few passages from a Legal dictionary .  You can read the entire entry by following the link.  I have bolded a few places that particularly apply to this case.

"Three elements must be established in every tort action. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach.

The law of torts is derived from a combination of common-law principles and legislative enactments. Unlike actions for breach of contract, tort actions are not dependent upon an agreement between the parties to a lawsuit. Unlike criminal prosecutions, which are brought by the government, tort actions are brought by private citizens. Remedies for tortious acts include money damages and injunctions (court orders compelling or forbidding particular conduct). Tortfeasors are subject to neither fine nor incarceration in civil court.

Most injuries that result from tortious behavior are the product of negligence, not intentional wrongdoing. Negligence is the term used by tort law to characterize behavior that creates unreasonable risks of harm to persons and property. A person acts negligently when his behavior departs from the conduct ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. In general, the law requires jurors to use their common sense and life experience in determining the proper degree of care and vigilance with which people must lead their lives to avoid imperiling the safety of others. "

While a law may have been passed after the incident, that doesn't negate the fact that tort laws existed prior to it that covered this situation.  Apparently the jurors agreed that McDonald's knew there was a potential for injury and did nothing and thus they were negligent.  Apparently the jurors and the judge agreed that McDonalds was 80 percent at fault and the woman 20 percent. 

While you are entitled to an opinion, you were not in the court room and therefore not privy to all the facts.  One important fact you seem to be overlooking is that the case was finally settled out of court under terms that neither party can legally disclose. So you have no idea what the woman finally received, yet continue to insist the settlement was unreasonable.  I doubt she received the amount initially awarded, which is generally the case when a settlement is reached.  For all you know she may have received only 80% compensation for her medical bills and a bit more for pain and suffering.  Yet you have to name call and devalue the woman because she is elderly and you're mad about your pool and then defend your actions by claiming the woman won millions unfairly.

I will agree that our society seems to be overly litigious and that more common sense should prevail.  But after reading what I have about this case I think in the end justice was served.

As far as your assault example, willful behavior is punishable in criminal court not civil and the bar may have some (not entire) liability if they continued to serve someone that was already drunk and disorderly.  There is a lot of legal precedent for that.  Where I live it is actually against the law to serve a legally drunk person in a bar and a bar can be held both criminally and civilly liable if they do and  person then goes out and commits assault and battery..

 

[Dillon Levenque]

I believe your attitude has been called 'disgusting' elsewhere in this thread. I quite agree with that opinion.

 

ETA this quote of yours (the one to which I was responding with this post)

The jury didn't make up the number. They agreed to the number. I maintain my theory that no 79 year old lap is worth that kind of money. Neither is the lap of 90% of young people. For anybody other than a model, as long as they can still walk, sit, and move like normal, the monetary damages they suffer will never come close to that amount. I'll even venture to say that the emotional trauma a person suffers after something like that falls steeply by the time they pass the height of their "vain years"

[solstyse]

you are entirely missing every single point I'm trying to make.

1. The pool is only an example. It was a small business owned by a family, not a multibillion dollar coproration like mcDonalds. The precident set in this case has closed the business, which contributed to the community by being the only local business to offer such a service. Thus, an entire community lost an entire recreational activityto fullfill one couple's Aamerican Dream" of getting rich in a lawsuit. There are many such cases. I cited one to represent them all. And it's not about whether or not I felt a personal loss about the pool. It is about there is now a service that THOUSANDS can no longer take advantage of because one couple was irresponsible. As in, lawsuits such as this do affect many, many people. Should everybody suffer because one person was clumbsy? Would that be a more appropriate way to feel?  Because that pool was owned by a motel, the family that owned that motel could no longer turn a profit. A small business bites the dust, and a family gets their dreams of entrepreneurship stepped on. And I should have sympathy for the person who got hurt by breaking the rules? That seems a bit misguided. Also, you call it my pool. No. I have no connection with it other than being within range for that closing to be considered newsworthy.

