There are a LOT of stupid people out there

[zzyzzx]

Pennsylvania woman who was struck by a train has sued the rail company - for failing to warn her that trains travel on railroad tracks.

Patricia M. Frankhouser filed suit on Nov. 4 seeking damages in excess of $30,000 from Norfolk Southern Corp., according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Last January, Frankhouser was hit by a train as she walked along railroad tracks in her hometown of Jeannette, Pa., a southeastern suburb of Pittsburgh.

Amazingly, she came away from the encounter with only a broken finger, some cuts and, according to the lawsuit, "pain."

Apparently, however, the incident was traumatic enough for her to hire a lawyer.

"Defendant's failure to warn plaintiff of the potential dangers negligently provided plaintiff with the belief she was safe in walking near the train tracks," Frankhouser's suit asserts.

It goes on to state that Norfolk Southern, based in Norfolk, Va., should have posted signs warning passersby "of the dangers of walking near train tracks and that the tracks were actively in use."

Nowhere in the filing does it say whether Frankhouser heard the train coming, why she failed to get out of the way or even whether she was walking alongside or in between the rails.

Her attorney did not return the Tribune-Review's call.

[yoda313]

Hello,


Not new.... You read any product warning labels lately???

Kevin

[Capmaster]

I hope the judge moves to disbar the lawyer who took that case ...for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

The world is full of people with a con. We can partly blame the McDonalds coffee case for opening the floodgates

[bazooka]

How about those little bags of silicone or whatever that are put in the boxes of electronics that say do not eat.

The sad thing is someone actaully did it for there to be a warning on the bag.

[BJ_M]

i heard that more than 1/2 the price of ladders and helmets and baby seats is just to cover the makers legal costs in suits such as this ..

i dont know if it true- but i would not be surprised ..

[yoda313]

Hello,

Or how about the infamous mattress tags?????

Kevin

[NamPla]

"Only in America"... (shee-it!)

[Capmaster]

How about those little bags of silicone or whatever that are put in the boxes of electronics that say do not eat.

The sad thing is someone actaully did it for there to be a warning on the bag.

My older son did that when he was a kid. They put them in bags of jerky.

I asked him why he chomped down on something that obviously wasn't jerky, and he said that he wasn't paying attention

The boy was easily distracted back then

[northcat_8]

Lets see...what does it take to dodge a train...ummm, how about 2 steps right or left?

I use to work as a mechanic in a lawnmower, chainsaw, truck and tractor shop and when we sold a chainsaw we had to be sure to tell the customer that the chain was sharp and could cut you.

we had one guy in my time there, when I told him that he says "No ******* shit dumbass, do I look like a ******* moron?" I had to laugh and explained to him that we had to say it.

[Capmaster]

Lets see...what does it take to dodge a train...ummm, how about 2 steps right or left?

I use to work as a mechanic in a lawnmower, chainsaw, truck and tractor shop and when we sold a chainsaw we had to be sure to tell the customer that the chain was sharp and could cut you.

we had one guy in my time there, when I told him that he says "No ******* shit dumbass, do I look like a ******* moron?" I had to laugh and explained to him that we had to say it.

That wasn't Indo, was it?

[northcat_8]

Could have been

Nah, it was some big Grizzley Adams looking SOB who was in the tree trimming and removal business.

[bazooka]

"Only in America"... (shee-it!)

I hate to disappoint you, but that happens in other countries too.

[curryman]

What about the bloke who had an expensive collection of rare cigars and decided one day to smoke them all.
then claimed for them - under his fire and theft insurance.
The Insurance company disputed the claim and it went to court, where the judge ruled in favour of the greedy bastard.
so the company paid out.
Then when the Greedy smoking vodka swilling bastard cashed the cheque, he was arrested for arson.
Serves the twat right!!

[Capmaster]

What about the bloke who had an expensive collection of rare cigars and decided one day to smoke them all.
then claimed for them - under his fire and theft insurance.
The Insurance company disputed the claim and it went to court, where the judge ruled in favour of the greedy bastard.
so the company paid out.
Then when the Greedy smoking vodka swilling bastard cashed the cheque, he was arrested for arson.
Serves the twat right!!

Classic case of a "perfect crime" backfiring

Curryman!!! You're back! 8) You've been gone for almost three weeks. Had enough of us for a while there?

[MOVIEGEEK]

Many years ago when I worked in retail...one night I watched a woman pour liquid soap on the floor and was smearing it all over(don't get excited she was a fat pig ),when I walked over to see if she needed help she(looking at me startelled) says no and ran off.
I hope all these con-artists get caught because it only drives our insurance premiums up.

