PonyFans.com

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:

Stallion wrote:So much stupidity about the McDonald's Coffee case. Congratulations you've been completely hoodwinked by a massive media campaign bought and paid for by the tort reform lobby. I dare you to go back and actually read ther massive literature about this case availiable on the internet. Better yet look at the photographs taken of the lady and the admission made by McDonalds in evidence. Hate to break it to you but the people making big bucks off litigation are the lawyers representing corporate interests not the individual litigant.

The person I work with has her as a client, as she has recently passed away. I can assure you shes quite well off. They all call her the celebrity client. Again I wouldnt have mentioned it, if I didnt know about or actually saw the bank acct. I couldnt agree more with you that lawyers make huge bucks, but they kinda have to with all the debt they incurred over law school. Only hot shot lawyers make anything, because typically the firm gets all the profits the lawyers make.

The reason that she was well off had more to do with the callousness of McDonalds than the fact that she decided to sue. She offered to settle for $11K in medical bills before she even retained a lawyer. Just do a little research on your own before you spout off on matters you have no grasp of next time, will ya?


http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

Do they sell McDonald's coffee at the games? Just wonder'en.

couch 'em wrote:If only we could level all hills across the nation.......for the children

Have to make it easy in life for Couch 'em, Jr.

jtstang wrote:

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:

Stallion wrote:So much stupidity about the McDonald's Coffee case. Congratulations you've been completely hoodwinked by a massive media campaign bought and paid for by the tort reform lobby. I dare you to go back and actually read ther massive literature about this case availiable on the internet. Better yet look at the photographs taken of the lady and the admission made by McDonalds in evidence. Hate to break it to you but the people making big bucks off litigation are the lawyers representing corporate interests not the individual litigant.

The person I work with has her as a client, as she has recently passed away. I can assure you shes quite well off. They all call her the celebrity client. Again I wouldnt have mentioned it, if I didnt know about or actually saw the bank acct. I couldnt agree more with you that lawyers make huge bucks, but they kinda have to with all the debt they incurred over law school. Only hot shot lawyers make anything, because typically the firm gets all the profits the lawyers make.

The reason that she was well off had more to do with the callousness of McDonalds than the fact that she decided to sue. She offered to settle for $11K in medical bills before she even retained a lawyer. Just do a little research on your own before you spout off on matters you have no grasp of next time, will ya?


http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

Ok I never said anything about her being evil. All I'm saying is the ability to sue over such thing allows people to get away with profiteering. Had the suit said only medical expenses than we wouldnt be discussing about this. I have done research in this example, Im not just randomly saying crap regardless what you believe. However this discussion has spiraled far out of control and Ill leave it at this: There needs to be tort reform to protect businesses and institution from profiteering lawsuits that lawyers feed on and induce individuals who have been hurt or have individuals who desire to rip money away. Thus, similar to individual negligence, if kids were to willingly and without parental supervision (because they rather do something else) get hurt by sliding down the endzone hill, should soley rest upon the parents.

so they should put an electric fence along the wall?

Junior wrote:so they should put an electric fence along the wall?

I am in favor of this. This will be my next big fund raising effort.

NM

[retracted]

Let Darwinism work it's magic

nope, we're beating that with litigation.

Hearing the two learned sides going at each other makes me think of the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raolLobDhNE Hope you enjoy!

Huh, I guess the opposing sides don't like the music.

What happened to all the alumni and leaders at conservative SMU that wanted to sue the NCAA because their own President, Board of Trustees, Head Coach(s), and AD were running a Professional Football program even after 5 NCAA probations. Talk about frivilous. Just pointing out that what may be frivilous to one may be defending fundamental rights to another. I bet the first thing all you tort reformers do when you lose a dime on a deal is run crying to your attorney. I bet you have him on "speed-dial"

Dumbfounding to read so many posts demanding that smu take responsibility for their persons in situations where they have contol over being hurt...guess what, no one will feel sorry for your kid or you for that matter if neither of you can exercise enough self control to remain safe in an easily avoidable situation...too risk averse? Don't take the risk of letting your kid play on a slope and never let them learn how to take responsibiliy for themselves...it's embarracing when hit your head but you chose to play there and you chose to take the risk, no one to blame but your self

$50,000 and a jawbreaker