Insurance, liability and Sueing

[Silver Guard]

I'm not sure where else this applies, but social justices are such here in Jersey that:
Children cannot be in a group smaller then three with a teacher in a room with the door closed
People may not put suncream on children unless the Parent has given permission
Face-painters will not paint faces unless insured against sueing

These are just a few examples, children are safe nowhere! But those near them beware, for if they're hurt, you WILL be taken to court, and you may lose all your savings for the next ten years of your life

Please give your opinions

[Shaun]

Well the compensation culture has gone rampant now... its ridicullus!!

[the Black Prince]

thank god i live in the UK, where the compensation culture is being slowed and rejected by the courts

as for children though, our child protection policies are one step away from locking them in a soft padded room somewhere... there is such a thing as over protection

[Denny Crane!]

All these changes were brought about for logical reasons, an example the teacher not being alone with kids; child abuse prevention. They are introducing an overly protective society though burdened by legislative preventative policies. I do believe the legislation culture was brought about by Blair dismissing the ban on lawyers advertising though I am not sure.

The accident claim culture is brought about by the legal precedent that the burden of personal responsibility never rests with person who had the accident. Someone drinks hot coffee it is the proprietors fault (as though coffee is not supposed to be hot) or that someone trips over a box of files left on the floor it is the employers fault (even if it was another employee who left them there). Again all put in place for logical reasons for people being forced to work with unsafe equipment and other examples like that.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

I think "reasonable man" culpability needs to be applied; who would a reasonable man find culpable, like with the hot coffee, you'd find the acciddentee at fault.

[the Black Prince]

the courts methodology is "reasonable care and personal responsibility"
if oyu leave files on the floor and trip over them, the judge will have no problems throwing your case out of court


as for the coffee, i know that case... the coffee wasn't just hot, it was 88C... and deemed to be unfit for human consumption at that temperature

[Tom Paine]

the courts methodology is "reasonable care and personal responsibility"
if oyu leave files on the floor and trip over them, the judge will have no problems throwing your case out of court

So they are applying a form of reasonable man mentality to cases? That works, it should cut out many cases from court.

as for the coffee, i know that case... the coffee wasn't just hot, it was 88C... and deemed to be unfit for human consumption at that temperature

Yeah, I wouldn't wnt 88C coffee, that's more than a little insane!

[Erik]

Yeah, I wouldn't wnt 88C coffee, that's more than a little insane!

Isn't coffee made at 100C? (ie: boiling water).
And if you order tea you get water at nearly 100C + a tea bag.

Fresh coffee at 88C doesn't sound that weird to me.

If you were raised on this earth you understand you have to be carefull with hot drinks.

[Tom Paine]

Isn't coffee made at 100C? (ie: boiling water).
And if you order tea you get water at nearly 100C + a tea bag.

Fresh coffee at 88C doesn't sound that weird to me.

If you were raised on this earth you understand you have to be carefull with hot drinks.

I take it you have never taken a mouthful of water immediately after making your cuppas. If you had you wouldn't have a throat anymore, not with water at 100C.

[Erik]

I take it you have never taken a mouthful of water immediately after making your cuppas. If you had you wouldn't have a throat anymore, not with water at 100C.

Because I'm not an idiot?
You don't take a mouthfull of a hot drink, you take carefull sips and/or blow at it to cool it down.

Have you ever made lasagne?
How do you eat that?

Or deep-fried snacks?
Several popular snacks here in the Netherlands are served at more than 200C.
You can't just put them in your mouth, you have to be very carefull and allow it to cool down a bit.

It heats it to boiling point then switches off and the water instantly begins to cool as it is so much above the ambient temperature, and the addition of milk furthers this.

Most coffee machines also have a heater that keeps the cofee at close to 100C until it's served.
88C is realy not that hot.

[gigagaia]

Isn't coffee made at 100C? (ie: boiling water).
And if you order tea you get water at nearly 100C + a tea bag.

Fresh coffee at 88C doesn't sound that weird to me.

If you were raised on this earth you understand you have to be carefull with hot drinks.

Indeed you wouldn't. Coffee should not be brewed at boiling temperature, but near boiling. Boiling water burns the grounds and distorts the flavour of the brew. It only seems boiling, because it is so darned hot. Fresh coffee should be around 88c. [/spam]

There is only one thing that I have to say about all of this. If we all think that the people who bring these lawsuits to court are bad, what about the juries that award them with these enormous sums?

[Erik]

I'm not sure where else this applies, but social justices are such here in Jersey that:
Children cannot be in a group smaller then three with a teacher in a room with the door closed

Same here in the Netherlands and for GOOD REASONS.
This has nothing to do with insurance, liabilities and sueing.
It's just a simple rule to prevent pedophiles from having sex with kids at schools.

