Do you think WoTC should be sued?

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything.....




He never mentioned the woman in question. He just said 'anyone' acting under such-and-such circumstances. Rebuttal rejected!

Over ruled! Plaintiff is quoting exact reference to a well known case that has bearing, after the case was obliquely referenced by the defendant. The defendant leaving out the specifics of his referance does not mean that he is not harkening back to that well known, but most often misapplied, example. In the example the courts assessed fines, and confirmed the damages on appeal.

Statement stands, please call your next witness or sit down Mr. Burns.

As for suing WotC for making 4e a badwrongfun game... ummm, no. If WotC was more monopolistic, then maybe, but you'd lose. With Pathfinder apparently selling on par with 4e, and in some markets a trifle ahead... there are alternatives, and no one is making the OP play a game that he does not like.

I don't like 4e, so I run Pathfinder. diaglo doesn't like 4e so he runs a game using stone knives and bearskins original D&D, the one true game. Others have switched to Savage Worlds, or Fantasy Craft, or Runequest, or.... There are plenty of alternatives, even in the OGL games.

And enough people like 4e that it would be a successful game by any reasonable measure, even if I, personally, would rather nail my left foot to the floor and run around in circles. (And, no, I wouldn't sue WotC for the damage to my floor from nailing my foot to it.)

The Auld Grump

 

[SSquirrel]

Balderdash.

The step between pot and handed to customer for coffee is pouring the coffee into the cup. It is the same technique used in every single place that serves drip coffee from a pot.

Are you even suggesting that at some point it is reasonable to introduce a cooling process that makes the coffee cooler, or to have coffee stand after it is poured before handing it to the customer?

Does any place that serves hot coffee do this? Have you ever drank a cup of coffee?

Pouring the cup of coffee increases surface area, thus cooling the coffee. It won't still be 165 after it reaches the customer's hands, but it won't be all the way down to 140 either.

Oh and someone mentioned speed bumps earlier, her grandson had parked the car. So it wasn't moving, she just screwed up

 

[shadzar]

This was discussed in the trial. McDonald's tried to make that exact claim....except THEIR OWN RESEARCH again showed that a large percentage of their customers expected to drink their coffee as soon as they bought it, not later.

Well I expect the human race to be more competent than it is, but that doesn't always make it so does it?

What research was done to tell what percentage of people expected their coffee to be hot and not served cold?

Again, eating, drinking, texting, etc while driving or in a car I feel are the same as a drunk driver as far as regards for other people...no sympathy.

Either you get distracted with whatever or someone else distracts you with it. How long did she ask her, someone said, nephew to pull over before he finally did and could? Why didn't the nephew check the coffee for his elderly aunt before leaving the window?

How much did he contribute to the incident by allowing her to open it in his car?

A large percentage of the DMV expects people in a car to be responsible, and hold them as such when someone is behind the wheel whether the vehicle is in motion or not.

Lets hypothesize, he was stopped but not in park, only having his foot on the break and she spills the coffee on him. He jumps and his foot lands on the gas and runs into someone, another car, a building.

How much was he responsible for it? I am betting her age played a part of her case, but why didnt the nephew open it for her?

Lastly, why would anyone that has ever had coffee from McDs before expect it not to spill and have something at the very least to protect your clothes.

I dont respond to the sympathy card when someone was blatantly doing something they should not have been. The days of drive-in theatres are over, the roads are packed. Do what you should in a car, to transport you from place A to place B, then get out and do other things.

I say she and her nephew are far more responsible than 20%. I not trying to say "yay she got burned", but you should have the given common sense to be prepared for hot coffee to spill. Obviously she was willing to take the risk of getting burned by not using the product correctly. The degree she got burned is all that changed.

I still think the whole thing was a scam. Just someone, like was mentioned to me before about the "new American Dream", was trying to make a buck off it.

Nobody older than 4 years, is that lacking of common sense to not take precautions when dealing with suspected hot objects.

Seriously what was the nephew doing?

 

[Umbran]

You sue them when you are a stupid greedy whore who just wants to get rich quick on the basis of your own ignorance.

Rule #1 on EN World is "Keep it civil". You just broke it. People intending to be part of polite discourse or discussion don't refer to others as, "stupid, greedy whores".

The next time one of the mods sees you refer to people in such a disrespectful manner, you can expect a vacation from the site.

If why such is not something we tolerate is not obvious to you, please send a private message to one of the moderators, and we'll explain it to you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Responding to points in several posts:

1. Granny was no more in motion than a customer at one of their tables. Being in a car had no bearing on her injuries.
2. McD's was not found liable for serving hot coffee, they were found liable for serving unreasonably hot coffee.
3. McD's was not found additionally liable for their "attitude", but for demonstrating a long-term pattern of callous disregard for public safety- same as Ford in the Pinto case.
4. McD's had multiple attempts to settle this case- the initial settlement offer was about $10k, and subsequent ones post discovery were still in line with prior settlements McD's made in similar cases- but chose to have the case proceed to court.
5. That granny spilled the coffee on herself was taken into account with the judgement reduction. Spills are a forseeable occurrence in food service- that someone is gravely injured by a mere spill of your food, you're probably going to lose if taken to court. This is why you almost always settle such cases. In fact, insurance for such businesses often have a clause dictating that if you DON'T settle such a case if advised to do so, your insurance company doesn't have to pay any judgement rendered in the case.

