Space Empires V or ridiculous lawsuits? What is the connection? [Archive]

View Full Version : Space Empires V or ridiculous lawsuits? What is the connection?

przy

May 21st, 2003, 04:54 PM

Sorry if this has been answered already. I did a search and could not seem to find a difinitive answer. Maybe I did not search hard enough, I don't know, but I just recently read at the wargamer.com's website and it had an article with the 2003 announced games and in it is Space Empires V. Is this true? Thanks for any replies.

[ May 30, 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

geoschmo

May 21st, 2003, 04:58 PM

I don't think SEV will be ready this year. The next game in development is Starfury. They might be getting that confused with SEV.

Geoschmo

Chauron

May 21st, 2003, 05:28 PM

I have heard alot of ppl refer to Starfury as SE5...

przy

May 21st, 2003, 05:46 PM

Actually the article said both Starfury and SEV. Odd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

dogscoff

May 21st, 2003, 05:56 PM

Stafury and SEV are two seperate products, although they are related and (apparently) will share quite a bit of code. starfury is in Beta right now, and we all assume it will be released before seV.

If you're worried about how much life is left in SEIV, the answer is plenty. I doubt SEV will be out for another year or two, and even when it is some ppl will probably stick with the current Version. Hell, I bet you could still find a few ppl out there still playing seIII...

klausD

May 21st, 2003, 06:18 PM

I play SE3 often. SE3 is really good. I like the construction queus and the unit management. I never found an advantage in constructing fighters, troopers or mines in SE4 instead of just having a handy all-in-one unit.

PvK

May 21st, 2003, 08:44 PM

SE3 does have several nice features over SE4, but vice versa too. Collect them all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for The Wargamer's news item (http://www.wargamer.com/news/default.asp#newsitem1053313073,48809,), it comes from a Shrapnel press release, and mentions both Star Fury and SE5:

Up next is the Space Empires franchise, which will see two new editions to its family. Developer Aaron Hall will once again release a set of 4X computer strategy space games, the first being Space Empires: Starfury and the second being Space Empires V. Space Empires V will be the full sequel to Space Empires IV (review), but will not be released until late 2003. In the meantime, Malfador Machinations will release the narrower-focused Space Empires: Starfury which instead of focusing on the entire world of galaxies will focus on the player taking a role as a lone starship captain.
PvK

[ May 21, 2003, 19:45: Message edited by: PvK ]

minipol

May 22nd, 2003, 08:35 PM

Hmm, Aaron commented on this forum a while bak on the expected release date of SEV and he said 2004.
I'm sure if you search the forum you could find that message.

mottlee

May 22nd, 2003, 08:38 PM

I liked in the constructon Q in SE3, you can move build projects around if you had more than one SY in a sector and not lose anything in doing so (other than speed on some) and I too have SE3 SE4 SE4G http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ May 22, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: mottlee ]

Erax

May 26th, 2003, 03:43 PM

Actually, I think part X (and XI and XII and XIII) will sell a lot. But some of the people who buy them may be disappointed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Atrocities

May 26th, 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Chauron:
I have heard alot of ppl refer to Starfury as SE5...Now that is funny.

Fyron

May 26th, 2003, 10:04 PM

Anyone that refers to Starfury as SE5 is not well informed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

oleg

May 27th, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Anyone that refers to Starfury as SE5 is not well informed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif On the contrary. Such person is obviously is well informed about the identity of the best space 4X game ever ! It is a person who stares back blank when you ask about SEV is ill informed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 26, 2003, 23:11: Message edited by: oleg ]

Voidhawk

May 27th, 2003, 01:46 AM

There's only one thing I'm really, really concerned about as far as the future of the SE franchise goes. Of course we can expect to see SEV sooner or later, and hopefully SEVI, SEVII, SEVIII, and so on.

But what if the series reaches part X?! What will we call it then?! And more importantly, wouldn't it be illegal for Shrapnel/Malfador to market and sell it?!

