Wal-Mart sued for improperly assembled bicycle

still just me

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>come sailing through.
>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>10mph)
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
whichever you chose to do was wrong.

still just me

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
>> how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
>> surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
>> skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
>> the hospital?
>
>Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
>cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
>it without spilling it all over yourself.

That wasn't the issue - even McDonalds didn't argue that point.

still just me

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!

And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

>I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>anything. Here's why.

The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
their decision.

>And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>aren't being sued and vilified.
>

I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
could choose to argue.

>Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.

Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
that she sued.

This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
hand.

* * Chas

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9hpk54lfd38j125ilfj7c46bgu95hjhiat@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
> canada wrote:
>
> >What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
> >sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
> >road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
> >come sailing through.
> >Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
> >wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
> >10mph)
> >** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
> act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
> accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
> whichever you chose to do was wrong.
>
>

In California, to be considered a pedestrian you have to dismount and walk
beside the bike. Not too long ago, there were communities that required
cyclist to dismount and walk their bikes across intersections. Most if not
all of these rulings have been struck down.

I've noticed recently that several communities in the Bay Area have
started enforcing traffic laws with regards to violations committed by
cyclists. The minimum fines are usually ~$149 or $271 USD - PLUS court
costs which can total up to several hundred additional dollars.

Citations can be treated the same as CA motor vehicle moving violations
and can be charged against your driving record which could affect your
automobile insurance rates. They can also be treated as local violations
and not reported to the state.

Chas.

* * Chas

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mdpk54dfpkcqmprob5p7kllpiemm6h333r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
> And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
> weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
> that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
> McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
> mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.
>
> >I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
> >their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
> >anything. Here's why.
>
> The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
> are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
> McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
> danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
> the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
> what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
> their decision.
>
> >And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> >scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> >I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
> >with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
> >over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
> >aren't being sued and vilified.
> >
>
> I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
> required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
> house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
> insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
> could choose to argue.
>
> >Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
> Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
> cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
> rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
> that she sued.
>
> This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
> hand.

I'm not trying to defend McDonald's per se but on the other side of the
coin, have you ever been in a restaurant where a noisy annoying customer
was bitching that their coffee was cold?

Contrary to the advertised image, it's not as if McDonald's is a giant
monolith. Many McDonald's are owned by franchise operators and 600
complaints is not a large number for an operation the size of McDonald's.
How many complaint have they received that their coffee was cold?

Chas.

A Muzi

-snip meandering conversation-

> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
-snip rant-

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.

In that event, I was both off topic and out of line (ranting about
distracted drivers drinking coffee while almost driving).
Sorry.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Michael Press

In article <u-CdnTh5QrMlKsTVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
> > how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
> > surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
> > skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
> > the hospital?
>
> Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
> cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
> it without spilling it all over yourself.

Maybe she had a drinking problem.

--
Michael Press

carlfogel@comcast.net

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:48:03 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>-snip meandering conversation-
>
>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>-snip rant-
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.
>
>In that event, I was both off topic and out of line (ranting about
>distracted drivers drinking coffee while almost driving).
>Sorry.

Dear Andrew,

I wish that I--

Er, that the rest of us on RBT could handle our oops! moments as well
as you do.

For what it's worth, here's a page with many of the details of the
case:
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

The only tricky part is that the page may display a "0" for the degree
sign, so 1800 means 180 degrees, 200 means 20 degrees, and so forth.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 19, 9:56 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:29:17 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>
> com> wrote:
> >Sorry but you're wrong.
>
> >If someone buys HOT COFFEE and doesn't know it's hot then it is a clear case
> >of Buyer Beware.
>
> You don't understand the difference between HOT and DANGEROUS to human
> flesh. Thankfully the court did.

Again, what about tea? It's properly made by using boiling water.
It's properly served very hot. This has been true for many hundreds
of years. See http://pages.ripco.net/~c4ha2na9/tea/faq.html

Yet that same water is - OMG! - also "DANGEROUS to human flesh"!!!

Is it just that tea drinkers are intelligent enough to understand that
hot water can harm you, and coffee drinkers need to be constantly
reminded of what every first grader knows?

- Frank Krygowski

still just me

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
>DANGEROUS?

Yes it is. Someone may get sued over it. Selling dangerous products to
customers increases your liability dramatically. Any place that gives
scalding hot products to customers should think about the risk they
take in doing that. They should probably serve water at 140 degrees or
less. Certainly some tea gourmet will claim that they can tell the
difference between tea made at 160 degrees and tea made at 140 degrees
but I really have my doubts they could ID it in a blind taste test.

Would the tea shop be found liable for a burn? I dunno, but if there
were repeated written claims on file against them in their own records
and there was documentation that the issue and potential danger had
been discussed internally at the company, then they'd have some
serious exposure.

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:03:02 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
>canada wrote:
>
>>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>>come sailing through.
>>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>>10mph)
>>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
>act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
>accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
>whichever you chose to do was wrong.
>
In Canada a cyclist is a VEHICLE, but not a motor vehicle, and is
bound by ALL "rules of the road".
Only kids under a certain age, on bikes under a certain size are
allowed to ride on the sidewalk (by bylaw in some towns/cities) - and
ALL cyclists are required to dismount if using a crosswalk. That's the
LAW - at least here in Ontario.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:17:52 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
>And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
>weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
>that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
>McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
>mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

That's funny, I've been using Propane, MAP, and Acelylene torches for
almost 50 years without incident. I've never, in over 50 years
operating power lawnmowers been injured by one, nor have I ever been
injured by a ladder.

They are expected to be dangerous???
No, they just demand to be respected - as does a cup of hot coffee.

People have just lost respect for just about anything or anybody, and
are not willing to take responsibility for their actions.

If I buy a hot tea or hot chocolate ANYWHERE (I don't drink coffee) I
KNOW I need to be very carefull or I will burn my mouth and be sore
for several days. I also KNOW that if I spill it on myself I will pay
for it in pain.
Just like I KNOW that if the torch is lit, it must be pointed away
from myself and anything flammable or of a low melting point.
Or like I KNOW to keep my hands and feet out from under a running
lawn-mower and not to direct the discharge towards antone or anything
fragile.
Or like I KNOW the ladder needs to be set up properly on a solid base
and safely tied off.
>
>>I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>>their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>>anything. Here's why.
>
>The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
>are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
>McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
>danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
>the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
>what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
>their decision.
>
>>And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>>scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>>I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>>with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>>over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>>aren't being sued and vilified.
>>
>
>I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
>required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
>house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
>insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
>could choose to argue.
>
>>Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
>Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
>cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
>rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
>that she sued.
>
>This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
>hand.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:37 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:


>
>Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
>and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
>drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...hi=&safe=images
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Hot tea and hot coffee in drivethroughs is the HEIGHT of stupidity.
Kinda like the Braille on drivethrough cash machines.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

carlfogel@comcast.net

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:28:28 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:37 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
>>and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
>>drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...hi=&safe=images
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>Hot tea and hot coffee in drivethroughs is the HEIGHT of stupidity.
>Kinda like the Braille on drivethrough cash machines.
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Dear Clare,

Many blind people get rides from friends, relatives, and taxis and
enjoy the convenience of using drive-through cash machines as
passengers even more than you and I do.

Naturally, they don't want to tell taxi drivers their PINs.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel