OT - Sometimes It Pays To Be Stupid

Page 1 of 2  
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658 /
Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint at work.
JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J T wrote:

I think the shareholders should sue the railroad for having insufficient voltage and thus incurring the expense of a lawsuit which could have been prevented if the twit had been fried dead on the spot.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No that wouldn't work either as the parents would sue. I wouldn't be surprised that this is overturned on appeal. Should electrify the fence surrounding the place instead.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658 /">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658 /</A><BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot.&nbsp; Our gubmint at<BR>work.<BR><BR><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>A sign???&nbsp; They paid NO attention to a "No Trespassing", or "Private Property" sign.&nbsp; A shame they wern't removed from the gene pool.....&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446658 /
> Not only stupid, but a stupid crimiinal to boot. Our gubmint at work.
Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that decide these things.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 10:04pm snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net (MikeMarlow) doth sayeth: Not your government at work - your peers at work. It's juries that decide these things.
Federal jury. Federal equels gubmint. Way I figure, if they went to trial, it should have been for criminal tresspass, and to see how much they'd repay for the medical treatment the received, instead of getting rewarded. Seems like a typical government thing to me.
JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 4, 10:19 am, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

Hey, JOAT, better news here. Two guys broke into the closed down Radford (Virginia) Arsenal some weeks ago. Clamped onto some copper wires--very, very thick--with bolt cutters, and snipped. As I recall, one died right away, the other a bit later. Evidently the 4,000+ volts was still feeding the wires, even though the place was closed (padlocked, chainlink fence, huge warning signs, etc.). One might have survived. I wasn't really interested after some relative spouted to the newspaper that "he was only trying to support his kids." Ayup. Now, he isn't. Why he didn't even try to get a job was never explained (there is plenty of work around here, even for that level of intelligence).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 4:53pm (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com (CharlieSelf) doth posteth: Hey, JOAT, better news here. <snip>
I think that was very courteous of them - saving taxpaper money on a trial that is.
JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 4, 10:19 am, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

You can figure all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Mike is right. The decision was handed down by a jury of peers. In these types of cases, people get all kinds of upset at the initial splash then their interest fades as the story progresses. A few years ago, people flipped out when a woman was award millions of dollars after she was burned by McDonalds coffee. The final reward was considerably less. In the end she got 13,000.00 a third of which would have gone to her attorney.
It is also important to distinguish the suit from criminal charges. The article didn't mention it but I'm willing to bet the two were charged with criminal trespassing which is probably a misdemeanor offense....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 11:49am (EDT-3) snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com (Jeff) doth sayeth: You can figure all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Mike is right. The decision was handed down by a jury of peers. <snip> A few years ago, people flipped out when a woman was award millions of dollars after she was burned by McDonalds coffee. The final reward was considerably less. In the end she got 13,000.00 <snip>
A jury of ignorant petty thieves, eh?
Yeah, I recall. Any way you figure, she got a reward for bing stupid. Ask for hot coffee, then sue when she does something stupid, and the coffe turns out to be hot.
JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Go to http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html You can read the story there.
(Jeff) doth

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: Go to http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html You can read the story there.
And here, with some pictures of what a burn like this can be like:
http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950 http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
I continue to be amazed at how easily people come to the conclusion that this was a frivolous lawsuit. It's like people enjoy McD's hamburgers, and can't wait to defend them against some whiny old lady who asked to have her medical costs covered (see last link).
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss wrote:

Oh, Christ, not this crap again. If it's below 200F coming out of the filter then it's not being properly prepared according every expert on the making of coffee that I've ever talked to and according to American National Standards Institute published standards. McD did what they were supposed to do and the Stupid Old Bat screwed the pooch and the fact that a smart lawyer managed to bamboozle a jury into agreeing with him doesn't change that.
And don't tell me about the "survey of local establishments". Just because everybody else is serving lukewarm dog piss and calling it "coffee" doesn't mean that that's the right way to do it and doesn't mean that any outfit that follows the standards is doing wrong.
And don't tell me that Starbucks serves it cooler unless you're talking about their drip coffee and straight espresso and not all the fancy crap that is mostly 160F milk froth.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 4, 7:02 pm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

Not the way I figure it.
Unless you figure third degree burns and a medical bill in excess of $50,000 is a reward.

Hot is not a binary condition.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:07:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

It's a REWARD for being stupid! Why should the world pay for other peoples stupidity!
Break the law, get burned, TOUGH! Take the consequences!
Just like New Orleans, the nation is going to pay again and again for people that live below sea level to get a free pass when reason says move to higher ground!! DUH pay the relocation once! In the rest of the country people can't get a building permit or mortgage money for property in the "100 year flood plane".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 3, 8:19 pm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

The reason stories like that get published in the popular press is precisely because they are unusual. Frequently details essential to understanding the verdict are omitted, IMHO often maliciously.
FWIW, my understanding is that a tresspasser may sue for injuries suffered due to an unsafe condition on the property if a person legally on the property would have been subject to the same risk. I'll bet the judge advised the jury to that effect, though I won't hazard a guess as to whether or not that was the situation in this specific case.
At the end of the story we read that one of the plaintiffs, after recovering, enlisted and is now serving in Afghanistan. So I'm not inclined to be too critical of his past stupidity and criminality.
Not relevant to the lawsuit, but I thought just point that out.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 1:11pm (EDT-3) snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net (FredtheRedShirt) doth sayeth: <snip> FWIW, my understanding is that a tresspasser may sue for injuries suffered due to an unsafe condition on the property if a person legally on the property would have been subject to the same risk. <snip>
Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).
JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J T" wrote in message
Sounds like lawyer and politician weasel wording. Far as I'm concerned, someone legally on the property would not be subject to the same risk, if for no other reason than because being on the property legally, he/she would (or should) be aware of the risk(s).
You're logic is way too logical ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/8/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A good and sometimes logical discussion may be had by posting to misc.legal.moderated.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tue, Sep 4, 2007, 9:16pm (EDT-3) snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net (FredtheRedShirt) posted this along with some other stuff. A good and sometimes logical discussion may be had by posting to misc.legal.moderated.
You sound like a lawyer.
A few weeks ago I burnt my hand with some hot coffee I had bought at a fast food joint. My mistake, not the minimum wage drone. Much pain, much redness, past 1st degree burn. Did I think sue? No, not lately. I put my hand under the cold water for awhile. Then again. And again. Pain finally subsided. Hand was bright red for over a week, before starting to gradually fade in color. Then started to peel. Would this have required $50,000 in medical costs? No. Should I have tried suing? No, not in my world, I don't think I deserve money for doing something like that. However, if it 'had' been someone from the fast food joint at fault, the most I would have requested would have been the actual medical cost. My son had surgery on an infected foot; surgery, hospital time, intravenous medication, the whole shot, came to around $25,000. $50,000 medical cost for a cup of coffee burn seems excessive - but then, I'm not a soliciter.
JOAT What is life without challenge and a constant stream of new humiliations? - Peter Egan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.