Things that make you go hm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ed Kolis

May 27th, 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Voidhawk:
But what if the series reaches part X?! What will we call it then?! And more importantly, wouldn't it be illegal for Shrapnel/Malfador to market and sell it?!Malfador can do a Capcom and change the name of the series entirely! (Remember how they jumped from Megaman 6 to Megaman X - then Legends and Battle Network? Well, now we don't have Space Empires V, we have... Space Empires Armada!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Or do a Nintendo/Microsoft and jump to some 1337-sounding number - power of 2 (Super Mario 64 - what happened to 4 through 63? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ), current year (Windows 95/98/2000), whatever! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

TerranC

May 27th, 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Space Empires Armada!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif If that happens, Paramount and Activision would sue Aaron for the name's similarity to one of their products.

Hey, if starbucks can do it, anybody can.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 27th, 2003, 07:18 AM

we need common sense as part of the judicial process.

Fyron

May 27th, 2003, 07:58 AM

How would you go about enforcing that? Are you going to limit people's right to sue in court? Where do you draw the line? Who are you to say where the line is?

tbontob

May 27th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Yes, limiting access to the courts and/or limiting the remedies available could be the first step to despotism.

Like it or not, the courts are one of the lynchpins on which our society rests. It is one of the means by which a person can stand up to a powerful individual, government or corporation.

Everyone is entitled to his day in court. Even if it is a frivolous claim.

But the courts have the right (and will often exercise it) to award costs against the party who frivolously initiates a suit or defends one where there is no viable defense.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 27th, 2003, 09:03 AM

i didn't say it would be easy and i don't know how you'd do it either. and you couldn't half do it either.

Fyron

May 27th, 2003, 09:52 AM

It isn't possible to do without leading to tyranny.

Voidhawk

May 27th, 2003, 11:30 AM

Whoa, I was erm... just kidding.

I thought it was common knowledge that episode X has already been slated to bear the name "Super Mega Mother Of All Space Empires Reloaded X2: Return of the Space Empires From Hell".

Oops, sorry if you were trying to keep that info under wraps, Aaron!

Loser

May 28th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Voidhawk:
"Super Mega Mother Of All Space Empires Reloaded X2: Return of the Space Empires From Hell".Alpha Turbo Ultra Wide Fast Gold Special Edition

Voidhawk, you just made Corporal: you've lost an element of your lurker status that you will never get back. My condolences.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 28th, 2003, 10:11 AM

no, it isn't easy. and i think all cases could go to court, but if you sue say a spider, then the judge would explain that spiders are non-sentient and no malice was involved and suggest a psychologist.

Fyron

May 28th, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
no, it isn't easy. and i think all cases could go to court, but if you sue say a spider, then the judge would explain that spiders are non-sentient and no malice was involved and suggest a psychologist.That is what happens now... though I don't think anyone has ever tried to sue a spider...

Lisif Deoral

May 29th, 2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Space Empires Armada!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif If that happens, Paramount and Activision would sue Aaron for the name's similarity to one of their products.<hr /></blockquote>I wonder why the Spanish navy didn't sue Activision, then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

TerranC

May 29th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Lisif Deoral:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TerranC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Space Empires Armada!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif If that happens, Paramount and Activision would sue Aaron for the name's similarity to one of their products.<hr /></blockquote>I wonder why the Spanish navy didn't sue Activision, then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>That's because the Spanish armada didn't trademark their name http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Voidhawk

May 29th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
Voidhawk, you just made Corporal: you've lost an element of your lurker status that you will never get back. My condolences.ARRGH! Must... stop... submitting pointless and inane Posts... must.... l..lurr... LURK!

NOOO I did it again!

narf poit chez BOOM

May 29th, 2003, 07:51 AM

i was using an exageration. there's probably things you can find that have gone through the courts that are silly enough.
need to think of things ahead of time, though. works best for people. so, people should think of this ahead of time, so they have a stance when it comes up for serious.

