You just gave two perfect examples of the system working.
OT: Kobe's wife files lawsuit against helicopter outfit
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
You just gave two perfect examples of the system working.
Even for Rafters, I gotta admit it's shocking to see people on the side of the coffee and helicopter.
But litigation itself provides for discovery and the ability to test theories against facts. So there's literally no need to wait until a third-party comes out with a report (which is not available in 99% of cases), nor is there a need to tie your entire lawsuit to the outcome of that report (people and agencies are imperfect). And there's considerable risk in waiting, including defenses (statutes of limitation, laches), practical considerations (witness memory degradation, litigation takes a lot of time), and financial (time value of money, need for upfront payment). So while it's nice to wait for a report before forming your public opinion, it's a horrible litigation strategy.
I guess I am just a believer in being responsible for your actions and not blaming someone else for everything that goes wrong in your life. If you have ever drank coffee and buy coffee that isn't iced coffee you should expect it to be hot. You should also know that if you spill it on yourself then it could result in harm.
Just like if my eye doctor tells me to avoid welding without a helmet, I do it anyway and go blind then it isn't his fault and I shouldn't be allowed to sue him or the maker of the welder for my mistakes/stupidity. Now if he told me it wouldn't hurt anything for me to weld helmet-less and I did it causing damage to my eyes then that's a different story.
Last edited:
I guess you wouldn't file a lawsuit if your wife/husband was killed because of someone else's negligence ? ! ?
Yeah ... right.
How hot, though? How much harm? Would you accept a cup of coffee that was 500 degrees (ignore the state of matter part)? 1000 degrees? There's a line somewhere, isn't there? Great, so now that we've all agreed it's a line-drawing exercise, let's see where that line is:
- McDonalds required that its coffee be kept at 180-190 degrees (freedom units, obv.). But other competitors, from fast food joints to sit down restaurants, served it at least 20 degrees cooler (and often more).
- Why does that matter? Because at 190 degrees it takes 3 seconds for a third-degree burn (requiring skin grafting). 160 degree coffee takes about 20 seconds.
* Most people prefer around 140 degrees, which is still hot but much, much less dangerous than the 190 degree coffee at issue in the McDonalds case.
Some other interesting stuff that most don't know:
- McDonalds proffered reason for 190 degree coffee was that drivers typically waited to drink their coffee until they arrived, meaning that the coffee would cool. But McDonald's own research stated that many customers consumed coffee immediately.
- From 1982 until 1992, McDonalds had received 700 reports of people being burned by their coffee, and those were settled for over $500,000 in the aggregate.
- The plaintiff suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body (skin grafts!), and second-degree burns on another 16%. She was permanently disfigured and partially disabled for two years.
- The plaintiff initially sought $20,000, which would have covered her past ($10,500) and future ($2,500) medical expenses, plus lost wages for her daughter (who missed work to care for her). McDonalds offered $800. The plaintiff then hired an attorney.
- The attorney offered to settle for $90k. A mediator later suggested $225k just before trial. McDonalds refused both offers.
- The jury awarded $200k in compensatory damages (reduced to $160k) and $2.7m in punitive damages (based on 2 days of McDonalds coffee revenue, which is not tethered to compensatory damages as required by due process, and later reduced to $480k, 4x compensatory).
- The parties ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount less than $600k in exchange for dropping appeals.
No way I’ll judge someone that lost a child AND a spouse, two weeks later. I’m sure she’s an emotional disaster.
Last edited:
Then you should have had zero problem understanding that it would not be unreasonable for the state of Illinois to become a named defendant, nor how it is plausible that any maintenance negligence when the aircraft was under their ownership may already be discovered, and also how the most strategic way to approach those coffers would be action against the current owner / operator first. Yet you were all over how too poo-poo all of that, simply because of a rhetorical musing of liquidation and relocation to Europe's posh-most tax Haven.
No, your non-liquidation/Switzerland arguments fare no better. First of all, all defendants are named with the exceedingly rare (and I mean exceedingly rare) exception of a defendant class action. They're just defendants. And anyone can be named as a defendant simply by the filing of a complaint.
