Don’t Break My Fall
by Hal_10000
Lest you doubt that our legal system is need of reform, read this:
On July 12, 2003, Lisa Nutley sought to celebrate her birthday with the thrill of her life - a recreational parachute jump. So, she drove to SkyDive the Ranch (web site here), a skydiving facility in Gardiner, New York that’s been in business for over 30 years.
As this was Lisa’s first ever jump, it was to be a tandem jump - an instructor would be tethered to her.
...
Lisa jumped out of the plane with Robin Rohemo, her tandem partner, and that’s when it got really thrilling - the main parachute failed to deploy and Lisa hurtled toward the ground, somersaulting in the air, terrified of imminent and certain death when she’d smash into the round at 100 miles per hour.
Luckily for Lisa, Mr. Rohemo knew exactly what to do during this mid-air free fall. First, he tried to cut the failed main chute off. Failing that, he told Lisa he needed her to stand on his knees and hold on. Lisa’s words: “So I am holding as tight as I possibly could standing on his knees as we are falling to our death and I just felt this tremendous pressure pull on my hand ... and I figured we were going to die ....” Rohemo was able to free up the back-up chute, he and Lisa floated down to safety and no one died that day.
Whew, what a thrill. Maybe Lisa should’ve paid extra for the additional thrill. Instead, because her third and fourth fingers were fractured during the fall, she lawyered up and sued SkyDive claiming that Rohemo - her savior - had wrongfully told her to hold tight to a dangerous area of the parachute he was trying to cut away and then never told her to let go at an appropriate time.
The lawsuit was thrown out of court ... after three years. Fortunately, the waiver she signed before jumping had a clause that allows SkyDive to get back their legal expenses, which could amount to more than $50,000. You read that right. SkyDive had to drop fifty large just to get the suit dismissed. Now if a doctor charged that much to amputate a diabetic foot, there would be a clarion call for healthcare reform. But you won’t hear a peep out of the Democrats about legal reform, will you?
I feel bad that this woman got the daylights scared out of her, but that’s a risk you assume when you jump out of a fucking airplane. That’s where the thrill comes from. Two broken fingers is what you show your friends to show what a badass you really are.
PS - I’m sure that, as with the McDonald’s coffee case, a bunch of sock puppets for the legal industry will come out of the woodwork to explain that this was a perfectly legitimate suit and the woman was really traumatized and other skydiving companies are more responsible, etc. Ignore them.
Comments
I don’t see the complaint here -the case was thrown out and the woman could be on the hook for fifty G.
Was it a stupid lawsuit? Yep. Is she gonna have to pay for her stupidity? Yep
Loooks more like a case of the legal system working this time.
The fact that it went to court and then took 3 years to resolve is an example of a working system to you?
I’m sure that, as with the McDonald’s coffee case, a bunch of sock puppets for the legal industry will come out of the woodwork to explain that this was a perfectly legitimate suit and the woman was really traumatized and other skydiving companies are more responsible, etc. Ignore them.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Obviously you know nothing about the coffee case because if you did, you wouldn’t have made an asinine comment like that.
McDonald’s had been sued HUNDREDS of times, before that woman spilled coffee on herself, because of the ridiculous temperature of the drink. Every time McDonald’s was sued before that case they just settled out of court with an NDA.
She suffered 3rd degree burns on her genitals only because of the excessive temp of the coffee. McDonald’s reason for not lowering the temperature after all those lawsuits, was to keep themselves from making fresh coffee as often. In other words, they did it to save money.
Now tell me why it’s wrong to sue a company that is KNOWINGLY distributing a product at dangerous temperatures, all in order to protect it’s profits.
By the way, you know what that woman was originally awarded? I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 million. What ever number she got was just 1 days profit from McDonald’s coffee sales. Of course on appeal it was lowered dramatically.
The fact that it went to court and then took 3 years to resolve is an example of a working system to you?
What’s the phrase - “The wheels of justice grind slowly?”
My point is that the woman is going to end up paying for her stupidity – no doubt spurred on by an attorney looking for a quick payout.
The fact that the attorney is probably walking away with no retribution other than time spent is another matter.
So yeah - it worked this time and I don’t mind that time is taken.