2. One important fact you seem to be overlooking is that the case was finally settled out of court under terms that neither party can legally disclose. So you have no idea what the woman finally received, yet continue to insist the settlement was unreasonable. If it's not disclosed, how is it even within my ability to overlook it? What was disclosed, is highly ureasonable.

3. Yet you have to name call and devalue the woman because she is elderly This is way off. I have already clarified, that it is not because she is elderly. I have no problem with her being elderly. She can be elderly all she wants to, There are billions of old people all over the world who I have no problems at all with because unlike this old bat, they don't end up in controvercial news stories. One thing that media exposure does is allow people to form opinions about you. And I have said multiple times that my problem is not her age, but the incredibly high amount she was to recieve, according to what was published. My opinion cannot be swayed by what was not published. So I maintain that it is her GREED that makes me have such a negative opinion of her. And I devalue her because she can certainly afford it. If she runs out of money she can certainly sue again.

For the record here, I have committed no actions. I have typed words. I have formed an opinion. That is something we can all do. It is something that requires no defence. If I want to defend my opoinion, all I have to say is, "By increasing her profile to one of a public figure, she has opened herself to the opinion of strangers, whether positive or negative." Or, I could simply say that I am under no obligation whatsoever to like anyone. I can like or dislike whoever I choose. And this ONE old lady, who is not to be confused with all old ladies, or al old people in general, is one who i dislike. But she is one... singular.... She is not a representative of old people.

If people still somehow have themselves convinced that this is some kind of crusade against the elderly, then maybe I should have worded my earlier posts more carefully. maybe I should have completely ommitted the fully accurate observation that 79 is in fact quite old, because there are some people who think that the mere mention of such a fact is a main point, when it is merely a descriptive detail. As in, one which paints a more accurate picture, but has no bearing on the main point.

4. the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach.The fact that the coffee was spilled by the woman herself, and not any employee or representative of the McDonalds corporatioin serves as proof to me that McDonald's involvement was at most indirect.

5. the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion.So, McDonalds had a legal duty to consult a psychic about what future beverage temperature standards would be? The problem that I have is that if no such standards are developed, then how is there a legal duty to conform to them? It would be way different if the standards were put in place before this incident occurred. But to punish anyone for not knowing what standards will exist in the future is just baffling.

6. You miss the point in the bar example too. I feel that it's wrong to hold a bar responsible for the actioins of it's patrons after they leave the property. It is the individual who went to the bar who chooses his or her own actions. The bar owner and staff have absolutely no control over that. Thus, their liability should be zero. Any lawsuit filed by the victim of someone who became intoxicated should be aimed directly at the person who directly hurt them. It is disgusting that a legal business owner is held "responsible" for the actions of one of their customers after they leave. Again, that's a matter of hurting what is usually a small, local business for something they weren't involved in.

Now, to those who are disgusted by my opinion that the woman's lap wasn't worth the settlement she got, I have a challenge for you. Think of the highest paid profession that is directly dependant on a person's lap. Now, think of how long it would take for the average yearly wage within that profession to equal the amount that was published in that case. Bet it adds up to more than two years, doesn't it? Now, let's assume there was some scarring. My challenge to you, is to post any career which could not be resumed after her lap had healed enough for her to have mobility back, that from the age that a person can first begin working it (18 or 21 probably, depending on the career you choose) until the average retirement age of that career (or even go all the way to the woman's age, 79) where the amount gained by working comes close to the amount she publically won. List any ways that she could have possibly suffered such a monetary loss due to this coffee spill. If it's so disgusting to think her lap isn't worth that money, then change my mind.

And someone else asked if I ate a steak that was so hot my tongue had to be amputated... Well, I'm not stupid enough to do that. And this lady didn't have anything amputated. And if you're old enough to chew, you're familiar with the idea of food being hot, and not it's your own fault if you don't let it cool.