Fyron

May 29th, 2003, 08:18 AM

jimbob

May 29th, 2003, 08:34 AM

I thought she won because she was old. And as we all know, the old and infirm should always win court cases... and people with cute fluffy white dogs... and cute blondes with short skirts... and... and... movie stars that just can't quite kick the habit for the fifth time...

dogscoff

May 29th, 2003, 10:59 AM

Like that woman that ordered hot coffee from McDonald's and was then dumb enough to place it in her lap, and lo and behold, some coffee spilt (I forget exactly why) and she was burned? She sued McDonald's for being burned by their coffee.
I also remember one tale of a woman who sued mcdonalds when she slipped up in a pool of cola on the floor. The thing is, the pool had been put there moments earlier by her own son, who had been running riot and throwing stuff all over the place. Even though she should have been disciplining her own vile offspring, the court decided that McD was responsible for not keeping their floors clean and safe.

Also stories of burglars suing their victims when injured by a broken ladder they've stolen from the shed to gain entry to house and stuff like that... but we're fringing the territory of urban mythology now=-)

teal

May 29th, 2003, 12:38 PM

Regarding all these court cases. Does anyone *know* for sure that all these cases survived the lengthy appeals process and stood? I thought not. The media loves to report the initial judgement and then leave everyone with the impression that's what the courts decided. The courts don't work that way. There is a lengthy appeals process that actually works pretty darn well all things considered. Just to throw out a perhaps contrerversial example, the massive tort judgement against the tobacco companies in Florida was just overturned on appeal. Even if one or two of these silly cases got all the way through to the end of the judicial process that would be just one example, which is a terrible way to make decisions about what the courts should be like. There is loads of evidence that juries actually award *less* in tort damages then judges acting without juries (for example).

geoschmo

May 29th, 2003, 03:57 PM

Teal, I think you are right that a lot of these cases get either overturned, or at the very least the damages get reduced. I think the infamous McDonalds coffee case itself was one that was reduced. I seem to remember hearing that although I am not sure.

snakeye

May 29th, 2003, 05:01 PM

I would like to say here that I mailed the developer of SEIV to thank him for the SEIV been such a great game. In his reply he informed me that Starfury is the next thing to come out and Space Empires V is in the works. OH BOY! CANT WAIT! *drool*

Fyron

May 29th, 2003, 08:57 PM

Actually, I believe the coffee woman won her case... something about the McDonald's defense lawyers using "what does an old woman need her vagina for" as part of their defense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 30th, 2003, 06:42 AM

having seen some of those urban mythologies in the paper, i can tell you, it happens. but yeah, we should know what happens in appeals to. but some of these shouldn't have to go there.

Fyron

May 30th, 2003, 08:04 AM

Restricting anyone's right to petition for an appeal is a sure path to tyranny.

[ May 30, 2003, 07:04: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 30th, 2003, 09:11 AM

no, i'm saying that some judges could use a little more common sense, so people don't have to appeal.

Jack Simth

May 30th, 2003, 10:10 AM

One problem with that is that it isn't a lack of common sense on the part of the judge that makes people want to appeal, but the fact that they lost the first time.

Another: how do you develop a test of common sense to give to the judges? Remember, this test is going to have to be given to all of the judges, must be fair, and must be very difficult to cheat on or very easy to discover cheating on.

But yeah, it would be great if more judges had more common sense. Common sense is seldom bad.

Unfortunately, common Sense is rather rare.

Fyron

May 30th, 2003, 10:12 AM

I am not quite sure you entirely understand what an appeal is. An appeal is when you lose a case in a lower court and then submit it for a re-ruling to a higher court. No method of ruling on a case can ever in any way shape or form prevent someone from filing an appeal. The only thing that can (and does) prevent some cases from being appealable is when it is ruled on by the highest level of court that will see such a case. So, if you are a US citizen, a case in which you are suing someone can't very well be appealed to the US Supreme Court (unless you are making a suit that would begin there, which is a special case) because it does not hear petty (as in, not against government officials or government agencies (or states themselves http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) law suits. I hope I explained that correctly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif IANAL, afterall (and if you don't know what that acronym means, not my problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif - search on Shrapnel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.