[Capmaster]

Many years ago when I worked in retail...one night I watched a woman pour liquid soap on the floor and was smearing it all over(don't get excited she was a fat pig ),when I walked over to see if she needed help she(looking at me startelled) says no and ran off.
I hope all these con-artists get caught because it only drives our insurance premiums up.

You might have saved your store a nasty lawsuit there. Nice work

[glockjs]

these judges shouldnt be awarding claims like this, should make a common sense law....reminds of the lady spilling coffee on herself. the people making these lawsuits should be takin in a corner and shot followed by their lawers.

[Capmaster]

these judges shouldnt be awarding claims like this, should make a common sense law....reminds of the lady spilling coffee on herself. the people making these lawsuits should be takin in a corner and shot followed by their lawers.

Yeah, that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was right here in good old Albuquerque :P Bleeding heart jury felt serving coffee actually hot was really irresponsible, and the old woman was acting prudently by holding the hot coffee between her thighs in a moving car

I've got something the jury can hold between their thighs

[curryman]

Cap wrote:
Curryman!!! You're back! You've been gone for almost three weeks. Had enough of us for a while there?


Spare time, Cap, that's all.
just not enough of it.
It's getting to the point now where i'm on the PC so little i've forgot how to type and shut the thing down

[Conquest10]

Same thing happened in NY a couple of years back. A woman tried to commit suicide in the subway but wasn't killed, so she sued.

[pacmania_2001]

these judges shouldnt be awarding claims like this, should make a common sense law....reminds of the lady spilling coffee on herself. the people making these lawsuits should be takin in a corner and shot followed by their lawers.

Yeah, that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was right here in good old Albuquerque :P Bleeding heart jury felt serving coffee actually hot was really irresponsible, and the old woman was acting prudently by holding the hot coffee between her thighs in a moving car

I've got something the jury can hold between their thighs

http://www.politick.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=5407#5407

The truth behind the McDonalds coffee case.

As for this case I don't think it will go anywhere. Even if it goes to the verdict stage the judge or jury will rule contributory negligence in the region of 100/0 (meaning she gets nothing).

[ChrisX]

"Only in America"... (shee-it!)

Not only in America having stupid people out there to sue on something as their own fault. Here in Australia we have the same problems.

Drunks suing for accidents, stupid and dangerous acts on the surf, on the beach, from the cliff causing irreversible injuries and they sue the local authorities on no warning signs.

The idiots skylarking on cars, on the trains, on the buses causing injuries and they too sue for it as well. It is their fault, no one else.

Trespassing on areas as dangerous and they shouldn’t be there either and this includes walking on railway tracks.

What a stupid Pennsylvania woman who was struck by a train has sued the rail company - for failing to warn her that trains travel on railroad tracks. I hope she won't get a cent.

The stupidities of them also find the time to sue ‘national parks’ of dangerous activities committed causing injuries and even death.

Having no experience, getting lost and putting themselves in grave danger in extreme cold or hot outback places is their fault too.

Where is the common sense in the bush, the desert and the jungles?

When committing a crime and being caught is as no excuse either.

They are putting the police and the public in danger in speeding cars escaping the law. They are killing themselves too in their stupidity.

There is no excuse in having no driver’s license, having drunk too much alcohol, speeding too fast and dangerous car driving as too common too.

Might as well the idiots be dead to save others of their madness and stupidity.

The Governments and the Courts in Australia are cracking down on stupidities of them as they wouldn’t get a cent for the trouble of saving from death and into their disabilities.

It is their own fault why should we pay?

[Capmaster]

these judges shouldnt be awarding claims like this, should make a common sense law....reminds of the lady spilling coffee on herself. the people making these lawsuits should be takin in a corner and shot followed by their lawers.

Yeah, that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was right here in good old Albuquerque :P Bleeding heart jury felt serving coffee actually hot was really irresponsible, and the old woman was acting prudently by holding the hot coffee between her thighs in a moving car

I've got something the jury can hold between their thighs

http://www.politick.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=5407#5407

The truth behind the McDonalds coffee case.

As for this case I don't think it will go anywhere. Even if it goes to the verdict stage the judge or jury will rule contributory negligence in the region of 100/0 (meaning she gets nothing).

She still put the coffee in her lap in a moving car ....140 or 180 degrees only decides the severity of the burns ..it was her own fault.

I hate to think where she holds her curling iron

[ViRaL1]

DEATH TO STUPID PEOPLE!!!

I feel bad for her. Having been missed by the train and all. I'm waiting for the day things like this drive Dr Kevorkian over the edge and he goes vigilante.

[glockjs]

these judges shouldnt be awarding claims like this, should make a common sense law....reminds of the lady spilling coffee on herself. the people making these lawsuits should be takin in a corner and shot followed by their lawers.