[161488303349]

---

solstyse wrote:

The pool is only an example. It was a small business owned by a family, not a multibillion dollar coproration like mcDonalds. The precident set in this case has closed the business, which contributed to the community by being the only local business to offer such a service. Thus, an entire community lost an entire recreational activityto fullfill one couple's Aamerican Dream" of getting rich in a lawsuit..

---

I think you been making a political argument. which not the same as a legal one

in USA the right to litigate (tort) to redress wrongs caused by injury is the way it works in USA. this method of redress a political system. the law is only the vehicle for it

+

where I live we have ACC. everybody pay a levy/tax. when you get injured then you get ACC payments depending on extent of your injury and how it affect your income. is no fault - no blame compensation. if you injured you get compensated

 

if was negligence involved on part of the company then OSH (safety dept) investigate. if is proof of negligence then charges of breach of safe practices resulting in injury/death are laid. these are criminal charges. and have nothing to do with ACC. as any payments made by ACC have no bearing on what is a criminal case if charges are laid

ACC is a political system. same as the practice of tort law is a political system

 what it means is that we cant sue anyone over injury. sometimes we have a debate about it. but mostly end up with view that ACC better. at least for the person who incur the injury

 

[Perrie Juran]

Just responding in general here, I will agree some of what happens gets ridiculous.  There are people who all they see are $$$$$$ signs.  Our Tort laws, especially in the category of punitive damages need reform.  While the laws as they are written do leave an open door to some abuse, they do need to allow for a lot of latitude.  But it is only these extreme case that you read about.  I have been co-plaintiff in a Tort case and can assure you from experience that the Mc'D's case is the exception, not the rule.

As far as calling this woman greedy, remember initially all she wanted was help with her medical bills.  I doubt that she new at that time that Mc'D had ignored 700 complaints.    But what would you have thought sitting in that Court and finding this out?  Would be no different to me if I had an accident due to a tire blowing out and finding out in Court that the manufacturer had ignored all the reports of that brand of tire failing. 

And once again, it was the Jury who awarded that amount.  As punitive damages.  It was their opinion that Mc'D's choosing to ignore 700 burn complaints merited this award. 

As far as an alternative to Tort,  I don't want a Nanny Gov't because I think that is a worse alternative because there is no such thing as a beneficent dictator.  I don't need a Nanny Mayor telling me I can't have a 32 oz soft drink with the pizza I order for my family. 

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

As far as an alternative to Tort,  I don't want a Nanny Gov't because I think that is a worse alternative because there is no such thing as a beneficent dictator.  I don't need a Nanny Mayor telling me I can't have a 32 oz soft drink with the pizza I order for my family. 

---

is really interesting how different societal cultural views form

is quite baffling to me sometimes how the US people think about things like universal healthcare. it do have a lot to do with our own different histories. like how the nation was formed. our upbringing in it and how this shape our thinking

+

in our case we quite a small population as well compared to other countries. so I think we able to change quite quickly and adapt to new/different ways. we also got a very flat level of government. like is not multi-layered say like USA. so I think that helps in making quite radical changes to our society in short time frames. like if something don't work then change it and not worry about it much beyond that. classic kiwi saying: she be right mate!

also we relative quite lightly regulated compared to most other countries of samish socio-economic standards. so that enable quick change as well

dont think is any better or worse overall than any other system. is good points and bad points of each. depending on pov and upbringing

[solstyse]

16, thank you for being the first prerson to notice that Yeah, the way I expressed myself was quite... colorful.

And Pierre, I personally know some people who won legit cases. Often their injuries were far greater, and the cause far more ambiguous than the injuries suffered by this woman, yet their settlements were less. And by less, I don't mean unfair in any way except for what a long, drawn out process it was for them to finally get their money. So I have to agree, the cases which I'm citing are the extremes.

