[ctt1wbw]

I just can't believe the news nowadays...

Texas Woman Told to Remove 'Offensive' American Flag From Office

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

[stupendousman]

Add the nomination of an admitted bigot who thinks it's the jobs of the court to legislate to the Supreme Court, and you've got a WTF!?!?!? trifecta this past week.

[PB2K]

i would be more concerned about the Abu Graib scandal that is evolving into a multiple rape case

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Add the nomination of an admitted bigot

Are you talking about the speech Newt twitted about?

The speech didn't seem bigoted to me, in fact, it struck me as the kind of un-PC honesty people like Newt feel should be more acceptable.

More often than not, and taking into consideration the lack of a universal definition of "wise", she can make "wiser" decisions for women and Latinos(as) than a white guy can. Duh.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

who thinks it's the jobs of the court to legislate to the Supreme Court

She's not my type of jurist in that regard, but that's the way it goes.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

The first amendment protects citizens' right to assembly

Looking at the spirit of the law, I think one would logically assume that the government can't make it all but impossible to exercise that right - such as imposing huge fines for simply assembling.

Then again, the mandate could just be a way for San Diego to squeeze more money out of its residents during this economic downturn...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Texas Woman Told to Remove 'Offensive' American Flag From Office

"The statement went on to explain: 'The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up.'"

Somehow this went from a "that thing is too big, it's taking up the whole wall" to "some b**ch from Africa hates America." Thanks FOX News.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Lawyers gone wild. Sue anyone and everyone (zoning violations), and don't make yourself vulnerable to being sued (employee complaints). So what? It's capitalism at work. The only remedy is (more) government regulation of lawyers. That, or make lawyers obsolete by repealing all the laws...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The only remedy is (more) government regulation of lawyers. That, or make lawyers obsolete by repealing all the laws...

That's bullsh!t.

All it takes is a revised law.

Other civilized countries don't face the problems of an overly litigious society.
It's the current law that encourages this kind of behavior.

-t

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Lawyers gone wild. Sue anyone and everyone (zoning violations), and don't make yourself vulnerable to being sued (employee complaints). So what? It's capitalism at work. The only remedy is (more) government regulation of lawyers. That, or make lawyers obsolete by repealing all the laws...

Capitalism deals with the free market economy. You know, buying and selling... It has nothing to do with suing people.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's bullsh!t.

All it takes is a revised law.

Other civilized countries don't face the problems of an overly litigious society.
It's the current law that encourages this kind of behavior.

-t

It's the society of being a "victim." I hate that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

The speech didn't seem bigoted to me, in fact, it struck me as the kind of un-PC honesty people like Newt feel should be more acceptable.

More often than not, and taking into consideration the lack of a universal definition of "wise", she can make "wiser" decisions for women and Latinos(as) than a white guy can. Duh.

Not "duh".

Wisdom is the ability to accurately judge right from wrong and act accordingly. While what is "right and wrong" may have no universal definition, simply having the ability to distinguish right from wrong is a pretty clear standard. She's said that her race makes her better able to know right from wrong and act accordingly, assuming that a "white guy" has standards which are not up to snuff because of the color of their skin. That's pretty bigoted by any standard.

The fact that her job IS NOT to make decisions based on whether a person is a woman or a latino (the Constitution says all require equal representation) only makes it worse. I have no problem with people speaking their mind in un-PC ways, but when a Supreme Court nominee does it and it reveals their personal bigotry, I think that's pretty "WTF?!?!?!"

[ctt1wbw]

Especially when people continue to believe that Latinos are a "race" instead of a "nationality."

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She's said that her race makes her better able to know right from wrong and act accordingly, assuming that a "white guy" has standards which are not up to snuff because of the color of their skin.

Just as her "standards" aren't going to be as "up to snuff" when it comes to deciding right from wrong for a white guy, because she's not white, and she's not a guy. Duh.

As luck would have it, there are white guys on the court to help her out.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Especially when people continue to believe that Latinos are a "race" instead of a "nationality."

What Nation do latinos hail from?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I just can't believe the news nowadays...

Texas Woman Told to Remove 'Offensive' American Flag From Office

DUMB.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

DUMBER.

(The only concern I could see in this instance is if they were having a large gathering and the number of vehicles present hindered road access for locals or resulted in people parking on lawns. But both of these matters have nothing to do with it being a religious gathering--cars blocking traffic is a municipal concern regardless of the event causing the traffic blockage--and the ordinance the couple was violating had to do with stopping a "religious assembly or apply for a major use permit". Why would a municipality have any laws concerning religious assembly? That just seems to be an invitation to Constitutional troubles.)

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

What Nation do latinos hail from?

Latinostan.

[ctt1wbw]

Puertoricastan.

[stumblinmike]

Right down the terlet, Edith. Just like this thread

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Other civilized countries don't face the problems of an overly litigious society.

