Wal-Mart sued for improperly assembled bicycle

Tom Kunich

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vr0954pjb2tvho1qvh48ktv7ho1ckvtrft@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
> you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
> woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
> We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.

You mean like ANY boiling water that someone makes for themselves? Let's not
forget that the coffee was advertised as HOT. Let's not forget that most
people wanted it that way. And especially let's not forget that the woman
spilled the coffee on herself.

Tom Kunich

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax.com...
>
> Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.

Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then had it
thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was paying
him by the hour.

Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to forget
it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
most of the judges in town were his personal friends.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 14, 11:16 pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
> you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
> woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
> We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.
> Second, McDonalds knew the coffee was scalding hot. Their own internal
> memos recognized and discussed it. The 160 degree serving temperature
> was in their manual (All franchises are required to follow "the
> manual" to the letter).

Yes, we've been through this before.

I don't drink coffee. I switched to tea way back in college, when
coffee started bothering my stomach during late night study sessions.

And fearless tea drinkers - everyone from Jolly Roger pirates to
dainty old ladies in white floppy hats - have _always_ known that tea
is made with water at a full, rolling biol. Hell, those little old
ladies even pre-heat their teapots to keep the temperature up.

Are tea drinkers really reckless daredevils? Not really. Every cook
working every kitchen or village cookfire in the world routinely deals
with boiling water. They're just smart enough not to put it in their
lap. Especially in a moving vehicle.

I'm no McDonalds fan. I enter them perhaps once in ten years, usually
under duress. But that case, and Stella, and her lawyers, and nearly
all the other McDonalds-suing lawyers, deserve all the mockery they've
gotten.

- Frank Krygowski

Jay Beattie

On Jun 14, 9:00*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> > settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.
>
> Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then had it
> thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was paying
> him by the hour.
>
> Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to forget
> it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
> most of the judges in town were his personal friends.

Sorry man, I don't believe it. Not in SCV -- it's not Dog Patch. If
you had a good case, then it would have made no difference that the
defendant was a well known attorney with personal friends who are
judges. Every lawyer who has been around a while has judges who are
personal friends. I think what you heard was code for "I don't want
your case." -- Jay Beattie.

* * Chas

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:kMudnUX_1vREDsnVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax.com...
> >
> > Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> > settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.
>
> Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then
had it
> thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was
paying
> him by the hour.
>
> Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to
forget
> it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
> most of the judges in town were his personal friends.
>

When you sue a lawyer for malpractice it's best to select a shark from a
different school, i.e. another community or county.

There's a rare breed of lawyers that specialize in legal malpractice
suits. They're not real popular with the other sharks.

About 15 years ago I was trying to buy a small home for my dad who lived
in another state. He was in his 80s and had been renting the place for a
number of years and didn't want to move. I approached the seller's lawyer
with a clean cash offer. Three months later the cost had increased $25k.
The lawyer was scamming us so I hired another lawyer through the local Bar
Association to get out of the deal.

It turned out the lawyer that I hired was best friends with the seller's
lawyer and was trying to scam me too. At that point I contacted the Bar
Assn's Ethics Committee and they referred me to a legal malpractice
lawyer. One phone call to him and I got out of the deal and got all of my
deposit money and fees back. All it cost me was the $25 referral fee. I
was lucky.

Chas.

Bill Sornson

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vr0954pjb2tvho1qvh48ktv7ho1ckvtrft@4ax.com...
>>
>> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
>> you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
>> woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human
>> flesh. We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot
>> coffee.
>
> You mean like ANY boiling water that someone makes for themselves?
> Let's not forget that the coffee was advertised as HOT. Let's not
> forget that most people wanted it that way. And especially let's not
> forget that the woman spilled the coffee on herself.

In general I agree with taking personal responsibility, but I've had soft
drinks spill when the top they put on the cup comes off when I grasped the
cup. If a coffee cup lid isn't secured correctly, then I can see it popping
off and getting burned pretty badly. Not saying that's what happened to the
Mickey D's woman, but it's at least plausible.

More than anything (and like most things), it all comes down to competence
and common sense.

Bill S.