Fyron

May 30th, 2003, 10:13 AM

But yeah, it would be great if more judges had more common sense. Common sense is seldom bad.

Unfortunately, common Sense is rather rare. See previous post about common sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 30th, 2003, 10:17 AM

1: is i 0.5 inch long, 0.1 inch deep cut on your finger a:
a: miner cut
b: hospital emergency
c: reason to sue

2: if you do something stupid, is it:
a: your fault
b: not your fault
c: reason to sue

3: if someone says something irritating to you, is it:
a: time to say "that's irritating"
b: horrible
c: reason to sue

Jack Simth

May 30th, 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.That causes the same effect (perhaps just very similar effect) as it being rare.

Fyron

May 30th, 2003, 10:35 AM

That post has nothing to do with what we were talking about (appeals)...

Also, it is impossible to write absolute guidelines for whether a case is "courtworthy" or if it should be allowable in court. And again, all judges exercise their Version of common sense. You can not possibly expect to absolutely codify something as subjective as common sense.

There is no absolute guideline possible for when something you did is stupid or not. It might have been, but again, "stupid" is fairly subjective. What is stupid to you is often not stupid to others. It can be, but it is not necessarily the case.

Also, someone irritating you is actually a valid grounds for suing them, if they constantly bother you day after day after day and you always tell them to leave you alone. Get a restraining order slapped on them (not all suits have to do with money, you know).

Fyron

May 30th, 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.That causes the same effect (perhaps just very similar effect) as it being rare.<hr /></blockquote>But the point is that it is not rare. It is only your specific Version of common sense that is rare. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 30th, 2003, 10:38 AM

if it hurts and your not exercising, it's probably stupid.
perhaps i didn't make it clear, that option for telling them it's irritating was for the first time.
sleep now.

Jack Simth

May 30th, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But the point is that it is not rare. It is only your specific Version of common sense that is rare. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Which is the same effect (or very neraly so), which is what I said.

[ May 30, 2003, 09:40: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Gryphin

May 30th, 2003, 12:00 PM

I believe McDonalds eventualy won that case.

If they gave a test for common sence I would flunk it.

geoschmo

May 30th, 2003, 02:59 PM

A search of the internet turns up scads of links all pretty much saying the same thing:

1. McDonald's lost the case
2. Initial damages were levied at 200,000 in consempatory damages and 2.7 million in punitive damages.
3. The decision was not overturned, but the awards were lowered to 160,000 and 480,000 respectivly.
4. McDonalds WAS pretty reckless in their behaivior before the accident and callous towards the injured afterwards.
5. Contrary to popular opinion this case maybe wasn't a frivilous lawsuit after all.

Makes you wonder what else we all have wrong, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

[ May 30, 2003, 13:59: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Baron Munchausen

May 30th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by snakeye:
I would like to say here that I mailed the developer of SEIV to thank him for the SEIV been such a great game. In his reply he informed me that Starfury is the next thing to come out and Space Empires V is in the works. OH BOY! CANT WAIT! *drool*What!? How dare you bring up Space Empires V in this thread! This is the lawsuit bashing thread! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