Yeah, that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was right here in good old Albuquerque :P Bleeding heart jury felt serving coffee actually hot was really irresponsible, and the old woman was acting prudently by holding the hot coffee between her thighs in a moving car

I've got something the jury can hold between their thighs

http://www.politick.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=5407#5407

The truth behind the McDonalds coffee case.

As for this case I don't think it will go anywhere. Even if it goes to the verdict stage the judge or jury will rule contributory negligence in the region of 100/0 (meaning she gets nothing).

might be the truth behind it, but if the coffee feels a little too hot do you sit it between your legs? if not let it cool down or just give it back...that would be the obvious thing to do. even at that, it it worth 10 mil???

[MOVIEGEEK]

A year or so ago I was involved in a heated discussion here(I can't find the thread) regarding the McDonalds lawsuit.I had the viewpoint that the lady was negligent and adam(and others) were saying McDonalds was.
I gave the analogy: what if I go to a drive-thru pharmacy to pick-up my prescription allergy meds. and after taking them it makes me drowsy and I crash...can I sue the pharmacy?

[Ripper2860]

You can sue anybody for practically anything -- you just may not win.

My take on your logic is is this -- the pharmacy did not make the meds nor can they control the effects -- they just dispensed them. McDonald's made the coffee and controlled the temperature at which the coffee is served. In your scenario it makes more sense to sue the drug company; although it would probably be a a losing proposition, as well.

BTW -- Do I think the McDonald's law suit was ludicrous -- YES. Do I think that McDonald's being found guilty was absurd -- YES. Do I think the size of the award was outlandish -- YES. Do I wish I had thought of it -- YES !!!!

[JohnnyCNote]

I hope the judge moves to disbar the lawyer who took that case ...for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

The world is full of people with a con. We can partly blame the McDonalds coffee case for opening the floodgates

Time for some facts:

The McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

The McDonald's Coffee Case
Sorting through fact and fiction....

Myth: An opportunistic old woman launched a frivolous lawsuit when she spilled her McDonald's coffee on her lap.

Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.

McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.

McDonald's refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman's initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald's actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer.

A mediator later recommended the parties settle for $225,000. Again, McDonald's refused and the case went to trial.

McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence - Liebeck spilled it on herself.

Based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million.

A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald's later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed. Most major newspapers ignored the judge's reduction and the final outcome of the case.

Punitive damage awards are not currently allowed under Washington law. Juries undoubtedly return verdicts when faced with a large corporate defendant who has ignored reasonable pleas to resolve such situations or grievances.

In this case, McDonald's simply refused to turn down the heat, so the jury turned it up on McDonald's.

I saw a small girl scalded by coffee at a Wendy's in San Francisco. It wasn't a pleasant scene, and I have to wonder how hot they keep their coffee. In any events, the McDonalds case is a classic example of one where the myth has overtaken the truth of the matter. Also, a lot of blame is placed on the lawyers, but few tend to realize that it's up to the judge to determine the validity of the case and throw it out if it's superfluous.

Personally, I find much more disturbing the case where the families of two boys who shot themselves sued Judas Priest because they'd been listening to one of their records. They alleged that Judas Priest had been inserting secret messages with "backwards masking" (not an industry term). One of the guitar players said "if we're going to put secret messages in our songs, we'd say 'buy more records!'"......

[Capmaster]

Come on, Johnny.

A child being accidentally scalded is one thing, but a grown woman holding the cup between her thighs is another matter entirely. She had the benefit of years of experience both in knowing the effects of hot coffee on the skin ...and the sensitivity of the genital area to extreme heat. She made an informed decision in spite of the little warning flags her brain must have been sending up :P

It was an unwise decision on her part. McDonalds is no more responsible for that error in judgement, than some adult who shoves a handful of hot french fries into his eyes and then sues because his vision is now impaired :P GIVE ME A BREAK. People are responsible for their own actions. You don't want your cooter burned off? ...don't keep hot coffee next to it.

Do you like having clear vision? ....don't stuff hot fast food into your eyeballs. It ain't rocket science people

[JohnnyCNote]

Well, there are several things to keep in mind:

1. We weren't present when the incident occurred.
2. We weren't present during the trial.
3. We don't know what the final settlement was as it was sealed.
4. The whole incident has been retold so many times by people with an agenda to promote that, without knowing the above metioned facts, all we can do is speculate.
5. There are a lot more egregious examples of superfluous lawsuits, especially in light of the fact that the judge reduced the settlement to less than $500,000.

If McD's finally settled, why would they do so for more than that? This means that the final amount was almost assuredly less, and not the millions of dollars too many people are fond of claiming really happened.....