PDA

View Full Version : Common Sense



llotter
09-22-2011, 12:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:-Knowing when to come in out of the rain; - Why the early bird gets the worm;- Life isn't always fair; - And maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies, don't spend more than you can earn and adults, not children, are in charge. His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights,I Want It Now,Someone Else Is To Blame,I'm A Victim.Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, do nothing.
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. </div></div>

I grow weary of trying to set the record straight on that case.

Here's better information that common sense might have used to avoid losing the will to live:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.</div></div>

McDonald's admitted that the temperature they served coffee at made it too dangerous to drink right away, since it would definitely cause burns, but claimed that most of their customers didn't immediately try to drink it, and instead waited until they got to work or wherever they were going to begin drinking it.

Problem: their own studies contradicted this theory, which showed that basically EVERYBODY tried to drink it right away (which they couldn't really accomplish).

McDs KNEW they had a dangerous product, because they had close to 1,000 cases of burns they paid off, but they KEPT THE CONSUMERS from knowing that, as all burn payees were required to maintain confidentiality.

The jury awarded so large an original award as punitive damages to try to gain the corporation's attention. They could have avoided any large award against them, and the attendant legal costs, if they'd simply agreed to pay this woman's out-of-pocket medical costs (about $15,000, iirc, with nothing for the extreme pain and suffering caused).

And yes, the jury considered the woman's partial responsibility for the event, and reduced the award by that proportion.

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies, don't spend more than you can earn and adults, not children, are in charge </div></div>

So I take it you believe that Bush, and the Repiglican Blank Check Congress, were children?

G.

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. </div></div>

Bush's No Child Left Behind?

Bush's No bid Contracts?

Bush's Ownership Society?

Regulations aren't overbearing, corporate polluters, who are blowing up the mountain tops, are overbearing.

G.

More Children suffering from Asthma, linked to deregulatory policies of Bush, and the Grand Oil Party, who deregulated quality of our air, water, and environment?

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. </div></div>

Our schools don't oversee abortions.

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; </div></div>

Probably the only thing in your post, that is true, and does make sense, yet you defend, and take part in their obstrusive policies of being involved in invading the space of other citizens, when they are exercising their personal, private Constitutional rights?

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.</div></div>

Where and when did this ever happen?

Another RW BS LIE?

Clue, anyone can file a Law Suit...so what? Frivolous law suits don't usuall make it into the court system, IOW, the exception, nor the rule.

G.

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and criminals received better treatment than their victims.</div></div>

Yet, you praise cowardly murderers, ignore the law of the land, and the Constitutional rights, of others?

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement </div></div>

Anyone with any common sense, would know better than to write something like this statement. I'd say, some vast ignorance, was behind creating this ridiculous tirade of BS!

Gayle in MD
09-24-2011, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I Know My Rights,I Want It Now,Someone Else Is To Blame,I'm A Victim </div></div>

LOL, The Repiglican Do Nothing Congress????


Lastly, would anyone with any common sense fail to see through money grubbing, opportunist, nitwit liars like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or Sara Palin, just to name a few?


G.

LWW
09-24-2011, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.</div></div>

Where and when did this ever happen?

G.

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/stupidometer.gif
</div></div>

Yep ... you pegged it again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except if one actually goes to the document, buried within a lot of rhetoric criticizing reformers for mentioning the Bodine lawsuit, we learn: Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars’ safety, it doesn’t matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value.

In other words, a burglar fell through a skylight, and blamed the skylight’s owners for his injuries; because the law permits such suits, and because the law does not compensate defendants for successful defenses, Bodine had the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers for injuries suffered in the course of his own criminal behavior. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MILWAUKEE -- A Janesville man who admitted breaking into a home is <span style='font-size: 11pt'>suing the homeowner</span> who shot him. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The doctor was asleep in his bed when an intruder came into his home and put his life, his wife's life, and his two kids' lives in jeopardy,"</span> Rainiero's lawyer said.

The lawyer added that Rainiero showed restraint, not excessive force, in dealing with Prochaska. Although, he had an entire magazine of bullets, Rainiero fired only once.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Rock County district attorney agreed, long ago ruling the shooting was justified. </span> ...</div></div>
OH DEAR! (http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/)

OH MY! (http://www.wisn.com/r/9950016/detail.html)

Soflasnapper
09-25-2011, 09:47 AM
It is true that a loophole in the laws of California at one time allowed recovery by a criminal under civil lawsuits such as this one referenced.

That was in the early '80s, and in response, the legislature passed a law forbidding such lawsuits and potential recovery in the case of the criminality of the perp, including burglary.

Here in Florida we've long had a 'castle' doctrine, stating that up to lethal force is allowed by the homeowner or renter, in the case of home intrusions. (The shooter might have to utter the magic words, 'I felt my life was in danger.')

As for the Milwaukee case, the lawsuit may or may not be thrown out at summary judgment. Which requires a hearing that had not yet taken place as of the article's publication date.

If the suit is dismissed upon summary judgment, common sense has not been violated, but affirmed.