Oh you mean the ones that have stricter regulation?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Capitalism deals with the free market economy. You know, buying and selling... It has nothing to do with suing people.

In this case, the buying and selling of a service provided by lawyers: suing people. So long as it's freely allowed, suing people is easy money, and people are going to be in their best interests to do it as much as possible. If you think that individuals' best interest is the wrong way for society to decide how much suing should be happening, that's called regulation, curtaining the free market as it pertains to lawyering.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh you mean the ones that have stricter regulation?

No, I can tell you, Germany does NOT have significantly stricter regulations on lawyers, just better laws and judicial systems.

The lawyers go buck-wild when the law allows them to.

-t

[Big Mac]

1. Creeping Socialism
2. Leftist Racists on the Court
3. International Calamities (in part due to Presidential incompetence)
4. Loss of AAA National Bond Rating
5. Hyper-Inflation
6. besson3c declaring governments should be spending even more

[ort888]

Is this the game where we find a few articles about isolated incidents and then project them onto the entire populous as a way to reenforce our pre-existing political biases?

FUN!

I'm going to dig up a few about the 10 commandments going up in a school or some crazy gun nut going on a killing spree and use it to proof that conservatives are destroying the country.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is this the game where we find a few articles about isolated incidents and then project them onto the entire populous as a way to reenforce our pre-existing political biases?

Dude, frivolous lawsuits are all but isolated cases in this country. Where have you been in the last years ?

-t

[Salty]

I think if anything the conservatives are the ones creating a society of lawyers. I mean they're the ones who are about not controlling large companies that have the chance to bully millions, while prevent Joe and Jack from getting married... cause that would destroy the fabric of society... like it did in all those other countries like mine... where unemployment hasn't sky rocketed... just saying...

[turtle777]

Dude, I think you're confusing something.

Most frivolous tort lawsuits are AGAINST large companies, extorting Billions of $$$ for petty sh!t like the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.

How again do the conservatives fit in there ?

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wisdom is the ability to accurately judge right from wrong and act accordingly. While what is "right and wrong" may have no universal definition, simply having the ability to distinguish right from wrong is a pretty clear standard. She's said that her race makes her better able to know right from wrong and act accordingly, assuming that a "white guy" has standards which are not up to snuff because of the color of their skin. That's pretty bigoted by any standard.

Spoken like someone who either A) hasn't read the speech in context, or B) has read the speech and has reading comprehension issues.

She never said anything about her "race" makes her wiser or better able to know right from wrong than some "white guy". The only people talking that foolishness is the Fox News crowd. The entire context of that quote was in regard to seminal Supreme Court decisions that involve and affect women and people of color. What she was saying was that she would hope that a wise Latina woman who had a different and more diverse life experience would reach a better conclusion (in such circumstances) than a wise white male who had not (had such life experience). IOW, America is more than wealthy white males from the Ivy League crowd who's life experience has predominantly been in lily-white, male dominated environments. It's only common sense to expect that a diversity of backgrounds would add to the quality of the decisions made. One would expect that a woman who had to work and who's family has always had women who had to work would bring to the table a more knowledgeable and empathetic perspective than a wealthy white male who's wife and mother were always housewives in a gender discrimination case. Not to say that would always be the case, but more often than not. And if that concept goes over your head then so be it.

Originally Posted by Judge Sotomayor

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - In her own words: Sotomayor 2001 ‘Latina’ speech � - Blogs from CNN.com

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Spoken like someone who either A) hasn't read the speech in context, or B) has read the speech and has reading comprehension issues.

BZZZZT> Wrong answer on both counts.

I read it "in context". She clearly states that she thinks that the fact that she's not white will allow her to make better decisions than a white person. There's really no "context" that helps her bigoted comments look less bigoted. Either she thinks her status as non-white makes her wiser or not. It's no different than a white guy saying that due to his education and upbringing, he thinks he's wise than most black men who don't have his set of experiences. The implication is that unless you live a certain way, you don't have the skills to judge legality for those involved. It's no different than saying people born in poor black families can't really understand white collar crime since they were raised in a situation where their family worked a blue collar lifestyle. The Constitution doesn't change because you are a woman or latino.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, I think you're confusing something.

Most frivolous tort lawsuits are AGAINST large companies, extorting Billions of $$$ for petty sh!t like the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.

How again do the conservatives fit in there ?

-t

Or you could say that that the "conservatives" pushing tort reform are just looking out for the interests of big business and making it harder for the little people to fight back against massive corporations. It's just two sides of the same coin. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, I think you're confusing something.

Most frivolous tort lawsuits are AGAINST large companies, extorting Billions of $$$ for petty sh!t like the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.

How again do the conservatives fit in there ?

