Hurricane..... I mean UCF week

[takethepoints]

Calm down, I was joking.

It was in, shall we say, poor taste.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Once again, all I see on my computer is just white space. Can you post the link?

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Once again, all I see on my computer is just white space. Can you post the link?

So it seems any Facebook posts you can't see.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

So it seems any Facebook posts you can't see.

Can you post the actual link? I think I can click on that and see it.

 

[takethepoints]

Ok, glad it wasn't your wife For some reason I thought that's what one of the previous posts said.

Imo As for the case itself, she still spilled the damn coffee. As unfortunate as it is, that's the case. Lawyers using legal terms can most certainly win a case like that, but I think that's what the OP was exactly hitting at with his post. Common sense is gone and people can jack the system and sue for anything now.

"Coffee is very hot. Do not spill." should suffice for the common sense population. Unfortunately, finding loopholes isn't the exception anymore, it is the rule. Common sense has taken a backseat and is now the exception.

It was mine.

You are suffering from a common delusion in this country: it appears that you think that market mechanisms and "common sense" will control corporate actions. Some corporations will behave responsibly when faced with a hazard they are causing to the public and take a long view, albeit without trusting to "common sense" to get them out of trouble. Many others will not. Indeed, given the profit motive, most will skirt along any edge they can get to keep their margins intact. I just got through re-reading The Big Short for about the sixth time. It is hard to tell if the banksters who ruined the world economy did it on purpose or because they were deluded into thinking that their activities were both socially responsible and ultimately harmless. It is abundantly clear, however, that they never questioned their actions because they were making gigantically huge amounts of money from them. Writ large, this is a major problem for all capitalist societies.

There are two ways to handle it. The French solution, adopted by most countries around the world, is to give the state the regulatory power to both address problems when they arise and to anticipate them where possible. This calls for a regulatory state that preemptively controls corporate actions that, in the state's opinion, would cause social harm and also alleviates social problems that the state believes rise from unrestrained market action. This works, but it is also what we had a revolution about; we didn't like the new centralized state the English were trying to create and the taxation that came with it. So we set up the American solution and created a weak central government and made it hard for it to do much except when almost everyone agreed that we had to. The problem here is that it is accompanied by a weak regulatory state that has a hard time overcoming the presumption that it shouldn't do anything to interfere with business, even if the results of doing nothing are horrendous. We answered that with an individually structured solution: sue the SOBs. We don't let the government fine businesses much or regulate them too closely. Instead, we depend on people who have been harmed by corporate action to go after them and sue their pants off. When the victims succeed, it is not only a harm to business profits, but a hit on their reputation that can be devastating; ask the folks at VW about that. This also works very well and suits the way Americans like to think about state power.

The one thing you can't have is to have it both ways. Either you let people sue or you open the way for the government to regulate more closely. You pay your money and you take your choice.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[northgajacket]

It was in, shall we say, poor taste.

I apologize, I did not even think that members of this site have gone through similar situations.

 

[augustabuzz]

Uh, dude, my wife got third degree burns over about 15% of her body from a hot coffee spill at a fast food joint that shall remain nameless. She was in pain for almost 3 months and is still scared from the incident. Only the burn unit at Grady - the only one south of Chapel Hill that knows what it is doing - saved her from further infection (most of the pain from burns is from subsequent infections) and other complications.

The only thing that saved those turkeys whose negligence scared my wife from being killed (literally and figuratively) in court was my wife deciding that it wasn't worth the hassle. She's an attorney and a very high paid one with great insurance. We could easily afford not going to court and she wanted to recover. Oth, if I had been that woman's lawyer, I'd have ripped McDonald's a new one even bigger then she did. This kind of negligence - and that is what it is - is what's wrong with corporate America. And attitudes like yours keep that "screw them until they sue" mindset alive.

Joseph M Still Burn Center in Augusta is one of the best in the country.

 

[YJMD]

Well I was going to pipe in about the facts in the McD's case but others have covered it. However, no one has said why everyone uses this as the example of a frivolous lawsuit. That's because McD's PR team intended this to be the reception. They manipulated the narrative to avoid fallout for their malice. The award was chosen by the jury to be punitive for all the times this happened and McD's used their strong arm to avoid doing anything about it. They chose the award as $1 for every cup of coffee they sell in a day. Sadly, I think in the end they profited from the verdict.

 

[orientalnc]

Well I was going to pipe in about the facts in the McD's case but others have covered it. However, no one has said why everyone uses this as the example of a frivolous lawsuit. That's because McD's PR team intended this to be the reception. They manipulated the narrative to avoid fallout for their malice. The award was chosen by the jury to be punitive for all the times this happened and McD's used their strong arm to avoid doing anything about it. They chose the award as $1 for every cup of coffee they sell in a day. Sadly, I think in the end they profited from the verdict.