AgentZero

May 30th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Speaking of ridiculous lawsuits, here's a good one out of Dublin.
A large company hired a man on as CEO, but after 3 years, realized all the responsibilities he had could, and in many cases, already were, being done by other people. So, him being redundant and all, he was sacked. But not in the 'clear out your office and get the hell out way.' He was informed that he was being made redundant (fired), however, then company would continue to pay him for a period of 12 months at his full salary of 250,000euro AND he would retain all the benefits (medical, dental, car, etc) for that 12 month period. And he's taking THEM to court.
His reason?
He figures he should be given TWO YEARS notice.
Can you imagine? 'Well, Bob, we don't really need you anymore, but we're going to pay you 250K over the next year to do sweet eff-all.'
'That's not fair, George! I deserve to be paid half a million euro over the next two years to sit on my oversized posterior.'
WTF?
And he's only 44. That means at least another 21 working years where he could get a similar, or superior salary. Some people...

narf poit chez BOOM

May 30th, 2003, 08:52 PM

McDonalds WAS pretty reckless in their behaivior before the accident
how where they reckless?

geoschmo

May 30th, 2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
McDonalds WAS pretty reckless in their behaivior before the accident
how where they reckless?<hr /></blockquote>Qualify this by saying I have no personal knowledge of the case or the evidence. What I learned I got from reading a bunch of websites on the subject. But apparently McDonalds had a corporate policy of keeping their coffee some 40 degrees hotter then the industry norm. The temperature was hot enough to be a serious risk of third degree burns. Evidence at trial was that they knew of this risk and chose for business reasons to disregard it. Apparently there were several hundred incidents involving customer scaldings prior to the incident that garnered all the attention. And that none other then the Shriners Burn Institute was on public record as having asked McDonalds corp to modify their policy before the incident involved in the lawsuit.

Sounds like fairly negligent behaivior, at least on the surface.

Geoschmo

CEO TROLL

May 30th, 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by snakeye:
I would like to say here that I mailed the developer of SEIV to thank him for the SEIV been such a great game. In his reply he informed me that Starfury is the next thing to come out and Space Empires V is in the works. OH BOY! CANT WAIT! *drool*BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I already registered the names SEV, SEVI, ...SEX, ...SEXXX, and up. He will have to name the next one SE69! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Iggiboo

May 30th, 2003, 11:32 PM

Isn't "SEV" a registered character for a sci-fi channel show?

As for lawsuits, take casinos. One of the most frequently sued franchises on earth, people often stage elaborate accidents to sue and reclaim thier losses. What most people don't realize is 99% of a casino is video taped and the remaining 1% is watched manually.

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 12:16 AM

In tort law, there is a major distinction between negligence and recklessness.

Negligence gives rise to a cause of action when the person does not exercise the standard of prudent care that a normal reasonable man on the street would.

Recklessness implies something more than negligences in that there is a deliberate disregard for the saftey of others.

I don't know much about MacDonald's practices, but it is questionable whether they are reckless. Some people like and want their coffee scalding hot.

They could be negligent, but it is a toss up. The courts could say that the consumer knows coffee is hot and should have taken proper care. The rebuttal of course is that the coffee is hotter than normal. Now if the prudent, reasonable man on the street would not make coffee so hot, then there is negligence for that is the standard.

The prudent reasonable man on the street will not go through a red light. If he does, then he is responsible for the consequences.

But some reasonsable men will make their coffee hot and there is the rub.

Mexican food can be "hot" and a susceptable person can suffer health problems with the ingestion of hot chilli peppers etc. Yet, to expect them to prepare food which is bland and tasteless in order to avoid a lawsuit would not normally be reasonable in the sense that the reasonable man on the street would not prepare such hot food.

On balance, my opinion is that MacDonald's will probably not be liable. But just as two lawyers can disagree, the judge can hold there is negligence.

If McDonald's was wise, they would have put a sign up saying that their coffee is hotter than normal and the customer should take due care. Offering to dilute the beverage would help too.

But then lawyers being lawyers, the arguement will devolve around whether the sign was prominently displayed, whether the customer saw it, whether the customer ought to have seen it, etc.

geoschmo

May 31st, 2003, 12:26 AM

Tbontob, I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't aware of the legal difference between negligence and recklessnes. I should have said negligent.

