insurance question

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Nope:

Colorado's criminal libel statute provides:

(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.

Wrong. Ibid.

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Well, and the chickenhawk neo-cons like to chant -- Freedom isn't Free

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

You're a moron who obviously has no clue what that case was about, or the actual fact pattern supporting it.

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Which was beyond not only safe industry standards, but exceeded McDonalds own guidelines ...

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

McDonalds was punished because this was the 4th or 5th lawsuit they had lost for the very same willful negligence, each time the jury's increased the punitive damages, McDonalds continued to ignore the known danger and finally caused very tragic harm to an elderly lady who had to live the rest of her life in pain, with unhealed/missing skin tissue over a large portion of her crotch.

May the mothers of those who claim this verdict was unjust suffer the same fate.

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Bullshit. No one can consume coffee that hot without burning skin and flesh.

Really? And where do millions of people put beverages as they exit the drive through windows?

You might want to consult the actual facts of the case, then stuff your "opinion" up your ass where it belongs.

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Yet most sane people don't drink coffee at brewing temperatures.

Yeah, 12 jurors who heard all the facts, and the Judge who presided over the case, and the best legal defense $$ could buy, and all they really needed was a stammering jackass like you to settle the case. LOL!

[Edwin Pawlowski]

You've never seen my wife drink coffee. I know other that do also. In some cases, the coffee has to travel some distance on a take out and it is just getting to what others consider the minimum temperature. Can't please everyone.

Smart ones use cup holders or the seat next to them. Personally, I've never seen anyhone hold it in ther crotch but you seem to think it is normal.

Thank you for making my point. You did it well.

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Bullshit. Put up or shut up, liar. Drink a cup, or even 1/2, of coffee that is at 190 degrees F.

Do it ... do it now.

And when the cars of that older day did not have cup holders ?

This from the lying jackass that claims his wife can drink coffee at 190 degrees F.

Go ahead, do it .... do it now, liar.

Report back to us after you drink that 190 degree coffee, jackass.

[Deadrat]

"¥ UltraMan ¥" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

This is one of those disgraceful criminal libel statutes that every so often a state dusts off to harass an outspoken citizen. The Supreme Court requires that the state show actual malice.

I don't know of a jurisdiction that doesn't make truth a defense against the tort of libel.

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Now you do. Colorado's Criminal Libel statute is used regularly, and so far has held, as repugnant as it is.

Here's a felonious shout out - George W Bu$h is a stammering mentally defective imbecile and George Washington was a slave-owning, slave-raping father of a bastard half-breed Negro child.

[dpb]

...

Only stupid ones... :)

--

[dpb]

In this particular case, obviously... :)

--

[Kurt Ullman]

But since a jury is made up of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty, that is sorta self-fulfilling prophecy.

[clifto]

That is, until it's not. Google "red kimono" or "Melvin v. Reid".

[¥ UltraMan ¥]

Hey jackass, why not actually read the facts of the case, or the other cases McDonalds was found liable for over the same issue? IIRC

There was no "cup-holder". She wasn't driving.

Yep, and McDonalds was found to be way more stupid than the plaintiff, MILLIONS of $$ more stupid to be exact.

I can see why you are so fearful of a tort system that assigns liability to stupidity.

[Deadrat]

"¥ UltraMan ¥" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

That's a *criminal* statute. (And it's not used regularly, but sporadically.)

Tort, tort.

[Deadrat]

clifto wrote in news: [e-mail]:

This case involved the tort of public revelation of private facts, what we'd call invasion of privacy. Nothing to do with defamation.

Do try to keep up.

[SteveB]

Heck, my wife can yell hotter than that.

Steve

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:53:42 GMT from Deadrat :

The "actual malice" requirement(*) applies only when the plaintiff is a public fgure.

(*) "Actual malice" is actually not malice. It's defined as knowledge that the statements were false, or reckless disregard of whether they were they were true or false.