Printable View
One question:
If reasonable people indeed watch their step, why put cones and barriers in the first place? If they are necessary to protect unreasonable people, I guess they have the right to expect such protection then.
Related question:
Why does my peanut butter say 'contains peanuts', my almond butter says 'contains almonds', yet a lot of products do not say 'contains cheese' (which I don't eat for this reason)?
These kinds of warnings are put in place to enhance and benefit your common sense, not replace it.
They are not necessary to protect; they are additional safeguards because there are people out there who don't watch their step. They are mercy warnings. In fact I think there's a thread around here discussing one such story
So is the same thing true for traffic lights, stop signs, speed limit signs for example? Common sense enhancers to alert drivers not to cause accidents. It seems to me that it is a bit stronger than that, otherwise the only thing you could get in trouble for is actually causing an accident.
No, traffic lights, stop signs and the like are controls, not warnings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
The peanut warnings are because people who have allergies to peanuts can die from contact with a remarkably small quantity of peanut. I saw a show on television about a dog trained to costantly inspect the environment of a young boy who can be killed by peanuts. There is a burger chain called Five Guys: http://www.fiveguys.com/home.aspx where they serve bulk peanuts free of charge. Patrons are encouraged to eat the peanuts and toss the shells on the floor. On the door as you enter there are large warning signs that peantuts are everywhere inside and those who are sensitive to peanuts should stay away.
If it were me, I would not sue.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokelaw1
- I bought coffee
- Assuming it's not iced coffee, I expect it to be hot.
- I have an accident, I burn myself. I curse myself. I do not look for someone else to blame.
Coffee near boiling point? Over here in the UK that is common -- many of our cafés are backward enough to still serve instant coffee, for which you boil water to make. But forget coffee, how about tea? If the person in the scenario above buys tea, are they likely to take more care because tea needs to be made with boiling water rather than just hot water? Of course not. If you spill, you spill. Is someone who spills near-boiling tea on themselves likely to think "Ah, this is tea, not coffee, I can't sue because it's meant to be hotter"? I don't think so.
If I make myself tea/coffee at home with boiling water, and spill it, is it reasonable for me to look for someone to blame... say the kettle manufacturer? Should they put a warning on the sides of kettles "Caution, this kettle makes boiling hot water"?! Clearly none of us think this is reasonable (do we???), but if I'm in a restaurant suddenly I can blame another party?
What's that phrase you see on T-shirts? "Sh1t happens"... there's not always someone to blame.
And it's the outcome of these lawsuits that bugs me too. Someone gets burns from spilling a McD's coffee on themselves. They sue. McD's then starts putting "Caution Hot" on packaging.
Do any of us take notice of that warning? Do any of us truly sit down with a coffee and look at the lid, read the embossed warning, take it in, think "I must be careful, even though I know it's hot", and then adjust our behaviour accordingly? I doubt it. That little warning changes nothing except prevent McD's being sued again.
It doesn't prevent an accident -- people will still keep spilling coffee on themselves because accidents are just that sometimes -- unforeseen, unpreventable. But more importantly, it doesn't change the fact that McD's serves VERY hot coffee, which let's face it is probably the issue.
So someone gets burned, they sue, the establishment puts warnings on lids to no effect, accidents still happen, someone gets burned again, they can't sue this time, and guess what? The coffee is still 210 degrees.
I've read other responses here about legislation and laws protecting those who have less common sense. OK, I can see in a society why the state would want to protect those with less sense. But how far should it go? Should it foster a litigious culture which encourages us to look for an external party to blame.
I'm sorry for the long post, but as you can tell I do feel passionately about the erosion of self accountability in society.
I gave this a lot of thought last night (I can't believe I literally lost sleep over it! :rofl2:). I took my family camping with their schoolfriends and parents last year. Everyone was cooking marshmallows over the open fire. The kids were eating them greedily, too impatient to wait for them to cool down, but keeping just this side of being burned (lots of sucking in air, "ooh ooh's, hot!" etc.). My son had never had marshmallows this way before. He didn't understand how hot they can get in the middle (molten). I was a few feet away and did not notice another parent hand my son a stick with a cooked marshmallow stuck on the end of it. I heard the most ear-piercing scream and that night my son was awake with a sever burn on his lips. It took weeks to go -- crusty, scabby, horrible. It was a terrible burn, poor kid.
I did not blame the parent for giving him such a hot marshmallow. In my mind it could have happened to anyone -- the parent assumed my son understood it was hot, even though he did not warn him. Should I have sued that parent?
