Man sues couple he kidnapped

[Cromulent]

Originally Posted by GRuizMD

Circumcision? How does a female get that is beyond my knowledge... and I am a surgeon.

Google "female circumcision".

[appleguy123]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Only in the US. Yikes.

And @chrono...I watched a doc on the HBO Go app..I think it was called Hot Coffee..it focused on that case and a few others. It was really, really interesting. Not that I'm for "frivolous" lawsuits, but it makes you think.

I saw that too, it was interesting, but I wish it were shorter.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Insane. I personally believe kidnapping should be a mandatory death sentence (or at least life in prison) because it shows intent to kill. You rarely hear about kidnapping victims being found alive.

This is an uninformed opinion, not that I am defending kidnapping or the lawsuit as described in the original post. Many kidnappings occur for ransom.

[arkitect]

Originally Posted by Fazzy

this reminds me of a similarly absurd case in the UK. A burglar was walking on the roof of the house, and he fell through the glass sky window. He suffered a broken spine amongst other injuries. He managed to sue (and win) the owners of the house because the glass wasn't thick enough to comply with regulations. What a system, hey?

Do you have a link for that?
I am always curious about these sort of things and often they turn out to be something someone heard: from a friend of a friend's uncle whose daughter swears she heard it from the News International journo she was shagging's wife's dog groomer…

Not saying you're making it up, just a source for something as outrageous as that would be good.
Thanks.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by appleguy123

I saw that too, it was interesting, but I wish it were shorter.

Obligatory...

That's what she said.

[appleguy123]

Originally Posted by GRuizMD

Circumcision? How does a female get that is beyond my knowledge... and I am a surgeon.

Probably referring to Female Genital Mutilation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

[GRuizMD]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

...Yeah, the western and most of the eastern Medical Community calls it female genital mutilation, but, it involves "cutting" on female genitalia for no medical reasons. This old woman receive a scald burn, no way this would have resulted in genital mutilation.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Plus verbal contracts. What a ridiculous story.

Oral (a written contract is still verbal) contracts are valid in most jurisdictions. In fact non-verbal contracts (ie by conduct) can also be binding, like buying something in a shop without saying or writing anything.

Originally Posted by Fazzy

this reminds me of a similarly absurd case in the UK. A burglar was walking on the roof of the house, and he fell through the glass sky window. He suffered a broken spine amongst other injuries. He managed to sue (and win) the owners of the house because the glass wasn't thick enough to comply with regulations.

Originally Posted by arkitect

Do you have a link for that?
I am always curious about these sort of things and often they turn out to be something someone heard: from a friend of a friend's uncle whose daughter swears she heard it from the News International journo she was shagging's wife's dog groomer…

I've always been sceptical of this story too. If a burgler tried that against me I'd run an ex turpi defence...

EDIT-

Found a reference to a US case about a burglar falling through a roof here. The problem with the US system is it doesn't have a costs-follow-the-case presumption. Here in the UK if you sue someone and lose you are on the hook for your lawyer's costs and usually most of the other side's, so even no-win-no-fee only gets you off the hook for your own lawyer's fees. In the US if you can find a lawyer willing to represent you on a no-win-no-fee basis you have very little to lose, which is why you get crazy suits being brought over there!

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Insane. I personally believe kidnapping should be a mandatory death sentence (or at least life in prison) because it shows intent to kill. You rarely hear about kidnapping victims being found alive.

How does it show intent to kill?

And two names: John Paul Getty. Theo Albrecht.

Originally Posted by chrono1081

It reminds me of the case where the dumb lady spilled her coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds because it was "too hot" and won.

And quite rightfully so. McDonald's offered unlimited free coffee refills and in order to safe money, they served coffee that was undrinkable hot. Before this case they had settled in SEVEN HUNDRED cases where people suffered injuries from dangerously hot coffee. When you spill coffee on yourself you expect that it might be painful, you don't expect massive third degree burns.

[johnhw]

Typical America.

[Cave Man]

All's well that ends well!

http://www.denverpost.com/watercooler/ci_19753360

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Insane. I personally believe kidnapping should be a mandatory death sentence (or at least life in prison) because it shows intent to kill. You rarely hear about kidnapping victims being found alive.

That being said this seems more like a hostage act that a kidnapping but it doesn't make this any less ridiculous.

It reminds me of the case where the dumb lady spilled her coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds because it was "too hot" and won.

I really wish there was a law against friviolous lawsuits.

The hot coffee lawsuit was not frivolous. The company had a policy for proper "serving temperature" that was safe but the store manager intentionally served it hotter to reduce the demand for re-fills and save a few pennies. He was trained not to do it but did it anyway. This is the very definition of "negligent" when you are told "don't do this because someone will get hurt" and then you intentionally do it. (the coffee machine was not broken, it was re-adjusted to be way to hot, near boiling)

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

The hot coffee lawsuit was not frivolous. The company had a policy for proper "serving temperature" that was safe but the store manager intentionally served it hotter to reduce the demand for re-fills and save a few pennies. He was trained not to do it but did it anyway. This is the very definition of "negligent" when you are told "don't do this because someone will get hurt" and then you intentionally do it. (the coffee machine was not broken, it was re-adjusted to be way to hot, near boiling)

The woman spilled it on herself. Its her fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

The lawsuit was definitely frivolous.