My arguement is that the line should be moved closer to the realm of reality. there is no reason why a 79 year old woman who spills coffee on herself should get as much money as a 30 year old man who loses his hand due to ill-maintained equipment at a factory. The fact is that while it's easy to hype up her ijury saying "3rd degree burns" she was not permanently mutilated. In the documents cited, the extent of her medical losses added up to less than 20,000. The wait for that money, in my opinion does entitle her to more, since the wait has increased legal fees, and incrteased penalties levied against her for any debts incurred in the meantime. But the amount she got was way over the top.

There is also no reason why the business that I used as an example, along with an unknown number of others had to close their doors for their product not being given the respect and caution it deserves.

The point I've been trying to make is one of personal responsibility, and how these extreme cases, while on the surface may appear heroic, do much more harm than good. How real families lose everything they've worked to make in a single lawsuit, and real communities are impacted both in economy and quality of life. My point is that in these extreme cases The entire incident was within the ability of the victim to avoid. The coffee lady could have simply used her hands to hold the cup. The pool guy could have simply followed the posted rules. Yet every time, the person is awarded excessive amounts, and their own negligence is simply transferred to the one with more money.

then look at some legit cases, where someone is permanently crippled by something that they had far less control over, and look at how after the settlement, their injuries leave them incapable of living lives that are financially independant. It all seems backward to me. After you talk to a guy who got the bones in his hand crushed by a machine that started because the lock-out was defective, or you talk to an assault victim who had to fight for 2 years to get $1000 and suffers permanent nerve damage, an old lady who gets awarded over $300,000 because she suffered the consequences of choosing not to hold her coffee just doesn't seem like someone worthy of pity.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

solstyse wrote:

16, thank you for being the first prerson to notice that

Yeah, the way I expressed myself was quite... colorful.

And Pierre, I personally know some people who won legit cases. Often their injuries were far greater, and the cause far more ambiguous than the injuries suffered by this woman, yet their settlements were less. And by less, I don't mean unfair in any way except for what a long, drawn out process it was for them to finally get their money. So I have to agree, the cases which I'm citing are the extremes.

My arguement is that the line should be moved closer to the realm of reality. there is no reason why a 79 year old woman who spills coffee on herself should get as much money as a 30 year old man who loses his hand due to ill-maintained equipment at a factory. The fact is that while it's easy to hype up her ijury saying "3rd degree burns" she was not permanently mutilated. In the documents cited, the extent of her medical losses added up to less than 20,000. The wait for that money, in my opinion does entitle her to more, since the wait has increased legal fees, and incrteased penalties levied against her for any debts incurred in the meantime. But the amount she got was way over the top.

There is also no reason why the business that I used as an example, along with an unknown number of others had to close their doors for their product not being given the respect and caution it deserves.

The point I've been trying to make is one of personal responsibility, and how these extreme cases, while on the surface may appear heroic, do much more harm than good. How real families lose everything they've worked to make in a single lawsuit, and real communities are impacted both in economy and quality of life. My point is that in these extreme cases The entire incident was within the ability of the victim to avoid. The coffee lady could have simply used her hands to hold the cup. The pool guy could have simply followed the posted rules. Yet every time, the person is awarded excessive amounts, and their own negligence is simply transferred to the one with more money.

then look at some legit cases, where someone is permanently crippled by something that they had far less control over, and look at how after the settlement, their injuries leave them incapable of living lives that are financially independant. It all seems backward to me. After you talk to a guy who got the bones in his hand crushed by a machine that started because the lock-out was defective, or you talk to an assault victim who had to fight for 2 years to get $1000 and suffers permanent nerve damage, an old lady who gets awarded over $300,000 because she suffered the consequences of choosing not to hold her coffee just doesn't seem like someone worthy of pity.

---

I do not think you understand what third degree burns to ones genitalia which require skin grafts entails if you can honestly say she was not permanently mutilated.

I'll admit, I have not looked at the photos, cause gross things gross me out, but by the descriptions alone it sounds pretty horrific.