Law cases should be deliberative.
Gotta side with Sally here. Seems like the system worked as intended.
Also, Dirk is 100% right about the McD’s coffee case. Most people don’t know fuck-all about it and still use it as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. In point of fact it is PRECISELY why lawsuits should be brought. The company was comparatively negligence long after being notified of the damage that serving coffee upwards of 40 degrees (180-190) over industry standards (140).
Oh God I agreed with Sally. I feel dirty. :)
She suffered 3rd degree burns on her genitals only because of the excessive temp of the coffee.
Well, from what I know from the case, it was because she put the coffee between here legs and took the lid off the coffee. Then here son (beleive that was who was driving the car) came to a abrupt halt and the coffee spilled. Furthermore, because she was wearing sweatpants, the coffee soaked in quicker.
Yes here genitals were burned, but I believe she was responsible for some of it for putting hot liquid between her legs in the first place.
Sorry..hit sumbit too soon.
As far as the original article, if SkyDive did not have the waiver of getting the money back, they would have been out $50,000.
So it should be in all contracts that if it is a frivilous lawsuit, then should have to pay legal fees. But I wonder how many people will start complaining about that.
They lucked out. How many victims of frivolous lawsuits are subject to compensation ultimately?
That would be a tort reform I could get behind: mandatory compensation for the defendant.
I don’t want to get into the McD’s case. Check out overlawyereds coverage. The arguments in favor of her lawsuit are standard legal industry tactics. In fact, the lawyer in her case lied about testing coffee at nearby establishments.
This is an example of a system working? These guys were in court for three years potentially facing enormous losses. Their liability insurance will go up dramatically because of this. And if you read the article, NY rarely allows these kind of legal clawback provisions and they *still* might not be allowed.
Jim, the industry standard of coffee temperature is actually at or slightly higher than McD’s temperature. That was a lawyer lie that many bought into (including the jury and our hapless media). Check the link above for references for a refutation of all the arguments you guys just threw out.
Check out overlawyereds coverage. The arguments in favor of her lawsuit are standard legal industry tactics. In fact, the lawyer in her case lied about testing coffee at nearby establishments.
Which of course doesn’t change what liquid does in contact with skin at 180 - 190 degrees. And they settled previous burn cases without changing practices. Which means they knew that liquid served to drivers at this temperature could and did result in serious injury, and they did nothing to mitigate that whatsoever.
See, there’s a fallacy in Overlawyered’s blog post: Coffee should be BREWED at 180-200 in most expert (read: coffee snob) opinions. It should not be SERVED at 180-200. My machine at home actually runs the brewed coffee around the pod holder to cool it down before spitting it out into the cup. I’ve also turned down the brew temp to 165 (which results in a cup of 140 degree coffee and yes I tested it with an instant read thermometer!) because I think 200 is ridiculous and I can’t taste a bit of difference in the final product. And I’m half-a-snob when it comes to coffee. :)
As for industry standards? Starbucks is the entire coffee industry? I wonder if Dunkin and 7-11 and the 972364 million gas stations and coffee houses across the nation know that? As an aside, Starbucks generally makes a shit cup of coffee anyway. It’s the three B’s of java: burnt, bitter and blisteringly hot.
Bottom line here is IMHO the McD’s case was a bad example to prove your point, as was the original skydiving case. I get your point, and I agree with it in general, but your examples were, IMHO, pretty flawed. In fact to my mind you sort of disproved your larger point, that frivolous lawsuits need reigning in and they need it right effing now. I’ll march by your side in the cause of tort reform every day of the week.
Yes here genitals were burned, but I believe she was responsible for some of it for putting hot liquid between her legs in the first place.
aretak, she was found 20% negligent in the end. She did share the responsibility for the accident. I’ll grant you it’s odd to pick numbers like that, but that is what the tort system is for: to quantify the unquantifiable via dollars.
Lastly, Hal, calling people who disagree with you about the McD’s case “sock puppets for the legal industry” is precisely and exactly the same as Obamanites calling everyone who protests Obamacare “astroturfers” and “racists.”
It *is* possible to disagree on the merits without being a sock puppet for anyone. Just a point. Take it for what you will.
