Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 133092" data-attributes="member: 151">Two completely different situations, one often misrepresented.First, the McDonald's case.  The issue had nothing to do with the coffee, per se.  The coffee wasn't 'hot'.  The coffee caused 3rd-degree burns.  That's far in excess of hot.  This was done for expediency's sake on the part of McDonalds, so that you're coffee would stay hot for a longer period of time.  The victim didn't know this (nor was it reasonable for her to assume that said coffee would be delivered in a potentially dangerous form), spilled the drink and was injured.  She asked McDonald's to pay her medical bill, which was a mere few hundred dollars.  McDonald's instead decided to try and flog her with a legal bashing.  She fought back, and the jury awarded her a victory due more in part to McDonald's unethical behavior after the incident than the incident itself.  3 Million was the initial award, but it was never expected that she would ever actually get the money...it was merely a dollar figure everyone knew would be reduced on appeal...the actual award was more along the lines of $300,000, IIRC.  Subtract the legal fees and medical bill, and she didn't receive much for the amount of work missed and time wasted.  You'll note that McDonald's no longer 'super-heats' the coffee they serve.I only mention this because this particular case is always trotted out as an example of our broken legal system, and the ridiculous degeneration of the process, and often by people who don't know that much about the case in question.Second, the tobacco companies aren't being sued by people who couldn't read a label...they're being sued more by folks who started smoking before labels were even introduced.  They're also being sued by states that have to pay the medical bills for all the citizens who are now dying on their medicare programs.  The medical situation in this country is radically different than it was when my father started smoking in 1955 or so.  And again, Phillip Morris and other companies specifically did everything they could to bury any information about the negative effects of smoking.  They showed a long history of suppresion of facts, denial and total disregard for their customer base.  Does this render smokers blameless?  Certainly not...but the example ain't that simple.As for Everquest, I find it hard to believe Sony would roll over and die on this case.  Legal precedent is already on their side (just ask the Paducah victims, for a start) and there is little benefit for them to encourage more lawsuits.  There has been no concealment about Everquest's nature, it is not physically addicting as nicotine can be and it is not inherently harmful to the user (carpal tunnel syndrome not withstanding).  I doubt this is a case of desiring money as much as a grieving mother looking for someone to blame and for something to do to mourn her loss.  I empathize, even if I don't agree with her.</blockquote>

Verification