View Single Post
Old March 9th, 2005, 08:35 AM
TheDeadlyShoe's Avatar

TheDeadlyShoe TheDeadlyShoe is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 88
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
TheDeadlyShoe is on a distinguished road
Default Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping

bearing in mind that many people had been injured by the McDonalds coffee. The reason they kept it at 180 is that it was fractionally more profitable because it would stay saleable longer. They had done this a long time. It was cheaper for McDonalds to fight lawsuits in court than it was to chill the coffee. Horrendous, but justified on a business level.

It isn't on the same level as the now-infamous (brought by John Edwards) case where for want of a cheap drain cover a spa had badly mutilated several people. I just ate so I'm not gonna talk about it, but you can probably google it pretty easily.

In this roof jumping case- It wasn't the first time, so the city could be negligent. There's obviously a case that could be argued in court here, so I don't think the standard of frivolous lawsuit applies here. Although this is applied of by association- the main thrust is that the roof jumper and his family are not taking responsibility for his actions. Which to some extent they are not, though many minors undoubtedly engage in the activity. (The article does not make clear whether the injured jumper was a minor or not, and the pic is inconclusive)

But...75% of all bankruptcys are for medical reasons, and given the trends it's increasingly unlikely that insurance companies will cover something like this. I think it behooves the city to at least pay medical expenses and agree to combat the trend of roof jumping actively and passively.

Realistically, there does not seem to be much of a problem with frivolous lawsuits. Most lawsuits are filed by businesses (very few places track this, but those that do in the US indicate that business vs business comprise about 75% of all lawsuits) so personal lawsuits are not cramming the judicial system. Lawsuits which are actually frivolous tend to be thrown out. There is a wide perception of common place ludicrous lawsuits because these stories are often blown all out of proportion and lied about. Any that remotely fit the criteria are often picked up and distributed. For several years I believed in the McDonalds coffee canard- I was horrified when I learned the details of the case.

In my opinion, the whole idea is a stalking horse for deregulators.

But whatever.
Reply With Quote