Sounds like the case I was just on the jury for here in Oregon. The main part of the case is that the plaintiff had bought several “untrained” horses from the defendant. He had gotten onto one of them, got bucked, and severely messed up. After settling with the medical insurance, that was a ligit case, they decided to sue the people that they bought the horses from for selling them a “dangerous” animal. It was the biggest waste of a week in my life.
I think they should’ve let the free market work here. If idiots kept wanting to buy overly hot McDonald’s coffee then burning themselves so be it. Don’t buy it anymore. Go to the other 2309482309423 gas stations, 7-11s, Dunkin Donuts, and *gulp* Starbucks out there that don’t serve overly hot coffee. Though I suspect it wasn’t about coffee in the first place…
If you understand that the legal system has been perverted into a “make yourself rich quick” jobs program for the biggest democrat donors - lawyers - you see why stuff like this keeps happening.
SkyDive will now have to contract another lawyer to get that legal waiver inforced and collect on their costs. While getting reimbursed for the money they spent is great, they sure as hell lost a lot more - in time, bad publicity, and so on - which they will not get back.
In the end the only people that really won are the lawyers and the other employees of the system which all made some good money.
If you understand that the legal system has been perverted into a “make yourself rich quick” jobs program for the biggest democrat donors - lawyers - you see why stuff like this keeps happening.
Not just donors, but it’s treated as get-rich in general. There’s a sleazy lawyer that runs ads up here that describe a heartbreaking car accident but end with the client (smiling and looking ok) talking about their settlement and how they just bought a house and started a business. You deserve to be made whole after a lawsuit, but it shouldn’t be the thing that “makes it” for you.
As for the original subject, that lady slept that night in her own bed. Anytime you have “an incident” and you can say that, you don’t deserve much of a settlement.
John Edwards got rich off of ambulance chasing and flat-out fraudulent lawsuits against doctors.
How many victims of frivolous lawsuits are subject to compensation ultimately?
That would be a tort reform I could get behind: mandatory compensation for the defendant.
I agree big time. I think a lot of this inanity would go away if the attorneys were held responsible for cases with no merit. I wonder how often these things are launched at the impetus of some sleaze ball lawyer who knows if it fails all he is out is time spent.
I mean ya gotta consider the folks who are being represented can’t be the sharpest pencils in the box to start with and in many cases are only following the advice (along with a bit of their own avarice) of someone they are trusting to know what is up.
The person paying the 50 grand should be the attorney – not the litigant imho.
I think they should’ve let the free market work here. If idiots kept wanting to buy overly hot McDonald’s coffee then burning themselves so be it. Don’t buy it anymore.
Fine, just make sure that the person buying the coffee knows how long it will take to get 3rd degree burns if it spills.
You can’t have a free market if you can’t make an informed decision.
Also…
The car was NOT in motion, and the cup was NOT between her legs. She origonally sued for medical bills. It was not until McDonalds refused did it stretch up to the millions of dollars amount.
I think a lot of this inanity would go away if the attorneys were held responsible for cases with no merit. I wonder how often these things are launched at the impetus of some sleaze ball lawyer who knows if it fails all he is out is time spent.
I frequently see advertisments from law firms asking people that suffer from any kind of cancer to call them up. They are looking for some “victims” they can use for the class action suit they already are working on filing. They know where the money is already, but now they need the proof excuse to go get it…
I don’t want to get into the McD’s case. Check out overlawyereds coverage. The arguments in favor of her lawsuit are standard legal industry tactics. In fact, the lawyer in her case lied about testing coffee at nearby establishments.
I find it interesting you don’t to talk about the McDonald’s case when you were the one who brought it up.
The link you provided means nothing. The article itself admits that law professors, judges, and even universities teach that this was a good decision. He makes mention of the fact that even Snopes has it listed as a legitimate lawsuit.
So first of all, what makes this guys OPINION so much more important than the DOZENS if not more people he mentioned that disagree with him?
Second, the guy did nothing to refute the claim that a company that has been sued 700 times for the same reason. Just the fact that most people have never hurt themselves with a cup of coffee doesn’t mitigate the fact that McDonald’s sold something that gave a woman 3rd degree burns.