-t

Half the examples in the OP were about little guy suing big guy and the other half were about big guy suing little guy. There's more than enough blame to go around.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is this the game where we find a few articles about isolated incidents and then project them onto the entire populous as a way to reenforce our pre-existing political biases?

FUN!

I'm going to dig up a few about the 10 commandments going up in a school or some crazy gun nut going on a killing spree and use it to proof that conservatives are destroying the country.

^ First correct response.

[Buckaroo]

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times

[sek929]

Let's see, Buttcrack Obummer and his socialist dumb-o-quacks with their smellfare and medi-can't systems will.........sorry that's all I got.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Is this the game where we find a few articles about isolated incidents and then project them onto the entire populous as a way to reenforce our pre-existing political biases?

Yup. The same game the left played for 8 straight years.

Gets old pretty quick, doesn't it?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Just as her "standards" aren't going to be as "up to snuff" when it comes to deciding right from wrong for a white guy, because she's not white, and she's not a guy. Duh.

As luck would have it, there are white guys on the court to help her out.

I assume you're being facetious (at least I hope so!) because this soft of stuff seems way beneath you.

Raced-based right and wrong? Racism will NEVER end so long as people even believe there's any such thing as that, and make statements like the above with a straight face. (Which again, I'm truly hoping you weren't).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

BZZZZT> Wrong answer on both counts.

I read it "in context". She clearly states that she thinks that the fact that she's not white will allow her to make better decisions than a white person. There's really no "context" that helps her bigoted comments look less bigoted. Either she thinks her status as non-white makes her wiser or not. It's no different than a white guy saying that due to his education and upbringing, he thinks he's wise than most black men who don't have his set of experiences. The implication is that unless you live a certain way, you don't have the skills to judge legality for those involved. It's no different than saying people born in poor black families can't really understand white collar crime since they were raised in a situation where their family worked a blue collar lifestyle. The Constitution doesn't change because you are a woman or latino.

"It's no different than a white guy saying that due to his education and upbringing, he thinks he's wiser than most black men who don't have his [his education and upbringing]."
That would be a true statement in most circumstances.

Person X having life experiences Y will probably be wiser in regards to those life experiences than Person A having life experiences B. Conversely, Person A having life experiences B will probably be wiser in regards to those life experiences than Person X.


I think the real meat of the question is whether or not life experiences contribute to one's ability to decide matters of law. IANAL but I think life experiences are not nearly as relevant in deciding matters of law as is a fundamental understanding of the law in question. I think a black male bankruptcy/civil/criminal court judge who grew up poor in southside Chicago would be just as good a judge as a white male bankruptcy/civil/criminal court judge who grew up in a life of privilege in suburban Connecticut. Their knowledge of the law and proficiency in analysis of it--not their personal experiences--is what would put these two men from very different backgrounds on the same bankruptcy/civil/criminal court. In this regard, I don't think Judge Sotomayor is nearly as questionable a candidate as some would make her to be. She would not have gotten where she was without being a damned good jurist, regardless of her life experiences.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Raced-based right and wrong?

I'm essentially saying the opposite. A lack of experiences being a certain race, or gender, or whatever are reasons you can screw up a determination of right and wrong.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She clearly states that she thinks that the fact that she's not white will allow her to make better decisions than a white person.

Better than some white people on some issues.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Either she thinks her status as non-white makes her wiser or not.

Wiser than some whites on some issues.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's no different than a white guy saying that due to his education and upbringing, he thinks he's wise than most black men who don't have his set of experiences.

Wiser than some black men on some issues.


Since you seemed to have missed her qualifiers, I felt it was prudent to underline mine.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Most frivolous tort lawsuits are AGAINST large companies, extorting Billions of $$$ for petty sh!t like the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.

This is an interesting case. On the face of it it looks crazy but when you get the details you realize she has every penny coming.

They burned off her genitalia!

The company had a policy to keep coffee at just below boiling. The idea was that 10 minutes down the road it would still be hot. Most coffee is served at about 130 degrees, McDonald's policy was to keep the coffee hotter than 185. This is hot enough cause third degree burns - goes through all layers of skin in just two seconds.

When she opened the lid to add cream she spilled it into her lap - it scaled her, mutilating her clitoris. She spent more than a week in the hospital and required skin grafts. She will never enjoy sex again.

How much money would you want if someone burned off your junk?

Hardly frivolous.

There is no such thing as winning a "frivolous lawsuit". Claims that are truly frivolous get thrown out of court.

These big judgements are part of our checks and balances system. The idea is to sting them enough to make them change their dangerous policy. $2 mil is two days worth of coffee sales at McDonald's, not breaking the bank, but it was enough to get their attention. Before this lawsuit thousands of people were burned by this coffee, hundreds of them badly enough to sue. It wasn't until McDonald's lost big enough to sting that they changed the policy - coffee is kept at a reasonable temp now.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by subego 

Better than some white people on some issues.





