Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Man 'googles' Himself, Sues For Libel
Posted 22 March 2004 - 01:50 AM
Yep, all the lawyers drowning at sea would be a great start!!!!
Posted 22 March 2004 - 02:05 AM
Posted 22 March 2004 - 05:12 AM
How long do you think it will be before we see a disclaimer on the SEs?
Caution: Content is not the responsibility of Google but of the original authors and a random algorithm?
google actually already state something similar when viewing the cache of a certain page.
actually, this is a good time for you yanks to clear something up.
we here in the uk, or at least my group of friends and family, attribute these nonesence knee-jerk lawsuits (against anyone and his dog) to you guys in the usa (this most recent case does little to help your defense).
of late, whenever i watch uk t.v. a see frequent "had an accident?" - "no win, no fee" type ads and have even been approached in the street by 'accident specialists', looking to make sure i get a fair deal.
however, on the two occaisons i have visited your fine county (within the past 5 years) ive channel hopped your t.v. stations and have not seen a single advert promoting any such services from dubious law firms looking to make a buck.
so the question is, did the usa invent this most hideous form of making a quick buck (at the expense of almost anybody/everybody), or did this all come about from a simple mis-communication between our fine countries??
Posted 22 March 2004 - 06:34 AM
Posted 22 March 2004 - 09:04 AM
If you happen to watch TV in the US at 2am (ad rates are cheaper) or watch any of those People's Court/Judge Judy/Judge Mathis types of shows you'll definitely see at least one lawyer commercial. The biggie these days seems to be Personal Injury specialists.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 09:15 AM
I think this one might have some legs - it is quite an interesting argument.
Definitely interesting. Probably enough so to force Google into that disclaimer type of thing, at a minimum.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 10:51 AM
Posted 22 March 2004 - 11:41 AM
POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 11:45 AM
Witnesses for McDonald's testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company's required temperature. McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
The explanation is simple, and I'm not sure why the attorney's for McD's didn't use it...
How about BECAUSE IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT HOT LIQUID CAN BURN YOU????
So can your stove. Where's the warning...this stove will burn you if you touch it when it's on.
Or how about the warning on your oven? Don't put your kids in there to warm them up on cold days.
Why would any person with a brain need these warnings?
I do agree, Jbelle, that it's important to look at all the facts of any case, however, before jumping on the bandwagon.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 12:14 PM
I remember talking to my regional manager at the time and he was just shaking his head over the witness. Of course, we were in Canada so we have a different attitude regarding lawsuits (ie it's not a lottery) but this guy was embarrassing to the corporation, and his attitude and testimony was at odds with what most other people in the company would have said.
In short, I suspect that if McD's hadn't fouled up so severly, this would not have been an issue - we got the impression that the guy decided to "take a stand" without any regard to the actual facts involved. And he lost - nothing ticks off a jury like some jerk acting like someone's pain and suffering is no more than an obstacle to his stock options. I don't know if he still works there, but I doubt it.
The official policy was, and is: Find out what happened, sympathize with whoever is hurt (or complaining), investigate to see if the company was at fault, and if so, fix it immediately, and to "make it right" for the customer. Always has been.
In this case, the customer was, in my opinion, negligent in opening the lid of a hot cup of coffee (she bought one everyday at that store so it's not like she didn't know it's temperature) while having it in her lap, wearing shorts, and THEN driving forward with the lid off. At the very least contributary negligence.
The punitive damages would not have been awarded had it not been for the attitude and arrogance of the McD employee, I think - a good reason to be damn sure you know who is representing you in court.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 02:06 PM
THEN driving forward with the lid off. At the very least contributary negligence.
According to various sources I've read, the car was parked and she was in the passenger seat. Additionally, according to the previous article cited, the jury deemed "20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck."
If there were such a thing as common sense, then everyone would have it.
BECAUSE IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT HOT LIQUID CAN BURN YOU????
Coffee is not used for cooking, and it is supposed to be touched by our skin: our lips, tongue, mouth etc, unlike a stove.
I don't totally disagree with you, but I think there are many valid points to be made on both sides and many shades of gray and mainly, I just don't like assumptions that everyone or everything is a certain way.
we were in Canada so we have a different attitude regarding lawsuits (ie it's not a lottery)
Posted 22 March 2004 - 08:06 PM
No wonder insurance is so high and sky rocketing annually. If the governments put in a "commonsense" clause to protect businesses, then it would make it much easier.
I will give you an example of what happened here when I was in the military;
A soldier crashed a military Holden Commodore Sedan whilst driving it for duty. It was the duty car. When he had to face military court about the incident because it was believed he was driving negligent, he raised the defense that he had never received formal training by the military on that vehicle. The military obviously train you on all military and off-road vehicles, but not vehicles you buy for personal use. So, he got off an a technicality because they had not trained him.
The punch line is, he owned the exact same car as his personal vehicle, but because the military hadn't trained him on this type of car to drive during military hours, he got off.
I think all legal systems are becoming very silly nowadays and need to wake up and start using commonsense themselves.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 08:17 PM
Posted 22 March 2004 - 10:51 PM
Actually, it's only us Americans here at this forum that are responsible for the litigious society that is spreading throughout the world and the fact that fast food has taken over all the formerly simple and wholesome cuisines on the planet.
we here in the uk, or at least my group of friends and family, attribute these nonesence knee-jerk lawsuits (against anyone and his dog) to you guys in the usa
We did it. We'd say we are sorry, but we are not. I hate to tell you what else we have in store for you foreigners.... but you're gonna love it. BAHAHAHAHA :stash:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users