People may not put suncream on children unless the Parent has given permission

You mean a stranger can't approach your kids at the beach to give them a good rub?
Again a damn good rule to prevent pedophiles from touching children.

Face-painters will not paint faces unless insured against sueing

You mean face painters have a liability insurance? doesn't everybody have one?

These are just a few examples, children are safe nowhere! But those near them beware, for if they're hurt, you WILL be taken to court, and you may lose all your savings for the next ten years of your life

Please give your opinions

Are we talking about getting sued, or about getting arrested for abusing or mistreating children?

If you want to discuss sueing I think you need better examples or be more specific.

[Denny Crane!]

Hang on a second does that mean you can sue if a steak burns your mouth because it is to hot?

These things are made using high temperatures, what would we have done back in the 1950's when they didn't have coffee machines that heated water to certain temperatures but they did it the old fashioned way and boiled the water to 100 degrees celcius you know like we do at home.

We can manage to boil a kettle and not scold ourselves so why can't we do the same at Mcdonalds?

And tbp http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/accident_claim/ about the files claim; it was successfully prosecuted. Accident claim forms ironically.

Peter

[Denny Crane!]

You trying to say that kettles don't boil water and that it is not 100 degrees celcius?

Peter

[Tom Paine]

It heats it to boiling point then switches off and the water instantly begins to cool as it is so much above the ambient temperature, and the addition of milk furthers this.

[the Black Prince]

And tbp http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/accident_claim/ about the files claim; it was successfully prosecuted. Accident claim forms ironically.

what the link ACTUALLY says is that the case was settled out of court. OUT OF COURT. most likely the company didn't want the expense, and bad rep of defending itself in that kind of claim... if it had gone to court, no decent judge would have entertained the claim if she put the files they're herself. the precedent from the House of Lords no less is clear. people have to take responsibility for their own actions. decided in the case of Tomkinson v Congleton District Council 2004, when an 18yr old dived into a lake in a park and broke his neck, permanently disabled from the neck down. the court held the council was NOT liable. they had taken many reasonable steps to prevent people diving into the pool, and short of physically preventing them from doing so, could do nothing else. the court took the view that planting a hedge around the lake (as suggested by a council white paper) would have prevented the accident, it would also serve as a detriment to all the other people who use the park normally. the court held (in my own words) that if the man was stupid enough to ignore a number of signs warning of shallow water, a number of signs ordering "no Diving" and the experience of previously being told by a park ranger he was not to dive into the lake, but STILL proceeded to do so, he should get whats coming to him.
the court was, obviously, a lot more polite than that though...

[Denny Crane!]

So Mcdonalds should mandatorily add milk to cool the coffee as:

"The person driving the vehicle was Liebeck's grandson Chris (not Stella Liebeck as some sources would indicate), who had parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. "

Obviously one of the reasons it burned was because of the lack of milk/cream in it?

During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Despite this claim, home coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures. For example, Bunn [1] mentions "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°", and [2] mentions "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)". Cuisinart mentions for at least one of their coffeemakers [3] that "After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180°-185°F".

Edit: TBP I always assumed people settling out of court was because they were frightened of losing more money than the settlement which generally means they are frightened of losing.

Peter

[the Black Prince]

no no no....

out of court settlements occur for 2 reasons usually
speed
press


its much faster to pay up then fight, regardless of how much chance you have of winning... and this cuts down on costs and people being tied up in court,
it reduces bad press... a case that goes to an out of court settlement might not even get reported... it doesn't matter if a company is let off, a 6 week trial will generate a lot of bad press
in both cases, you also have to add in time taken for a case to come to court.

other reasons include
if you're a big company, its possible to buy off claimants with smaller sums than courts might award, and claimants accept because it saves them massive legal expenses which could ultimately mean they get nothing.
sometimes its cheaper to offer to pay up than even just pay your defence costs. its not every case that a judge will order the winner to pay the losers costs

[Silver Guard]

plus if you do lose, you have to pay their lawyer, which here in Jersey (we have elite lawyers called advocates who are the only ones allowed in court and stand above barristers and solicitors) could cost a fortune

[Simetrical]

plus if you do lose, you have to pay their lawyer

As a rule, you don't in the US. Some jurisdictions have allowed judges to order that the losing party pay the winner's fees in certain circumstances, but never as a general rule.

Juries are very rare in civil cases...

Also not in the US. Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Of course, you can still settle out of court or waive your right to a jury trial.