Everquest Suicide and Lawsuit

[Valavien]

I believe there was a case down here where a person climbed a fence on a bridge and then jumped into water below which surprise surprise was too shallow (signs) he tragically is paralysed but is sueing for the fence not being high enough (it was about 6ft high already...)

 

[Dinkeldog]

I think this is less about people not wanting to take responsibility for themselves and more about people wanting to feel better about themselves. Normal people won't play EQ, and are therefore better than all those borderline suicidal EQ players. Why EQ is no better than Dungeons and Dragons, and we know we're better than those gaming geeks.

 

[drnuncheon]

very, very good point Tsyr. all too often people tend to think of life online as not "real." like someone i met (online) said to me, people see the implied anonymity of online personas as an excuse to let their real sleves out and can therefore be more authentic than "real-life" interactions. personally i see no significant difference to meeting someone online through a chat room, message board or even an online personal than to meeting some stranger in a bar or convention or even on a plane.

Completely agree. To anybody that thinks such relationships are "not real" - I first met my wife through an online roleplaying game. I've got a lot of friends that I've met online first and only later in person. It's just a different way of meeting and relating to people, with its own benefts, hindrances, and peculiarities.

J

 

[Zhure]

I'm aghast by the concept that Sony would go to the effort to make a game addicting. Why would anyone want to design a game so intriguing it causes repeat play? Sheesh.

Greg

 

[WizarDru]

The woman purchased her coffee at a drive-thru window. After driving off, she proceeded to put the cup of coffee BETWEEN HER LEGS.

Now, whether your coffee is regular hot, or super-nova third-degree burn causing hot, it's still going to hurt when spilled on you. Most people of average intelligence would realize this, in addition to the fact that styrofoam cups aren't known for their structural integrity, and the fact that ones' thighs aren't made for holding things.

Some of which is true, but irrelevant. The claim of keeping the coffee in her lap was part of McDonald's case, which was disproven. The 73-year old woman had no idea that the coffee was 20 degrees hotter than any other restaurant. McDonald's, on the other hand, had already settled 700 lawsuits and complaints concenring this issue. The victim suffered 3rd degree burns, resulting in a 7-day hospital stay and thousands of dollars of medical bills over a period of time (including the necessity for skin grafts). That she put the drink somewhere she shouldn't have is not the issue. Had she spilled the coffee as she was putting it in the cup-holder, would that have made it more or less legitimate to be seriously burned by a cup of coffee? In point of fact, she was opening the lid to add creamer and sugar, when it spilled.

You don't expect coffee that you buy at McDonald's to be so hot that it delivers 3rd-degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. She has 17% permanent scarring on her body. That's just not reasonable. McDonald's was aware of this, but never bothered to inform customers or investigate the issue. I don't kwow how hot you like your coffee, but when I buy coffee at the local Wawa, I don't worry that spilling it on me will result in a hospital stay.

Where are you getting your information from? What sort of lawsuit could (or would) McDonald's POSSIBLY bring against her in this instance? McDonald's didn't go after her... if anything, she might've tried to get them to pay her medical bills, they said, "No." and THEN she sued.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

You read information that wasn't there. The now 81 year-old woman only sued when McDonald's flat out denied her any compensation for her medical bills. She did ask, and McDonald's decided that (unlike hundreds of similar cases they had already resolved). The legal flogging I'm referring to was their behavior during HER trial. Many of jurors initially thought this was a silly case, but based on the evidence and McDonald's behavior, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and then made an award of 2.7 million dollars. They then reduced the judgement to 480,000 on appeal. She had originally asked for $11,000, and McDonald's offered $800. This number was later renegoitiated and then settled for an undisclosed amount.

 

[WizarDru]

I appreciate the statement of the particulars of the two cases, 'Dru.

It still doesn't change the problem that frivolous lawsuits and displacement of common sense blame are very dangerous things, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

Despite altruistic claims to the contrary by the plaintiffs, no one sues for "moral imperative." IMHO, If they did, they would donate the money won through said lawsuit to a charity, foundation, or organization dedicated to preventing such wrongs in the future. I can count on half a hand the number of times this happens, however. "Pain and suffering" go a long way to fill peoples' wallets and line their coffers.

I don't disagree. There are plenty of frivulous lawsuits out there. But trusting the popular media to tell you when they are or aren't is not a reliable source. The Paducah case, for example, was just foolish. The McDonald's case was not.