 

[Stoat]

I say she and her nephew are far more responsible than 20%. I not trying to say "yay she got burned", but you should have the given common sense to be prepared for hot coffee to spill. Obviously she was willing to take the risk of getting burned by not using the product correctly. The degree she got burned is all that changed.

12 Jurors in New Mexico disagreed. And or course, reasonable people can disagree about the the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff. That's what a jury trial is for.

I still think the whole thing was a scam. Just someone, like was mentioned to me before about the "new American Dream", was trying to make a buck off it.

Third-degree burns on the genitals, buttocks and perineum, requiring 8 days of hospitalization, skin grafting, a loss of 20% of your body weight and then three weeks of missed work is a hell of lot to go through for $640,000.

 

[Dannager]

VGMaster9, as a law student and an (old school) gamer, I think you could have something. You could have a case on the grounds that what is currently being sold as the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game is by no reasonable gamer's standards a Roleplaying Game, much less D&D.

There is no established standard for what a roleplaying game is. And if there were, D&D 4e would, without question or room for debate, qualify. Either that, or every JRPG on the shelves would be suddenly made vulnerable for suit, along with almost every western video game RPG and the majority of published tabletop RPGs. A win for you would cause serious and irreversible harm to the hobby you claim to enjoy.

Furthermore, Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark registered and owned by Wizards of the Coast. More precisely, Dungeons & Dragons is six live trademarks, filed and/or held individually by Wizards of the Coast, covering the trademark's use on fantasy adventure novels, fantasy art posters, video game cartridges and video output games, t-shirts, equipment sold as a unit and including a rule book, printed playing aids, and dice, for playing a parlor type game, and printed instructional booklets for the playing of fantasy war games. You cannot sue them for the use of their own trademark in association with these products, and these trademarks cover all physical material published to date for D&D 4e. As long as what they slap the Dungeons & Dragons name on falls into one of the trademark filings mentioned above, Dungeons & Dragons is whatever they say it is, and you have absolutely no say in the matter.

In other words, if you proceeded with a suit, the two outcomes would be:

1. You get laughed out of court, and shamed for placing such a frivolous burden on the already taxed civil court system. (the more likely outcome)

2. Your case is accepted by Bizarro Court, which agrees with your assessment. The entire RPG world is turned on its head and nearly sued out of existence for false advertising thanks to your horrifyingly misguided efforts. (an outcome so unlikely as to be reasonably viewed as impossible)

You will have either earned the passing or eternal enmity of gamers everywhere. Pat on the back for you.

Oh, and since you would be utterly unable to show evidence of damages, the only (injunctive) relief you could get out of the whole process anyway would be for them to drop the term "Role Playing Game". I shudder to think of what the requirements your own personal definition of a Real Role Playing Game would impose, and how precious small your universe of Real Role Playing Games must be.

Of particular interest to this claim would be ESS Entertainment v. Rockstar, Galoob v. Nintendo (which establishes a customers right to modify a product they have bought, something which WotC took away from you with the GSL) and any of the many suits filed by Palladium, which do define a roleplaying game in a legal sense. if you wanted to mail me your claims I would be happy to talk it over with you.

No.

The cases you cite establish that the customer has the right to modify what they own. Wizards has, in no way, prevented you from modifying the books you buy. Furthermore, they have gone so far as to establish guidelines by which you may create original material using their own hard work in developing rules and sell those original materials for your own profit. It is important to note that this is something they absolutely do not have to do, and something that is nigh unheard of in the world of entertainment (When was the last time you heard of a major video game blockbuster issuing a blanket license allowing fans to create and sell mods for their game? The only thing I can think of that comes close in recent memory is Valve's Team Fortress 2 promotion whereby fans were able to create in-game items and receive a portion of the proceeds from their sale. And really, given the general goodwill towards Valve, I'm sure WotC would be happy for you to lump them together like that). Anyone who views this rather gigantic gesture of goodwill on behalf of WotC as deserving of suit is spoiled rotten.

You have no legal grounds, whatsoever. Please don't even try looking for legal grounds. It is, frankly, disgraceful. The idea that there are gamers out there who are seriously considering this speaks far more poorly for our community than it does for the companies we choose or choose not to support.

tl;dr stay in law school. You have no business offering advice on legal action.

 

[jaerdaph]

Let's say a veteran D&D user (who played/DM'd OD&D, AD&D 1st & 2nd, 3e, and 3.5) filed a lawsuit against WoTC for what they have been doing with 4e and other stuff lately. Do you think that would be justified or frivolous? I'm rather mixed on that because it may make Wizards realize what they've been doing to those who been passionate about the game and at the same time feel it may be going a bit overboard. What do you guys think?

It's not a civil case - it's a criminal one.

Before we proceed though, you need to show us on the doll where WotC touched you:

 

[TarionzCousin]

In some of those Pinto deaths, the drivers were the persons who caused the accidents. It didn't matter because the car's design was deemed to be so dangerously flawed that the manufacturer's responsibility was considered to be overwhelming.

Was granny sitting in a Pinto at the time? I think that issue needs to be addressed.

 

[Cyronax]

I prefer this demo model.