Printable View
I'M SUEING YOU ALL AND IT'S NONE OF MY FAULT
http://www.dailytech.com/Teenager+Fa...ticle15661.htm
Or atleast this stupid teen wants to believe. Possible law suit because she has no common sense, her texting is much too important to put away and avoid this manhole she never would have seen even with a cone.
All i gotta say to her is ROFL!!!!!!!! stupid things happen to stupid people.
wow, some people cant think...
""Because of their careless mistake I got hurt."
first thing i saw when the page opened was http://images.dailytech.com/frontpag...a756f5dceb.jpg
Mmm I dunno. You shouldn't really leave sewers open with no barriers.
Yes it's stupid but I can kind of empathise.
I think both sides are at fault. The girl can't really blame everyone else for her lack of awareness, but whoever was working the manhole clearly should not have left it open without any signals.
Too bad it wasn't caught on tape. Would probably look funny to see someone walk blindly into a manhole. I'm kinda surprised that she didn't lose her phone in the incident.
What the fuck happened to peripheral vision?
Fucking ass.
Get the fuck off of your phone when your in the street -.-
In this case both partys are at fault. You DON'T leave a man hole uncovered without someone there or some sign warning, but you also don't ignore all signs of awareness just to text, it's common sense. I would say it's mostly her fault because she ignored dangers in her area and kept on walking blindly, which is risky if you are unable to see what is in front of you because of a screen. Cellphones are small, she could have easily used her peropherals, but ignored to do so, and it cost her. She can't be blaming the workers for her lack of awareness, it's her own responsibility to do it her self, as nobody is going to babysit her path for her. But...there should have been a warning sign or a person there regardless, it's something called safety, and those guys really messed up and know better then this. It's about 60-40 towards the girl IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarboy
As far as the law's concerned, it's prob 100-0 towards the girl IMO. :roll: Unfortunately. If the family decides to pursue a lawsuit at all, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
It's like the incident with the woman who burned herself after somehow magically forgetting that the HOT cup of coffee she ordered was actually HOT. That's why now there are always warnings on the cup along the lines of, "This beverage may be hot."
The girl's just an idiot child ("It was just really gross..." Fuck. I can just imagine her spoiled face.) out to make everyone else's lives difficult.
BUT, it's good for society that people have the right to sue in the first place.
Odds are 100-0 in favor of the girl for this case. A blind person could just as easily have walked into that hole. A child could have tripped into as well. Massive safety hazard. That's not to say I don't think the girl is an idiot for not watching where she's going, because she is. From the standpoint of the law, though, there's no excuse for leaving a manhole cover unattended.
On the other forum i got this from some people are defending her, or saying my logic is flawed because i said she's mostly at fault for not being aware of her surroundings...WTF!:shock: It's like i'm in a stupid movie but in real life.
In the laws eyes the girl would EASILY win at court, it's a pretty open and shut case. They go by the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Fact - The man hole was not covered.
Fact - Nothing was in the area warning them.
Fact - A girl fell down a hole in the ground.
Facts are what make court rooms go round and round. If it could have been prevented, which in this case it could have been, then it should have been prevented, and whoever has the safety job is more responsible, her eyes were not able to see what was going on, thus she fell and nothing could prevent her from falling. This is in a courts eyes. In a common sense eyes, both are at fault.
Facts win.
I kinda can't tell if you're agreeing with me or misread my post and are arguing against it but in any case yeah, that's essentially why it's probably 100 toward the girl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
You are so wrong about that. Mc'Donalds deserved to be sued. That coffee wasn't hot it was scolding. It was capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Quote:
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. 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 groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
The truth is quite different than the spin you all saw on Television.Quote:
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Quote:
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance
manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
Eek. :shock:
Well I don't know which company I was talking about, but I didn't think it was that.
That is usually the case everyone is referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Any decent society would gas this waste of breath teenager without a second thought.
Hey now, that's not right and you know it >.>Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockwork
Agreeing with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Not looking where you're going is dumb, but I think the city leaving a manhole cover open, unattended and not blocked off is even dumber. This isn't like that idiot that burned herself on hot coffee - I think a lawsuit for this kind of carelessness on the city's part is warranted. I think the txt-haters would be okay with this lawsuit if, say, a blind person had fallen in. I think it's reasonable to expect that you won't fall into a manhole if you're not looking at where you're going. Maybe you'll walk into a sign post, or get run over by a car, but falling into a manhole is totally the city's problem.