Its like trying to sue a gun manufacturer because you shot yourself in the foot. Sure the gun may have been more powerful than what the seller told you it was but in the end you still shot yourself.

That being said I understand your point about the manager making the machine hotter than it should be, but I still don't believe its grounds to sue since the actual cause of the incident was the old lady spilling it on herself.

[CalBoy]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

The woman spilled it on herself. Its her fault.

It's partially her fault. The jury took note of this and applied comparative fault damages of 80/20 (so Liebeck got 80% of what her injuries were worth). You might want to assign her more fault, but you weren't on that jury to hear the evidence, so you aren't qualified to exercise judgment over whether or not the proportion is right.

The evidence at trial about McDonalds' negligence was actually quite extensive. The coffee makers McDonalds was using were known to have a defect which caused higher temperatures (as in higher than what they were designed to be set to), and McDonalds had received hundreds of prior complaints about burns from other customers (mostly things like accidentally dripping some on a finger, etc-more minor and not litigation-worthy), and had even settled with most of the others who had complained about minor medical expenses prior to Liebeck. She initially tried to settle for a far lower figure than what the jury awarded her, but McDonalds wouldn't have it. I think they miscalculated and assumed jurors would operate on their visceral dislike of litigation rather than evaluate the evidence. That was a bad gamble for them.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Including product makers. The coffee was defective if it was capable of such severe burns. McDonalds was aware of this possibility, but assumed the risk that no one would suffer these burns. It lost, it should have to pay up. The company shouldn't get a free pass because an old lady contributed in a small way by accidentally spilling some coffee on herself. Unless you want to try to claim that you've never done anything even remotely clumsy like that before.

The lawsuit was definitely frivolous.

Its like trying to sue a gun manufacturer because you shot yourself in the foot. Sure the gun may have been more powerful than what the seller told you it was but in the end you still shot yourself.

In such an instance the person who shot himself would be able to recover the difference in damages between what the gun was advertised to do and what it actually did.

The world is not binary; two parties can be at fault at the same time.

[chrono1081]

I understand what you guys are saying, but hotter than usual coffee or not it doesn't mean she should get money because she spilled a drink that everyone knows is hot, on herself.

Its the same as people who slip on a floor and sue the store due to their own clumsyness.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I understand what you guys are saying, but hotter than usual coffee or not it doesn't mean she should get money because she spilled a drink that everyone knows is hot, on herself.

Its the same as people who slip on a floor and sue the store due to their own clumsyness.

Here it's called 'contributory negligence', I believe the US tends to have a similar thing. It's the notion that the victim may have been at fault as well, but they doesn't excuse somebody else's negligence. Like if you caused a car crash negligently and I wasn't wearing a seatbelt so my injuries were worse than expected. Case law here says not wearing a seatbelt is contributory neg, so a court would reduce the damages awarded. They have wide descretion, so they could take 5% off or 95%.

One thing you have to prove for negligence is causation, but if the victim does something completely unreasonable they 'break the chain' of causation. For example, if instead of not wearing a seatbelt above I'd been 'surfing' on top of the car drunk.

[rhett7660]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Exactly...and this is kind of what that documentary was about. And if you see the pictures of her injuries...it's not a simple case of just getting burned.

The burns are freaking horrific. A lot of people have never looked into this case and just naturally assume she was some greedy lady who wanted to get rich quick.

[MacRy]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I understand what you guys are saying, but hotter than usual coffee or not it doesn't mean she should get money because she spilled a drink that everyone knows is hot, on herself.

Its the same as people who slip on a floor and sue the store due to their own clumsyness.

I agree with you on this one.

Ok, so the coffee was hotter than it should have been and the law would seem to support this, but personal responsibility is something that people need to exercise more these days in my opinion. Just because the law says it's right it doesn't necessarily mean it is.

I'm no expert on the correct temperature of drinks and I imagine there aren't a lot of people who are, so I would have naturally assumed that boiling water would cause me horrible burns if I spilled it on myself. Therefore I wouldn't have put it between my legs and pulled the lid off towards me. It's fairly obvious no?

I mean, I don't know what exact amount of force a mousetrap exerts but I still wouldn't put it on my lap whilst baiting it with cheese because I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't end well if it accidentally went off. Mrs MacRy would be even more disappointed than she, no doubt, already is as a consequence.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

The woman spilled it on herself. Its her fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

The lawsuit was definitely frivolous.

Its like trying to sue a gun manufacturer because you shot yourself in the foot. Sure the gun may have been more powerful than what the seller told you it was but in the end you still shot yourself.

