Are they that greedy?

[Conan71]

I've always shaken my head at the McDonald's lawsuit.  Any idot knows not to drive with coffee between their legs, if not for the temp, how about a nice brown stain between your legs.

Personally, I don't care for my coffee to be 180-185 F when it is served, that's just too friggin hot for my tongue.

[sgrizzle]

quote:
Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.

In the above reference, he is talking about allegedly extending the time from 12 seconds to 20. Liebeck didn't remove the coffee for a minute and a half.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:
Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.

In the above reference, he is talking about allegedly extending the time from 12 seconds to 20. Liebeck didn't remove the coffee for a minute and a half.

That is another good point.

[AMP]

I have never been an advocate of the
funky seat belt used in standard
automobiles and trucks.  

Added to the blast from the Air Bag that increases your lack of ability to
move away from the top of the
vehicle crushing in ontop of your head
in most rollovers.  

As I have stated before, my friends
that own wrecker services have dozens
of illustrations of how the funky
seatbelt/air bag systems with little
or no type of roll bar used overhead
in today's vehicles, adds to the
possibilty of a fatality.  

Seen many scalps in the upper door
jams of passenger cars.  

I would have to side with the plaitiff
in this case.  No protection from
rollover, with the requirement by law
of use of the seatbelt is a recipe for disaster.  

Regardless of the cause of the accident,
the after effect is what is on trial.
I submit the majority of people that have driven for a few months have experienced situations in traffic where an accident
similar to this one could of or may have occured.  

Most people that have driven a Ford
Exploder, or other top heavy SUVs, that
have a few years experience and have
driven other much better handling
vehicles know the majority of SUVs are
ill Handling to say the least.  They are
poorly designed and are prone to rollovers. Period Dot.  

Buckled into that type of vehicle with inadequate overhead protection is
like being strapped into a top heavy,
narrow wheel base open wheel racecar
with no roll cage.  Much better off with
no restraints so you can duck and roll
as Go Kart riders do in a roll over.  

Strapped in place held back by the
lap/chest belt you are unable to move,
and are a sitting duck.

Next thing you know they will be
wanting to create laws that require
seat belts on motorcycles.  

Build a vehicle with funky seat belts,
top heavy center of gravity, with
inadequate protection from rollovers
and you most likely will loose at trial.

Any juror or person that does not
agree that SUVs and especially
Ford Exploders do not roll over easy
and do provide adequate protection from crushing the passengers, jump in a
Ford Exploder and go out on a closed
course and roll that puppy at any speed.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote: Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.

I think people are having a tough time distinguishing between the negligence that resulted in a wreck, and the negligence that resulted in a death from what should have been a survivable wreck.

Well said. Your insights will not serve you well here though. As a survivor of a roll over at high speed, I can tell you the difference between a well designed and built car and one built to make the mfr. huge amounts of money is the difference between life and death.

In Oklahoma I remember there being some sort of shared liability built into the law. Contributory negligence I believe. Is that still in play? That would have allowed a dimunution of damages based on how much of the fault the driver shared. It would be seriously unfair for Ford to skate on their negligence based on the arguments that "anyone should know our product is poorly designed and will kill you when you screw up". Kind of takes tough love to a new level.