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 12:35 AM

Isn't "SEV" a registered character for a sci-fi channel show?
That hardly matters as MM uses the name Space Empires V, not SEV. SE3, SEIII, SEIV, SE4 are not trademark of Malfador Machinations, they are just abbreviations. So MM could not be sued over the name of SEV because SEV is not an official name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Tbontob, I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't aware of the legal difference between negligence and recklessnes. I should have said negligent.Actually you did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Narf poit chez BOOM spoke of recklessness.

I just thought it would help to understand the situation by having a clear understanding of the difference.

EDIT: I also thought your commentary on McDonalds was valid and to the point.

[ May 30, 2003, 23:51: Message edited by: tbontob ]

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 01:31 AM

Just read the older Posts. Should have done that in the first place.

So McDonalds were found liable.

Question is, are they going to appeal the decision?

Many a decision has been overturned on appeal. And then overturned again on the next court of appeal. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Whatever the merits of the case, I think the perceived effect an appeal will have on the public will be a major factor in deciding whether to appeal or not. They do have to be careful of not giving the impression of the big corporate giant versus the little guy on the street. Especially when the little guy on the street is a customer.

The odds are good that they will opt for better consumer relations, pay up and change their practices.

Wonder what they'll do? Put up signs? Prepare two coffees of different temperatures and give the customer the option? Or go back to luke-warm coffee?

EDIT: George, the fact that punitive damages were awarded means that the arbitrator (judge, civil jury?) felt that McDonald's was more than just negligent. While there are many reasons for giving punitve damages (such as being callous and uncaring), there very well could have been an adjudication of recklessness in addition to negligence.

[ May 31, 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Phoenix-D

May 31st, 2003, 01:38 AM

"Wonder what they'll do? Put up signs? Prepare two coffees of different temperatures and give the customer the option? Or go back to luke-warm coffee?"

The case has already been resolved. Now you see little "CAUTION: HOT!" signs on everything. Even other places are adding the stupid things.

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 01:58 AM

I just thought it would help to understand the situation by having a clear understanding of the difference.
I have noticed that there is a great tendency for such efforts to fail on this forum...

Iggiboo

May 31st, 2003, 04:40 PM

Either way, SEX will sell big time, but it just becomes a question of false advertising by the fans - which there seem to be a whole lot of! lol

[ May 31, 2003, 15:40: Message edited by: Iggiboo ]

PvK

May 31st, 2003, 06:48 PM

Maybe we should designate certain states as "for stupid people", and such laws, as well as certain media, can exist there. Some other states can be designated "for smart people", where McDonalds might be Banned for entirely different reasons.

PvK

Grandpa Kim

May 31st, 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Restricting anyone's right to petition for an appeal is a sure path to tyranny.Fyron, your one sided view of freedom sets my teeth on edge.

Restricting my right to knock your block off for your damn narrow views is another sure path to tyranny.

Yes everyone has the right to initiate a lawsuit but they sure don't have the right to steal money from my pockets (ie. tax dollars) by being allowed to proceed with frivolous lawsuits. Judges should and must throw out those frivilous ones. Most countries have no trouble finding the frivolity line.

Addendum:

Now that Geoschmo has added details on the McD/coffee case, I still say this was a frivilous lawsuit that should never have seen the inside of a courtroom. There seems to be a trend-- no, more than that, a rush-- to have the government and big business take all the responsibility while the individual take none. I don't know how many, but a large number of lawsuits would simply disappear if we all simply took responsibility for our own actions instead of looking for someone else to blame.

The sad thing about this trend is that it is encouraged by legislators, the courts and the media, so it won't die out soon.

Please note: Kim has no intention of being politically correct; I'm more interested in right and wrong, good and bad. The tone of this post is quite deliberate and intended to get you thinking about the basics instead of nitpicking details.

[ May 31, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Repo Man

May 31st, 2003, 09:27 PM

I lurk more far more than I post here, but I couldn't resisit a few comments.