That being said I understand your point about the manager making the machine hotter than it should be, but I still don't believe its grounds to sue since the actual cause of the incident was the old lady spilling it on herself.

You really should look into this case. I would link you to the wiki page that gives you some info on it but that is blacked out for the day.

Look into this case and you will see that it was not frivolous. Not the way McDonalds successfully spun it and then people who try to say the courts are abused use it.
It seems that way but look into it and you will see the Coffee Hot case was not frivolous. I know of some frivolous cases that have happened and the person suing won but Coffee hot is not one of them.

Originally Posted by rhett7660

The burns are freaking horrific. A lot of people have never looked into this case and just naturally assume she was some greedy lady who wanted to get rich quick.

I used to be in the group who though Coffee hot was an example of a person being greedy and then I read up about it.

The orginal law suit was for McDonald to cover the medical expensive which was from the 2nd and 3rd degree burns she suffered. It went up from there as the case grew. It was found out that the coffee was hotter than it should be and then the jury also wanted to punish McDonalds for its rather callus attitude it had in court. It was 1 days worth of coffee sells from McDonalds.

I suggest you read up on the case and see why things happened.

[dukebound85]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

The woman spilled it on herself. Its her fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

The lawsuit was definitely frivolous.

Its like trying to sue a gun manufacturer because you shot yourself in the foot. Sure the gun may have been more powerful than what the seller told you it was but in the end you still shot yourself.

That being said I understand your point about the manager making the machine hotter than it should be, but I still don't believe its grounds to sue since the actual cause of the incident was the old lady spilling it on herself.

It is hardly frivolous. There is no reason why MD served coffee at a temp that caused severe 3rd degree burns

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I understand what you guys are saying, but hotter than usual coffee or not it doesn't mean she should get money because she spilled a drink that everyone knows is hot, on herself.

Its the same as people who slip on a floor and sue the store due to their own clumsyness.

Poor analogy. A better one would be people suing a store for slipping as a result of the store intentionally greasing its floors

[rhett7660]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

You really should look into this case. I would link you to the wiki page that gives you some info on it but that is blacked out for the day.

Look into this case and you will see that it was not frivolous. Not the way McDonalds successfully spun it and then people who try to say the courts are abused use it.
It seems that way but look into it and you will see the Coffee Hot case was not frivolous. I know of some frivolous cases that have happened and the person suing won but Coffee hot is not one of them.

I used to be in the group who though Coffee hot was an example of a person being greedy and then I read up about it.

The orginal law suit was for McDonald to cover the medical expensive which was from the 2nd and 3rd degree burns she suffered. It went up from there as the case grew. It was found out that the coffee was hotter than it should be and then the jury also wanted to punish McDonalds for its rather callus attitude it had in court. It was 1 days worth of coffee sells from McDonalds.

I suggest you read up on the case and see why things happened.

Me too until I read up on the case. It wasn't even a dent for McDonalds. But man the ever lasting wounds this women has to have given the amount of skin that was burned not to mention where it was burned. Yikes.

[Akula971]

Originally Posted by soco

Plus verbal contracts. What a ridiculous story.

Verbal contracts are valid in UK and US law. However as everyone has said, not under duress.

[chrf097]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I understand what you guys are saying, but hotter than usual coffee or not it doesn't mean she should get money because she spilled a drink that everyone knows is hot, on herself.

Its the same as people who slip on a floor and sue the store due to their own clumsyness.

No, that's bad. You can't sue just for slipping. If you slipped and there was no "Wet Floor" sign, that's a claim. They failed to warn you that you could potentially be in danger. They didn't cause you to fall, but the corporation put you in danger with no warning. That's what the issue is. You didn't know the floor was slippery.


As for the coffee, go see the burns she got. Coffee made at a proper regular temperature does NOT make wounds like that. McDonalds has a major issue with their coffee. I've gotten scalded by their coffee and their coffee is MUCH hotter than coffee served at Starbucks/Dunkin Doughnuts/Home Coffee pots. She had the right. She may have spilt it on her but McDs did endanger her by having coffee that was above the normal temperatures.

[soco]

Originally Posted by Akula971

Verbal contracts are valid in UK and US law. However as everyone has said, not under duress.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being literal. Oral contracts, like the one from this story, are not valid. If, however, the oral contract was agreed upon in a manner that would please a court, then it's possible. I don't think that happened here.

The "under duress" part isn't even what makes this oral contract invalid. Like I said, it's the fact that such a strict situation needs to occur for an oral contract to be valid.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by soco

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being literal. Oral contracts, like the one from this story, are not valid. If, however, the oral contract was agreed upon in a manner that would please a court, then it's possible. I don't think that happened here.

Interesting, here the requirements are the same for writte or oral contracts- offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations and consideration. No need for witnesses or anything like that. Of course proving the existance of an oral contract in court could be tricky!