Getting past that, your theory is that the state of Illinois, which owned the helicopter until 2015, would somehow be liable for the crash due to "any maintenance negligence when the aircraft was under their ownership?" I would bet $bajillion that they're never even considered as a defendant because the concept of proximate cause is a bedrock principle of tort law. The theory would have to be that Illinois, sometime before the end of 2015, owed a duty to passengers travelling on a trip in 2020 from a different owner that had its own maintenance obligations in the intervening time period. And this would allow, somehow, Vanessa et al to go after the "coffers" of Illinois. I mean, anything is possible post-CERN, but this would be mind blowing.
Of course, none of that attenuated theory of liability gets to the idea of... collusion between competing firms (at least one of which is fantastically respected - Munger - and would never jeopardize their well-earned reputation for what amounts to a trivially small lawsuit for an elite firm) to rack up fees sufficient to make an obscenely wealthy widow flee "to Europe's post-most tax Haven" (I guess that's Switzerland?).
Happy reading. The truth of that case has been lost because it sounds cool to say someone sued because the coffee was too hot. Far more to it than that.
I have not judged her or her actions just saying people on here saying that the pilot or company were negligent without knowing the facts are judging.
Sorry I am not going to read a novel. If I were it would be something with substance like War and Peace not a message on a message board telling me how wrong I am and how right you are.
If you're going to talk about it, you might as well be informed about it. Otherwise, you look like a fool.
I think if anything it has been proven it's that a message board is full of people giving their opinions on stuff they are not informed about. You do realize that right? I didn't know we had to become a scholar about a subject before we were allowed to have an opinion.
Now I admit I have not had a class on the temperatures of coffee but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before and know when something says "Hot" on the cup that there is a chance it could burn me. So I feel I know all I need to know about the subject without reading his book/post by simply having comprehension skills and common sense.
Creed, I generally like your takes. But that's a very weak response. It's ok to say that you didn't know that much about the topic at hand. And then concede the point.
How much is there to know about hot coffee? It's hot and will burn you if you spill it on you.
If you are talking about the helicopter crash then yes I will readily admit I don't know a lot about it but then again who does until all the facts come out?
For what realizing coffee is probably hot? I am not sure I am the one sounding dumb if you don't know that.
For arguing about something that you're wrong about and then refusing to educate yourself a little more on the topic.
How much education do I need on hot coffee? I don't even drink coffee I don't understand the need to get any education on it.
Me either because coffee is hot and evidently some people don't know that.
However I am done with this whole thread. Have fun discussing it further.
There's really nothing else to discuss on it, if you won't become educated on the facts of that case. Another member even laid it out to you. Creed, you're still good people, and I look forward to more from you, albeit on a different topic, as you say.Me either because coffee is hot and evidently some people don't know that.
However I am done with this whole thread. Have fun discussing it further.
I had the same question but my girlfriend brought up a counter point. If he was as good a father to GiGi as everyone is making him out to be, I don't think he would have ever let her get on that helicopter unless he was confident that it was safe. I don't think he would have pressured anyone to take off in that situation. If he was flying by himself, then maybe but I don't think he would do that with GiGi and the other families on board.
Even if (and I stress if, because we'll never know)Kobe did urge/demand that he get them there, that doesn't relieve the pilot of responsibility. If I hail a cab and then tell him I need to be at the airport in 20 minutes, and it's normally a 40 minute drive, and he takes off like a bat out of Hell, hits and kills a pedestrian, he is going to be charged with something like vehicular homicide (and other charges). He was under no obligation to do what I asked/told him I needed him to do.
Well there's certainly more to know than that. 190 degrees = "hot" and will cause 3rd degree burns within 3 seconds. 160 degrees also = "hot" and will take up to 20 seconds to cause similar burns. 140 degrees also = "hot" and will take even longer to cause burns. Your oversimplification of "hot" is misleading.
FYI my last post takes less than 2 minutes to read. Leaded gasoline really did a number on this country.