She is responsible for spilling the coffee, no one has said that it wasn't her fault that it was spilt, she through her own fault spilt the coffee on herself. 

The damages inflicted were a direct result of the coffee being served at too hot of a temperature by company policy.

Spilling coffee on oneself is a relatively common occurrence in my experience. Having to suffer eight days in the hospital and two years of treatment because of it is not.

The reason for the large amount of money awarded was not just because of her so much as it was a punishment to McDonald's, an amount that roughly equaled two days of coffee sales for them.

I have read a bit more about it online and I see that this is one of those topics that is debatable for all of eternity with two very different polar extremes of thought.

[161488303349]

can argue about the relative worth of injuries but it not mean much. in tort system is set by jury of peers. is not like there is a rate card in tort system

also if judge think the award is to high then judge can invite the defendant lawyer to request that the Court set aside the award. defendant can choose to do this or not. if not then they accept verdict and pay. if do then is off to the next higher Court. or can make a deal with plaintiff

the tort system do have checks and balances. even if can be quite slow

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

can argue about the relative worth of injuries but it not mean much. in tort system is set by jury of peers. is not like there is a rate card in tort system

also if judge think the award is to high then judge can invite the defendant lawyer to request that the Court set aside the award. defendant can choose to do this or not. if not then they accept verdict and pay. if do then is off to the next higher Court. or can make a deal with plaintiff

the tort system do have checks and balances. even if can be quite slow

---

It's not a perfect system but overall it works pretty good.  I don't know that there is a 'perfect' system out there.

We could take all of this to the larger debate of on what is the value of a person's life.  How do you even begin assigning value to it.  Or similarly here in the U.S. (and I hope bringing this up doesn't side track the thread) when in the debate over gun control someone refers to an "ordinary citizen."  I am NOT an "ordinary citizen."  That would start us down the road to 'rights by class,' and one of the foundations of our laws is that "the King is not above the law."

In the Tort case I was involved in, the plaintiff (injured person's) husband was also granted a reward for 'loss of consortium.'  That is no sex for three months.  They used that money to go on a very romantic cruise and I'm certain they did a lot of catching up.  Nine months later they had their first child.

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

16 wrote:

can argue about the relative worth of injuries but it not mean much. in tort system is set by jury of peers. is not like there is a rate card in tort system

also if judge think the award is to high then judge can invite the defendant lawyer to request that the Court set aside the award. defendant can choose to do this or not. if not then they accept verdict and pay. if do then is off to the next higher Court. or can make a deal with plaintiff

the tort system do have checks and balances. even if can be quite slow

---

It's not a perfect system but overall it works pretty good.  I don't know that there is a 'perfect' system out there.

We could take all of this to the larger debate of on what is the value of a person's life.  How do you even begin assigning value to it. 

...

In the Tort case I was involved in, the plaintiff (injured person's) husband was also granted a reward for 'loss of consortium.'  That is no sex for three months.  They used that money to go on a very romantic cruise and I'm certain they did a lot of catching up.  Nine months later they had their first child.

---

you right that is no perfect system in practice. is not bc a system itself cant be perfect. they can be. is that we imperfect human beings. some of us are quite clever at take advantage of whatever system is in place and use it to gain over others

+

how do we measure a life. how do we measure a injury that result in a loss of a way of previous life

is answers to these questions. they come from how much value do others put on them when we the one injured or dead. not how much value we put on the them for ourselves

like can buy insurance against death and injury. loss of income. loss of property etc. insurance company have all kinds of mortuary tables and stuff like that. then insurance company say this how much we value it at. and we will give you in return for this much payments. pay or not as you like

this ok to a certain point. like it works if you got a job. can get a job. can actual work. make a living yourself. it not work for orphans. old people. infirm. invalid. unemployed. like the ability to earn

so society as a whole put some money value in place for these people who basically uninsurable. like state/gov benefits. how much they get pretty much depends on how much the society can afford. some countries more. some less. is a little bit on how much is fair. how much is it actual worth. but pretty much is mostly done on can we afford it

