Car accident, no passengers - time to sue for injuries

[Canarr]

I have to say, I'm with the driver on this, too. I understand how painful it is to lose an animal you love - I buried a cat and a dog myself - but it also sucks to have the car you need - for work, travelling, life, whatever - to be damaged through no fault of your own. Yes, the driver is responsible to keep a lookout, but a small dog suddenly running into the street? At night? Not a chance.

Yes, it's hard for the family, but why should the guy eat $ 1,100 worth of damages himself? He works two jobs, so he's probably not wealthy; he may need the money. How many of you here could just shell out a thousand bucks without hurting for it?

Now, if he were suing for "emotional distress" to get tens of thousands, I'd be the first to cry "frivolous lawsuit!". But wanting to recoup his losses doesn't make him a villain, IMO.

[Ghostlightkeeper]

People are held responsible for their property - if it be a dead tree you fail to cut down that falls and makes a hole in your neighbor's roof or an animal you didn't have restrained - or sad to say just managed to escape - you are responsible.

</rant on> McDonalds Coffee aside, the civil law was never meant to be used so frivolously. It doesn't matter who the dog belonged to or who was responsible for its actions. If the driver had hit a similar sized wild animal, say a groundhog, would he be taking the state or federal government to court for the damages to his car? Of course not! Sometimes bad things happen. You deal with it and you move on. The civil laws weren't meant to help individuals rectify every trouble and inconvenience in their lives. Had the dog been an elephant or some other creature that the owners knew could cause havoc if it escaped the driver would have a case and the owners would be liable, but the law was never intended to let individuals seek redress for the random misfortunes that everyone encounters every now and again.

The same is true the other way around, if your dog runs into the road and gets hit by a car. It's a misfortune but not something that the civil law should be trying to redress, unless the driver was spectacularly negligent, i.e. was drunk, drove up on the lawn and killed your dog.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. If you're luck enough to be living in a first world country, to have the money to own a car, to own a dog that you don't intend to eat, and have a job that pays enough for you to afford said car, you're pretty blessed already. Don't go pretending that because you've been lucky so far that nothing bad will ever happen to you. And don't go running to the law to try and make it better when some misfortune befalls you. It's just life. Deal with it. </rant off>

Sorry about that. I feel better now.

[IT Grunt]

People are held responsible for their property - if it be a dead tree you fail to cut down that falls and makes a hole in your neighbor's roof or an animal you didn't have restrained - or sad to say just managed to escape - you are responsible.

That's the same logic I tried on my neighbor once when she accused my wife of stealing her dog. Let's lay out the facts:

1. Her dog was not on a chain.

2. Her house did not have a fence.

3. Her dog is a young male.

4. Our dog was a young female, recently spayed, but unfortunately had gone into heat just prior so still had some of the hormones and the scent.

5. Her dog followed our dog down the street when my wife took her for a walk. (To say she was not interested is an understatement. )

So, the neighbor comes /barreling/ up the road, grabs her dog, accuses my wife of stealing it, and slams the door in my face when I try to explain the facts of life, telling me to go have sexual relations with myself. She'd left a nice handwritten note on our porch telling us the next time we steal her dog she'd call the cops. The only conclusion I could come to was she was psycho.

[Andara Bledin]

t doesn't matter who the dog belonged to or who was responsible for its actions. If the driver had hit a similar sized wild animal, say a groundhog, would he be taking the state or federal government to court for the damages to his car?

Straw man. Let's keep focused.

Dog was owned. The owner failed to keep control of the dog. That failure has caused real damages to another individual. End of story.

The frivolous lawsuit in this particular case is actually the countersuit. The family who owned the dog (who admitted that it was a dangerous street) are countersuing the driver for a host of things that are a result of their own negligence.

This sort of thing is actually precisely what civil court is all about.

^-.-^

[Geek King]

does that qualify as "independantly wealthy" to you?

With a decent investment of the post-medical payoff final award, it could definately give me "f*** you" money. Not in the thousands per day range, but I could live pretty good and not have to work much--or at all if I let it sit in an investment plan for several years and suplemented it. But that's quibbling.