I do disagree that no one sues for moral imperative. Sometimes, monetary damages are the only way to make someone pay for an injustice done. Do I think it's the best way to do it? No. But I'm not sure our form of government and legal system provide for better ways. I'm certainly open to them, though.

 

[Darklone]

Hmm

Forgive me if I am mistaken, I am no lawyer (my ex was and several friends). Main difference why Europe does not have such ridiculous lawsuits (such as a grandma sueing a company cause she put her dog or cat or whatever in a microwave and killed it...) is: If you sue someone in Europe, you have to prove their fault. In America, if you sue someone, that guy has to prove his innocence.

About that guy... I had been playing MUDs for years... two friends there killed themselves. It's sad. But I could have done as much about it as with the other 4 guys I knew or barely met at the university who killed themselves during my studies.

It happens. Condolences to everyone who has to endure such a thing.

Too bad most guys want revenge and cash instead of changing things to make life better. Ok that would be too hard to realize.

About the articles. I was surprised how fair they were towards EQ and RPGs. I read worse ones.

 

[Corporate Dog]

You read information that wasn't there. The now 81 year-old woman only sued when McDonald's flat out denied her any compensation for her medical bills. ... The legal flogging I'm referring to was their behavior during HER trial.

Ah. I did indeed misinterpret what you meant by "legal flogging". My bad.

That she put the drink somewhere she shouldn't have is not the issue. Had she spilled the coffee as she was putting it in the cup-holder, would that have made it more or less legitimate to be seriously burned by a cup of coffee?

While I agree with you that McDonalds was liable for the temperature of their coffee, the payday she received for her own clumsiness and lack of common sense still makes my jaw drop.

But to answer your question, if she had spilled the coffee while attempting to put it in a cup-holder, I think it would have made her case only marginally more legitimate. At some point, one needs to take responsibility for their own actions. If someone hands me a hot (and you can pick ANY temperature on the 'hot' scale for the purposes of this explanation) cup of coffee, I treat it with the respect its due. Worst case, I realize it might burn me (and again, it doesn't really matter the extent of the injuries... I don't want a first degree burn if I can help it, let alone a third degree burn) and best case, it's going to stain my clothes.

Accidents happen, sure, but when I spill coffee on myself (and believe me, I've done it before, and have even managed to burn myself) I'm quick to call myself an idiot, and find the nearest paper towel... not go back to the store and bitch.

So I guess what I'm saying is that both parties should've shouldered some of the blame here. Sure she should've been reimbursed for her medical bills... but millions of dollars for her own clumsiness is something that could come only from the mind of a lawyer.

Regards,
Corporate Dog

 

[Kestrel]

My guess is the huge amount she did get from the jury was to attempt to "punish" McDonalds for thier reckless conduct in regards to coffee temperature. Its obvious they knew that it was too hot, but refused to change it. A huge amount like that (and the even more damaging news stories that came from the huge settlement) made them change it.

Corporations can't be slapped on the wrist for this kind of behaivor, they have to be hit with a big ol' baseball bat.

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

 

[Greatwyrm]

McDonald's and their coffee aside, here are some things I'd research if money and time were no object.

In the last 5 years, how many people per thousand participants committed suicide immediately after:

1. Playing D&D at least twice
2. Playing EQ for at least 8 consecutive hours
3. Failing a major college exam
4. Getting divorced
5. Consuming enough alcohol to be legally intoxicated
6. Discovering they would be charged with a serious crime
7. Listening to 3 or more hours of country music
8. Using any Microsoft product for at least 8 consecutive hours

I'd be willing to bet most or all of items 3-8 can be more conclusively linked to a higher rate of suicide than 1 & 2 together.

Suicide is a sad, horrible thing. I don't mean at all to make light of this man's death. But we all know this is nothing more than another modern witch hunt. There have already been lawsuits against D&D, Ozzy Osbourne, Judas Priest, and plenty we've never heard of. The simple fact is all (the high profile ones at least) have been dismissed or resolved in favor of the defendants because the evidence is simply not there to prove any wrong doing.

If you're wondering why I included item 8, it's no bias against MS. It's a slippery slope argument. How many people commit suicide after a full day at work, using a Windows based computer. If using EQ can make you commit suicide, wouldn't my family be allowed to sue my employer and MS for allowing me to sit in front of a computer all day?