+

the afford thing is where the big debate comes. bc it introduce other elements not direct relate to the death/injury and ability to earn. things like you mention. quality of life for others indirectly affected  

so the main thing that comes out of this all is do the sums

like in our case it was worked out that universal healthcare - no blame no fault compensation and treatment is cheaper for the country as a whole than the tort system and users pay as they go

so if get injured then get all your medicals taken care off. and get 80% your wage until can go back to work. if not ever able to return to your old job then get help with retraining to a job that you now able to do. if you cant ever work again then get invalid benefit forever. is not a great to be on invalid benefit forever but is enough to feed and clothe and house you

if got children then can get other assistance for them. like family credits and stuff like special needs grants for them if they got special needs conditions of their own

+

the thing that mostly the difference about this and tort is the no fault - no blame

like if you was cleaning your roof and you fell off and broke your back and cant work ever again. cant sue the roof maker or the ladder maker. or you trip over your own bare feet and smash your face in on a table. is your fault this. but we accept that was accident. and so we look after you same way. either way. bc the immediate concern is to get you fixed up and back to health and work

+

like I say before earlier. if the roof maker was negligent then is criminal matter. not civil. would be the same here for the McDonalds case with the hot coffee

the lady would have got all her medicals taken care of. if she had a job then get help until she can go back to work. McDonalds would be paying for this through their ACC levies. ACC like a gigantic national insurance company. they got gimlet eyes just like any other insurance outfit. mean as they are if you start play up with them

sometimes diff Governments look at privatize parts of ACC. but it always comes back to the costs. and at this time the numbers show that privatization a more expensive option for our economy as a whole. so it stays the way it is for now. if one day can show that will be cheaper to privatize then we will go down that path

+  

McDonalds would also of got investigated and maybe charged by the separate enforcement agency

the water was too hot bc either the staff not set the thermostat correctly or was a machine malfunction. is one or the other. is no other possible cause

if malfunction then maintenance records will show if was a one off in otherwise exemplary maintenance company history. or was a consequence of shoddy history. or not have any maintenance history at all. conviction and/or fine dependent on all these things

if was the staff faults then the company is liable for not training them properly. if the staff ignore the training then the company still liable. for bad management. like you hired them. no one else. is not acceptable to the Court that training is enough all by itself. if staff are allowed to ignore their training then is the management fault. if useless manager then same again. you the company hired them. no one else

the enforcement part being criminal and not civil means that companies and organisations become very strict about safeworking on their premises.it focus the minds of management

this a good thing overall. bc the whole point is to reduce the healthcare costs of accidents. less accidents. less ACC payments. safe work places and public environments. healthy people who able to earn their own living. which they cant do if they injured, maimed or dead

+

is not really political or ideological this. is about the money. healthy people at the cheapest possible price

 

  

[161488303349]

add more tldr (:

+

why it works is bc we only have government departments in name only

they actual businesses. they run like businesses

is no job for life in them. you got as much job security as in any other private owned company

+

it actual don't matter who is the owner of a business when the business of say healthcare or education or whichever is run like a business

+

edit add more

can also get private insurance if you want. but this on top off all above. like if can afford extras then good on you. you get the ACC payments as well. bc you paid the levies/taxes

is same superannuation. like everyone pays taxes, so everyone get the super/pension when they retire. if save up for your retirement as well then can keep it all. if not save up then too bad and get only the national super/pension

but most people think this ok. like most most

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

16 wrote:

add more tldr (:

+

why it works is bc we only have government departments in name only

they actual businesses. they run like businesses

is no job for life in them. you got as much job security as in any other private owned company

---

 

Do you accept immigrants from other countries? I can more or less speak the language. I'm not as fluent as you bc I haven't finished my studies but I can learn.