First - A few of the "frivolous" lawsuits mentioned here are urban legends, including the woman falling on the soda her son spilled.

www.snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com)

The Micky-D lawsuit was presented by the press as an absurd case, but in reality, well, judge for yourself.

www.atlanet.org/consumermediaresources/tier3/press_room/facts/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx (http://www.atlanet.org/consumermediaresources/tier3/press_room/facts/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx)

In case the link doesn't work, here is the article.

___________________________________________
FACT SHEET: MCDONALD'S SCALDING COFFEE CASE
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the pLastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 10:24 PM

Fyron, your one sided view of freedom sets my teeth on edge.

Restricting my right to knock your block off for your damn narrow views is another sure path to tyranny.I fail to see what is so narrow about it... you have to be allowed to make a case. What some people were advocating is to not even allow people to make certain classes of cases. This is what I said would be a bad thing. I never once said that no cases should ever be thrown out of court. Frivolous lawsuits should be thrown out. But, some people were advocating doing something along the lines of setting up specific rules for what cases can and can not even be made to a court. A case has to be made in the first place to be thrown out, you know. They have to at least state what the case is to the judge. You just misinterpreted what I said.

Yes everyone has the right to initiate a lawsuit but they sure don't have the right to steal money from my pockets (ie. tax dollars) by being allowed to proceed with frivolous lawsuits. Judges should and must throw out those frivilous ones. Most countries have no trouble finding the frivolity line.
Most frivolous lawsuits do get thrown out. There are just a lot of them, and a lot of judges out there, so some leak through.

tbontob

May 31st, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I am not quite sure you entirely understand what an appeal is. An appeal is when you lose a case in a lower court and then submit it for a re-ruling to a higher court. No method of ruling on a case can ever in any way shape or form prevent someone from filing an appeal. The only thing that can (and does) prevent some cases from being appealable is when it is ruled on by the highest level of court that will see such a case. So, if you are a US citizen, a case in which you are suing someone can't very well be appealed to the US Supreme Court (unless you are making a suit that would begin there, which is a special case) because it does not hear petty (as in, not against government officials or government agencies (or states themselves http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) law suits. I hope I explained that correctly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif IANAL, afterall (and if you don't know what that acronym means, not my problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif - search on Shrapnel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Judges do use common sense. But, common sense is entirely subjective, and what seems common to you is not necessarily common to everyone.Actually Fyron that is not correct. You can win a case and still appeal the amount of damages.

Courts often give judgement with $1.00 in damages. It is a way of saying "You are right, but it is a frivolous claim."

Or they may give judgement for $1,000,000 for a very simple injury like a cut finger and the plaintiff doesn't think it enough so he appeals the decision.

Or it may be a fair award by most standards and the winner feels it is not enough.

I am not sure what method your highest Court of Appeals uses in deciding what appeals to hear, but I would suspect that you first need to "Apply for leave to appeal". If leave is granted (which is tantamount to saying they think the appeal has merit), then they can appeal.

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 11:32 PM

Ok, so it was not comprehensive, but it wasn't technically wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I just missed one part of appealing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And as I said, IANAL (I like little-used acronyms that only some people would get http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ May 31, 2003, 22:33: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

June 1st, 2003, 07:01 AM

i don't advocate throwing out a case without hearing it, i advocate judges with more common sense. i also think we need a more unbiased media. looks like the coffee case wasn't frivilous after all. with 6 billion people on the world, we need a way to get information fast. maybe everyone should have a personalized website?

Fyron

June 1st, 2003, 09:07 AM

Judges do use common sense. But common sense isn't really that common. What seems common sense to you is not necessarily common sense to everyone else.

Most frivolous law suits do get thrown out. Only a small number of them slip through. There are just so many cases that the number of frivolous ones seems huge.

Wardad

June 5th, 2003, 11:14 PM

bump...

See SEV comics here: http://cartoons.sev.com.au/archivepage.php?cartoonid=f9