The reason McDonald’s didn’t want to change the temperature at which the coffee was brewed, was because that would force them to brew coffee more regularly, costing them more money. Instead they chose to brew the coffee at a higher temperature to make it last longer. Just paying off anyone who does injure themselves, because it’s cheaper.
If McDonald’s knew the coffee could hurt people but decided not to change anything, purely to protect their profits, they are guilty. As soon as a company elevates profits over the safety of it’s consumers, they have committed a crime.
The car was NOT in motion, and the cup was NOT between her legs.
You are correct. The car was not in motion. Looked into it further and this correct. However, the cup was between here knees or legs.
(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm)
(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1085626349093)
If McDonald’s knew the coffee could hurt people but decided not to change anything, purely to protect their profits, they are guilty.
Yeah, but there’s lots of things that could hurt people that are sold all the time.
The fact is, if you’re drinking coffee while you’re driving, or sticking it between your legs while you’re driving, or any of that, you’re risking yourself no matter what the temperature is. People gulping down their drink while they’re weaving through traffic are risking themselves from more than spillage.
While yes, McDonald’s obviously had the stuff really really hot, I don’t see how the fact that people might spill it on themselves because they’re drinking or holding it in an unsafe way is McDonald’s fault. It should stay in a cupholder until the car isn’t in motion, and if you don’t have a cupholder, maybe you shouldn’t order it.
She was found partly negligible, and that’s good, but I would have cited it at more than 20%, personally. Just because McDonald’s offers you coffee that is theoretically drinkable while driving doesn’t mean you actually have to order it or actually have to drink it while you’re driving.
If McDonald’s shouldn’t be selling something that could hurt people for their wicked greedy evil profits, you better be telling the cell phone manufacturers that they better shut down. After all, people use those things while they’re driving all the time and cause accidents. Sure, it’s the consumer’s own choice to answer the phone, make a call, read/send a text message or whatever while they’re driving, but the cell phone apparently made that possible by existing.
Was the coffee too hot? Probably. Is the woman an idiot for sticking a styrofoam cup of what she knew was a hot liquid between her legs while she was driving? Abso-fuckin’-lutely.
Besides, saying “I knew it was hot, but I didn’t know it was THAT hot!” opens the way for “I knew it was fattening, but I didn’t know it was THAT fattening!” and other dumb crap.
While yes, McDonald’s obviously had the stuff really really hot, I don’t see how the fact that people might spill it on themselves because they’re drinking or holding it in an unsafe way is McDonald’s fault.
Because McDonald’s is selling a product to you IN YOUR CAR for USE in your car. It’s not like this woman went to extraordinary means to sustain her injuries. She was putting in cream or sugar, something I am more than sure that McDonald’s expects most of its customers to do.
All of that is moot because of the fact that the real issue here is the level of injury. Do some reading on 3rd degree burns, and imagine what that is like on her junk. The only reason the injury was to the level that it was, was due to the temperature it was set at.
The Pinto example is a great comparison. Every driver assumes a certain amount of risk when they drive a car. No car is perfectly safe and nothing can guarantee you will make it to your destination. But we as consumers expect that the companies we are buying from are not willfully ignoring a known problem to protect profits. Ford knew the Pinto was EXCESSIVELY dangerous. Far more than typical American cars of the times. McDonald’s knew the coffee was too hot. They didn’t care about the EXCESSIVE injuries it caused their patrons. They only wanted to ensure maximum profits. That is where the liability comes into play.
Because McDonald’s is selling a product to you IN YOUR CAR for USE in your car.
So if you go through the drive-through, order McNuggets, and then as you’re driving you hit a bump in the road and one goes past your teeth and lodges in your throat, almost killing you, McDonald’s is the one at fault for selling choking hazard food to you in your car?
All of that is moot because of the fact that the real issue here is the level of injury. Do some reading on 3rd degree burns, and imagine what that is like on her junk. The only reason the injury was to the level that it was, was due to the temperature it was set at.
So the problem was, she knew she was taking a stupid risk with a hot liquid, she just didn’t know HOW hot? Because it was hotter than expected and she got more hurt than she would have expected from it spilling (as she must have known was a possibility when she stuck it there).