+

I won't try to drive a car. I suppose you do that RHD thing and there's not a prayer I'll ever get that right. I don't mind driving from the passenger's seat; it's the lane thing that would do me in. Only a matter of time before I came to a T intersection and turned the wrong way in the wrong lane.

[161488303349]

about the immigration

on international scale is quite hard to get residency here. like is lots of hoops to jump through. but once you in then is really hard for anyone to kick you out easy as well

we got a refugee programme but not many come in that way compare to other countries

so if come other way then have to show that you got something extra about you to add. some kinda skill. or money

if you got lots money then we sell you a ticket. like they start at a million dollars. that for the cheap seats (:

+

about the driving

yes we drive on the left in a RHD car. is not as bad as it seems. bc you sit on the other side of the car. still next to the white line. if can remember that you have to be closer to the white line than your passenger then is ok

the actual big danger when driving on the other side of the road is in emergencies. like you instinctive swerve to the right to get off the road if learn how to drive a LHD car. swerve left in RHD countries

where has been accidents involving tourists then this the main contributing factor. swerving the wrong way instinctively when confront by immediate danger

 

 

 

[solstyse]

The damages inflicted were a direct result of the coffee being served at too hot of a temperature by company policy. is the same thing as saying that even if the spill hadn't happened, the burn would still be there.

It's like saying that because McDonalds served their coffee hot, that we all burned our laps, since direct means nothing in between. Thus, purchasing and spilling the coffee wouldn't be a prerequisite of recieving the burn. I maintain my theory that choosing to hold the coffee with her legs was stupid, and she had nobody to blame for that but herself.

The effect of the temperature is indirect at best, and at the time was unregulated. Thus, serving it at 400 degrees would have been purely legal and acceptable, even if impractical.Therein lies the problem with the tort system. People have been drinking coffee for hundreds of years, And because someone can't figure out, "Maybe I should actually hold my cup." there's a lawsuit. Nomattter how foolproof you make something, someone will be foolish enough to screw it up. I'm sure that coffee spilage that involves a full cup contacting skin is much less common compared with the slight spills that happen every day.

What really bothers me is that there are so many cases where nothing a business or property owner can do will protect them. It's the ripple effect that cases like this have throughout communities and nations. That's the major problem with TORT law. In the pool example that I gave, the person who was injured was running, and jumped into the shallow end, basically breaking every rule. That alone should have exhonerated the owner of the pool/motel from any form of legal or civil action. A person who gets injured being stupid should have no right to punish someone simply for providing the means to be dumb.

What I have seen is that TORT law reduces personal injury to a lottery game. It does not take into account whether a person is really at fault or not. I have known people who have suffered MUCH more grievous injuries than this coffee woman has recieve far less compensation.

Don't you think it's a bit odd to consider the genetalia somehow more valuable than the rest of the body? In truth, it's all important. A burn is painful nomatter where it is. If a factory or construction worker losing use of their hand due to a malfunction of safety equipment isn't worth $300,000, then this lady spilling her own coffee on her lap certainly isn't. To specify that it was this woman's genetalia is just to point out that she chose a dumb place to put the cup. That's all it really does for me.

 

And 16, the more you talk about your country, the more I think the rest of the world should take a lesson from you

[161488303349]

well is somethings we do well. other things badly

dark and terrible things

we got the highest rate of teenage suicide in OECD. is happening across all socio-economic groups. and we don't know why. is baffle everyone

+

we also got infants and babies being maimed and killed by young men who are not the fathers of them. like the girl split up with the father. some other young guy move in. days weeks later the baby is maimed or dead

we know what causes this but seems sometimes as a society we not want to face up to. until it happens again. then is lots of crocodile tears and sack cloth and pious words for a few days then nothing much after. some people are trying to fix it but is difficult. bc it require a fundamental rethink of how we deal with young people having children to early

so we not perfect at all