* * Chas

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:2c0aaa11-a8e5-44ee-b6f6-6953cc587d35@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 9:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> > settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.
>
> Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then
had it
> thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was
paying
> him by the hour.
>
> Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to
forget
> it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
> most of the judges in town were his personal friends.

>Sorry man, I don't believe it. Not in SCV -- it's not Dog Patch. If
>you had a good case, then it would have made no difference that the
>defendant was a well known attorney with personal friends who are
>judges. Every lawyer who has been around a while has judges who are
>personal friends. I think what you heard was code for "I don't want
>your case." -- Jay Beattie.

Good point about a lawyer not wanting to take a case. Lawyers are in
business and they look at a potential case with their monetary intrests in
mind not yours.

Chas.

!Jones

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
<leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

>Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
>ignorance.....

You were arguing about Canadian provencial laws; therefore, I made the
assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.

Have a great rest of your life.

Jones

Sandy

Dans le message de news:jm2a54553iv0fao2g611e6clmq4gggorm7@4ax.com,
!Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
> <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
>> ignorance.....
>
> You were arguing about Canadian provencial [sic] laws; therefore, I made
> the
> assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.

So, you were insulting which nationality? Canadian? USA?

!Jones

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:39:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
<leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

>Dans le message de news:jm2a54553iv0fao2g611e6clmq4gggorm7@4ax.com,
>!Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
>> <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
>>> ignorance.....
>>
>> You were arguing about Canadian provencial [sic] laws; therefore, I made
>> the assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.
>
>So, you were insulting which nationality? Canadian? USA?

It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
cohort!

Let me leave you with one of my "silver bullets" of wisdom, sir or
ma'am, as appropriate, because, basically, I'm just passing through on
my way to Australia --> Being so overtly offensive that you cause the
other person to walk away from you shaking his or her head in disgust
isn't quite the same thing as "winning" a debate.

Please keep that in mind as you speak your peace.

Jones

!Jones

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:17:01 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
>settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.

It can work either way. *I* wouldn't hire a lawyer thus, though. If
your case is weak, they'll want straight quid pro quo, anyway. If
it's strong, then they'll want first fruits; however, you can always
get them to take an hourly rate... or, you can always *find* one who
will; let's put it that way.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, our system does, in
fact, encourage frivolous law suits. On the other hand, if damage was
limited to actual cost, then it would be cheaper for a manufacturer to
settle the resulting damages than to market a safe product.

It, like many aspects of life, is a trade-off.

Jones

!Jones

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:41:09 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>I think what you heard was code for "I don't want
>your case."

True; however, I have found that a cash retainer will usually change
that code quickly. If the lawyer is ethical, then he or she will tell
you the truth about your chances.

Having a mouthpiece who knows the judge is most deffo a *BIG* plus.
It also works the other way... you do *not* want a shyster at whom the
court is pissed for some reason unrelated to your case. I know, I
know; in theory, it doesn't matter... in theory... honeybees can't
fly, or so I've heard someplace.

Jones

!Jones

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0500, in uk.local.yorkshire "Carl
Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
>news:q1fa541alo2hn8mublddmdu0lifkchnqhq@4ax.com...
>>
>> It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
>> one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
>> alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
>> dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
>> see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
>> his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
>> cohort!
>>
>
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...752C1A96F958260

Hummm... now, *that* piques my interest! I have not heard of that
happening before. The courts (quite rightly, IMO) are very reluctant
to referee Usenet squabbles as they usually don't ever motivate any
physical act.

I changed the title and cross-posted... if you trim the headers in any
replies, then it won't hurt my feelings any.

Jones

Fry

!Jones wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0500, in uk.local.yorkshire "Carl
>Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
>>news:q1fa541alo2hn8mublddmdu0lifkchnqhq@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
>>> one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
>>> alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
>>> dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
>>> see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
>>> his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
>>> cohort!
>>>
>>
>>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...752C1A96F958260
>
>Hummm... now, *that* piques my interest! I have not heard of that
>happening before. The courts (quite rightly, IMO) are very reluctant
>to referee Usenet squabbles as they usually don't ever motivate any
>physical act.
>
>I changed the title and cross-posted... if you trim the headers in any
>replies, then it won't hurt my feelings any.
>
>Jones

Net abuser!