I didn't, of course. I took care of my boy, and I explained about hot marshmallows, though by then I guess there was no need -- he learned the hard way. You can bet he will never bite into a melted marshmallow without caution again. This year when we went on the school camping trip, he had them again, and enjoyed them without incident.
In a more litigious culture, I'm sure one parent would have sued another. It never even occurred to me to do so, because I never looked for another party to blame, because it was one of those accidents where no party was in the wrong. It wasn't my son's fault, it wasn't my fault, and it wasn't the other parent's fault.
(Brad -- I hope my passion here isn't coming across as an attack. It's honestly not meant that way!:))
Thank you Mark. I understand and agree with your logic.
Here's a great article from the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/fun_toy_banned_because_of_three
I can't stop chuckling -- some of those Onion writers are very good.
I do think it's actually a good article in terms of summing up some thoughts. If it were a real case:
[1] It's a tragedy that 3 kids died. Withdrawing a toy is a small price to pay for preventing another tragedy.
[2] No matter how safe an item appears or is designed, someone will always find a way to hurt themselves with it.
[3] So do we legislate it out of existence, or do we accept the reality of the inherent risk in everything to a reasonable degree?
It's a hard line to tread, taking the blame yourself or pointing the finger at someone else. My worry is that we have been pushing the line a little too far over to one side.
Great post Mark, and thank you for the well thought out response. As for the other parent, I woulnd't have sued either...but you mention it not being anyone's FAULT...there I disagree with you. I don't know how old your son was then. If younger than a certain age, assuming they know that the middle of a marshmellow will be that hot is a dangerous game. Should my 15 month old know it if some other parent hands it to her? Of course not. After taking care of her and severely beating the parent in question, I still wouldn't sue though. The suit would address the damage, and for me, likely woulnd't do me any good.
Also, the McDonalds case....the coffee would NOT still be 210 degrees (the actual number, I just found out, is about 190 degrees, where coffee froma home machine comes out at 135). There had been 700 claims of burns from their coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some of these cause THIRD degree (full thickness!) burns. "A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groinareas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time sheunderwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]McDonalds [/COLOR][/COLOR]refused." (from lectlaw.com)
Testimony fro ma quality manager showed that they KNEW the coffee was UNFIT FOR DRINNKING at this temparature, as it would casue burns to the mouth and thoat, yet they had no intention of reducing the temperature.
Now, I understand that you get coffee you expect it to be hot, and ought treat it with the care due (this level being calculated by the brain constantly, really...what could happen if I wasn't careful right now?)
I know I shouldn't spill it, but if I do, I might get a little scalded, I'll risk it. Then, instead of scalding, I get third degree burns on my genitals....somebody changed the deal there......
If I am texting while walking, what is the reasonably expected damage? I trip? I walk into to someone? SUre.....
I fall down a manhole? This is outside the reasonably expected scope of risks. While I think the family IS unreasonable for suing (she wasn't hurt), I do NOT think that removes the label of negligence from the workers.
I do get what you're saying, smokelaw. It is indeed a hard line to tread.
What if Liebeck had bought tea instead? Tea has to be made 'unfit' (too hot) for consumption until you let it cool enough -- is the negligence still applicable if the beverage changes? Had Liebeck ordered tea instead, her injuries would have been the same, but would she have been entitled to sue?
With the texting situation, I would probably agree there may have been some small aspect of better prevention from the workers (small because they were allegedly in the process of making it safe). In US law is this taken into account? I.e. is there always a winner and a loser, or is there an outcome where damages might be awarded but limited due to the plaintiff's own lack of due care which undoubtedly contributed to the accident?
I never thought you didn't understand...disagreement is not always because of a right or wrong (though in this case it is!!:rofl2:. With tea, honestly, that would change the facts. Instead of the plaintiff's attornwey being able to show this great disparity, they would say she got exactly what she should have EXPECTED to get in that cup. Now...would she still ahve sued? Manybe. Might there be some way for her to have recovered, perhaps. If I buy a knife and cut myself...my fault, I knew what I was getting. If I buy a butter knife and part of the edge turns out the be as sharp as if Lynn honed it....Quote:
Originally Posted by majurey
Oh, in certain states (I believe evn most states at this point) one's damages may be reduced by the amount of negligence they "contributed" (hence they even call it "contributory negligence")....now, I don't remember too much of it from my school days, but in some states if it hits 51%, they get nothing. In some states, they get their portion, n omatter how small. I think in some states, if they are negligent at all, ther eis no recovery? (Not sure about that).
I don't know about NY. Also, if there is a law on point covering crews working in public roadways, her contributory negligence might cease to have any impact.