Let’s apply that logic to some other stuff:
“Sure, I stuck the survival knife between my teeth like in the movies, and I knew it was sharp and could cut me, but I didn’t know it was that sharp and would cut me that bad!”
“Sure, the toy said it had small pieces that could be choking hazards, but I didn’t know they were that small and the kid could choke that much on them!”
“Okay, I knew the firecracker had a short fuse and it could blow up in my hand, but I didn’t know it was that short and could blow up in my hand that bad!”
Hey, guess what, when you put hot coffee in your lap, there’s a chance you might spill it and might get burned. She got burned a lot worse than was normal, and like I said, some amount of liability and compensation is appropriate, but most of the fault is still on her for putting fucking hot coffee in her lap.
As for entreating me to have empathy for the burns to her “junk”, I’m not inclined to do so much more than I would for any Darwin Award winner. She did something stupid and got hurt for it. Was she hurt beyond the measure of her stupidity? Prolly. Doesn’t eliminate her stupidity from the equation.
They didn’t care about the EXCESSIVE injuries it caused their patrons. They only wanted to ensure maximum profits.
This seems an almost ridiculous statement. If McDonald’s coffee was routinely causing EXCESSIVE injuries to their consumers, you’d think the cost of settling out of court would outweigh the profit from more people buying really hot coffee instead of just pretty hot coffee.
The comparison to a Pinto isn’t really accurate, because the Pinto was dangerous due to a defect, a defect that made it dangerous in a situation where people would not generally expect a car to be dangerous. (Besides the Pinto’s explosive nature being rather exaggerated.) People should already know that hot coffee is dangerous to spill on themselves no matter the temperature, and if not, well, Darwin. “Hot things can burn you” is a pretty basic lesson, “this particular car can burst into flames when it from behind” isn’t.
I mean, honestly, how is this different from someone, say, shooting themselves in the face with a gun because the trigger pull strength was too light? I mean, sure, maybe the gun manufacturer should have used a tighter trigger, but the stupid fuck was still pointing a gun at his face. I’m sure the manufacturer and gun store/previous owner both gave it to you in expectations that while you would clean it and service it, you would do so without peering down the barrel to see if there was a round chambered.
I’m sure the manufacturer and gun store/previous owner both gave it to you in expectations that while you would clean it and service it, you would do so without peering down the barrel to see if there was a round chambered.
That’s a bad thing to do? I thought you had to look and pull the trigger to check for chambered rounds....
/dunce off
Because McDonald’s is selling a product to you IN YOUR CAR for USE in your car.
Just because you buy a drink from McDonald’s in the drive thru or restaurant does not mean they are selling the product for use in the car.
A person chooses to drink the beverage in the car...McDonalds did not design the drink so it could be consumed in the car.
The only reason the injury was to the level that it was, was due to the temperature it was set at.
Well...some of it had to do with her wearing sweatpants, which absorbed the liquid faster. If she had been wearing jeans, may not have been burned as bad. Also...it was because she put the coffee between her legs as well.
Next entry: Yes We Can Render
Previous entry: The forever war.
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 3993
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 52
Total anonymous users: 0
6or7RabidSquirrels,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
The Man Who Could Not, Not Bow
(7 total, Last @ 05:14)
britishcress: Does our president understand how this appears to other national leaders and their peoples? How does it look?
Tebow Beats Down NOW
(2 total, Last @ 04:56)
Rocketboy: Quick! Find something to be angry about!!!!!
Buying Tea
(29 total, Last @ 04:43)
HARLEY: Her Speech was boiler plate, she did not present any new ideas or any details on policy. She had a few words written on her hand, big deal. Shes just a ex Governor who has delusions of Grandeur. Obama has a whole script on a teleprompter and cant continue if…
Tebow Beats Down NOW
(2 total, Last @ 04:33)
HARLEY: What nothing about the Go Daddy.com ad??
Buying Tea
(29 total, Last @ 04:04)
britishcress: Whats wrong with using a teleprompter? I'm serious in this one. I'm writing speeches for a cabinet minister at the moment, and everything that he says is written by me and my team. We even have notes for him for Q&A;'s and panels. My guy reads from an A4 file,…
Last 30 Comments
When I read things like this I find myself almost wishing for that planet killing asteroid to come along....