I do have an issue with the award, because McD's, if I'm reading the article right, was serving the coffee near its optimal reccommended taste temperature. I still think it was unreasonable for the lawsuit to have been won when everyone on the losing side was doing things properly. I think it is reasonable to assume that fresh coffee will be dangerously hot when first poured, and proper care should be taken. Yeah, the award was reduced, then further negotiated in secret when appeals looked likely. I still think it was wrong that she get anything out of it, other than maybe some sympathy for making a silly, if painful, mistake.

Common sense, probably why I'll be excused from any jury pool I get called for.

[Andara Bledin]

I do have an issue with the award, because McD's, if I'm reading the article right, was serving the coffee near its optimal reccommended taste temperature. I still think it was unreasonable for the lawsuit to have been won when everyone on the losing side was doing things properly.

See, that's where I'm confused. Supposedly you're supposed to have coffee at the "optimal" temperature of 185° and you're to drink it "immediately." But coffee at 180-190° will cause third degree burns.

There's just no way to reconcile those facts to make sense together.

^-.-^

[South Texan]

And there's always a lawyer out there to take the case, no matter the merits or ethical nature.

Most attorneys accept a case on the day a person walks into their offices with what appears to be a good facts. Attorneys know to investigate anything a client tells them, however, before acting upon it. Almost all attorney contracts have a clause in them that allows the attorney to stop representing the person if upon investigation it appears the person lied about what really happened or witheld information from the attorney that negates or severely weakens the case.

I cannot tell you how many attorneys have called me to bluster about a "wrong" their client suffered due to something my client allegedly did, but never call back once I supply them with documentation showing what THEIR client did or that whatever their client told them about my client was false. Most actually will thank me for giving them the information.

Attorneys do not want to waste their time or money on loser cases.

[wagegoth]

See, that's where I'm confused. Supposedly you're supposed to have coffee at the "optimal" temperature of 185° and you're to drink it "immediately." But coffee at 180-190° will cause third degree burns.

There's just no way to reconcile those facts to make sense together.

^-.-^

Exactly. McDonald's did not take safety into consideration. You're handing this drink to someone in a vehicle that will be moving. Spillage is likely. It's safer to have the spillage occur at a lower temperature. Maybe the coffee won't be quite as tasty (McDonald's hired consultants who told them to keep and serve the coffee at that temperature. It seems to me they were also putting their employees at risk.), but, as Andara pointed out, you can't drink coffee at that temperature anyway.

McDonald's failed to properly consider the ramifications of its decision. When the woman was injured, instead of just paying her bills and taking a second look at the issue, they fought it, and they lost.

I saw a talk show one time that had the judge from the McDonald's case on. It was very interesting. He made clear exactly why the decision was made, why the amount awarded was reduced, etc. It was kind of a bummer because he only had a few minutes, but that kind of insight is important.

[Kyree]

To the McDonald's thing:
It was a sucky situation all around. McDonald's was just following instructions of what they were told to serve the coffee at. Yes, it turned out to be way too hot. To the person who asked if $480,000 makes you wealthy. Personally, if I had 480 grand, heck yeah I'd consider myself wealthy. Yes I know the amount she got was less at the end, but she should have gotten enough to cover her medical expenses and that's it.

To the Dog being hit:
It's harsh. I love animals. But that dog being hit by the car was the owner's fault. He was their responsibility. The driver, as long as he was following the road rules, has every right to sue for the damages to his car.

And now...BACK TO THE OP!
They waited....4 years to try to get money? How did they think in their heads that it would work, at all? Even a little?

[marasbaras]

OP: ladies are crooks, plain and simple.

McD Coffee: this is why McD's now adds cream and sugar for you at the window. Stella spilled the coffee onto her sweat pants (severely burning 6% of her body and mildly burning 16%) while trying to open the cup and add cream and sugar.

[Broomjockey]

You were warned once to keep away from tort reform and cases such as the McDonald's/Stella case. Once should be enough.