Until that lawsuit I didn't know McDonald's sold coffee that was fit for consumption.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Water doesn't taste any better than it does out of a water hose

Nothing wrong with drinking out of a garden hose that has had water running through it. I've done that a lot. Does have a nice taste with satisfying blend of long and short chain polymers.

I prefer my water with beer or whiskey.

 

[kg01]

Am I the only one just walking into this thread and is now confused AF?

 

[Madison Grant]

It was mine.

You are suffering from a common delusion in this country: it appears that you think that market mechanisms and "common sense" will control corporate actions. Some corporations will behave responsibly when faced with a hazard they are causing to the public and take a long view, albeit without trusting to "common sense" to get them out of trouble. Many others will not. Indeed, given the profit motive, most will skirt along any edge they can get to keep their margins intact. I just got through re-reading The Big Short for about the sixth time. It is hard to tell if the banksters who ruined the world economy did it on purpose or because they were deluded into thinking that their activities were both socially responsible and ultimately harmless. It is abundantly clear, however, that they never questioned their actions because they were making gigantically huge amounts of money from them. Writ large, this is a major problem for all capitalist societies.

There are two ways to handle it. The French solution, adopted by most countries around the world, is to give the state the regulatory power to both address problems when they arise and to anticipate them where possible. This calls for a regulatory state that preemptively controls corporate actions that, in the state's opinion, would cause social harm and also alleviates social problems that the state believes rise from unrestrained market action. This works, but it is also what we had a revolution about; we didn't like the new centralized state the English were trying to create and the taxation that came with it. So we set up the American solution and created a weak central government and made it hard for it to do much except when almost everyone agreed that we had to. The problem here is that it is accompanied by a weak regulatory state that has a hard time overcoming the presumption that it shouldn't do anything to interfere with business, even if the results of doing nothing are horrendous. We answered that with an individually structured solution: sue the SOBs. We don't let the government fine businesses much or regulate them too closely. Instead, we depend on people who have been harmed by corporate action to go after them and sue their pants off. When the victims succeed, it is not only a harm to business profits, but a hit on their reputation that can be devastating; ask the folks at VW about that. This also works very well and suits the way Americans like to think about state power.

The one thing you can't have is to have it both ways. Either you let people sue or you open the way for the government to regulate more closely. You pay your money and you take your choice.

Here endeth the lesson.

The problem is that without SOME kind of regulation, as in Glass-Stegall or anti-trust laws, profiteering just becomes too advantageous for corporations. It is so valuable because they can use their wealth to buy lobbying influence where they even write the laws FOR Congressmen. As the Big Short points out, they even gain enough influence over government to have their former execs appointed as the heads of regulatory agencies. And they can afford to outgun the legal resources of the citizen bringing suit.

 

[Milwaukee]

It was mine.

You are suffering from a common delusion in this country: it appears that you think that market mechanisms and "common sense" will control corporate actions. Some corporations will behave responsibly when faced with a hazard they are causing to the public and take a long view, albeit without trusting to "common sense" to get them out of trouble. Many others will not. Indeed, given the profit motive, most will skirt along any edge they can get to keep their margins intact. I just got through re-reading The Big Short for about the sixth time. It is hard to tell if the banksters who ruined the world economy did it on purpose or because they were deluded into thinking that their activities were both socially responsible and ultimately harmless. It is abundantly clear, however, that they never questioned their actions because they were making gigantically huge amounts of money from them. Writ large, this is a major problem for all capitalist societies.

There are two ways to handle it. The French solution, adopted by most countries around the world, is to give the state the regulatory power to both address problems when they arise and to anticipate them where possible. This calls for a regulatory state that preemptively controls corporate actions that, in the state's opinion, would cause social harm and also alleviates social problems that the state believes rise from unrestrained market action. This works, but it is also what we had a revolution about; we didn't like the new centralized state the English were trying to create and the taxation that came with it. So we set up the American solution and created a weak central government and made it hard for it to do much except when almost everyone agreed that we had to. The problem here is that it is accompanied by a weak regulatory state that has a hard time overcoming the presumption that it shouldn't do anything to interfere with business, even if the results of doing nothing are horrendous. We answered that with an individually structured solution: sue the SOBs. We don't let the government fine businesses much or regulate them too closely. Instead, we depend on people who have been harmed by corporate action to go after them and sue their pants off. When the victims succeed, it is not only a harm to business profits, but a hit on their reputation that can be devastating; ask the folks at VW about that. This also works very well and suits the way Americans like to think about state power.

The one thing you can't have is to have it both ways. Either you let people sue or you open the way for the government to regulate more closely. You pay your money and you take your choice.

Here endeth the lesson.

Unfortunate incident.

 

[CuseJacket]

Locking up this thread as we're off topic and have another dedicated to the impacts of classes being canceled.