Wiser than some whites on some issues.





Wiser than some black men on some issues.


Since you seemed to have missed her qualifiers, I felt it was prudent to underline mine.

So therefore, I am wiser than most latinos to make decisions and I can come to better conclusions on living than most latinos? Is that statement okay?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

So therefore, I am wiser than latinos to make decisions and I can come to better conclusions on living than most latinos? Is that statement okay?

If you change your qualifiers from "most" to "some" then yes, your statement is okay.


Try this analogy to see if it makes more sense to you.
Person X having life experiences Y will probably be wiser in regards to those life experiences than Person A having life experiences B. Conversely, Person A having life experiences B will probably be wiser in regards to those life experiences than Person X.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

This is an interesting case. On the face of it it looks crazy but when you get the details you realize she has every penny coming.

They burned off her genitalia!

The company had a policy to keep coffee at just below boiling. The idea was that 10 minutes down the road it would still be hot. Most coffee is served at about 130 degrees, McDonald's policy was to keep the coffee hotter than 185. This is hot enough cause third degree burns - goes through all layers of skin in just two seconds.

When she opened the lid to add cream she spilled it into her lap - it scaled her, mutilating her clitoris. She spent more than a week in the hospital and required skin grafts. She will never enjoy sex again.

How much money would you want if someone burned off your junk?

Hardly frivolous.

There is no such thing as winning a "frivolous lawsuit". Claims that are truly frivolous get thrown out of court.

These big judgements are part of our checks and balances system. The idea is to sting them enough to make them change their dangerous policy. $2 mil is two days worth of coffee sales at McDonald's, not breaking the bank, but it was enough to get their attention. Before this lawsuit thousands of people were burned by this coffee, hundreds of them badly enough to sue. It wasn't until McDonald's lost big enough to sting that they changed the policy - coffee is kept at a reasonable temp now.

Almost all of us choose to multi-task while driving and as a result we all take a chance on doing something dangerous as a result of our non-driving actions (lighting a smoke, fiddling with radio/CD player/MP3 player, eating, drinking, etc.) while driving. How is McDonalds responsible for the actions of a person who chose to drive a car while simultaneously trying to add cream to coffee? That person is responsible for making the choice to try and drive while adding cream to her coffee. In this instance she failed at multi-tasking and burned herself as a result. I don't see that as the fault of McDonalds. She took a chance on multi-tasking while driving and failed.

Imagine if somebody eating a Whopper takes their eyes off the road to dip their fries in ketchup. When they look back up there is an obstacle in the road and they swerve to avoid it but lose control of their car and crash. Is Burger King responsible for the injuries caused in this accident? Of course not. The person driving the vehicle was not behaving responsibly while driving and as a result the person not behaving responsibly is at fault.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I just can't believe the news nowadays...

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Did you only read the Fox News version of the story?

County won't force permit on Bible study leaders
Jones and his wife, Mary, hold a weekly Bible study at their home that sometimes attracts more than 20 people, with occasional parking issues. Once, a car belonging to a neighbor's visitor got dinged.

...

Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

...

Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.

In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.

Reading a more detailed story than Fox provides, we can see more issues at play here.
- It would appear that neighbours were getting annoyed with the traffic generated by the bible studies.
- It seems that a code enforcement officer chose an inappropriate way to address the issue.
- The county has dropped the issue.

I know that I'd get pretty annoyed if my neighbours were frequently having parties that regularly attracted 6-30 extra cars parking on our street.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, I think you're confusing something.

Most frivolous tort lawsuits are AGAINST large companies, extorting Billions of $$$ for petty sh!t like the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.

How again do the conservatives fit in there ?

-t

Have we had this conversation before?

The McDonald's hot-coffee lawsuit was pretty legit.

Also: it's hilarious that people seem to think that lawyers are going around causing all these problems. Of course, the fact that lawyers don't do **** without someone paying them to do it, never really seems to sink in, does it?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Almost all of us choose to multi-task while driving and as a result we all take a chance on doing something dangerous as a result of our non-driving actions (lighting a smoke, fiddling with radio/CD player/MP3 player, eating, drinking, etc.) while driving. How is McDonalds responsible for the actions of a person who chose to drive a car while simultaneously trying to add cream to coffee? That person is responsible for making the choice to try and drive while adding cream to her coffee. In this instance she failed at multi-tasking and burned herself as a result. I don't see that as the fault of McDonalds. She took a chance on multi-tasking while driving and failed.

Did you even read what he said? McDonald's coffee was too hot. Unreasonably so. Hot enough that there had been many complaints over how unreasonably hot it was, and how dangerous it was if someone spilled the coffee over themselves.

They chose not to do anything about it, and the hot coffee then injured someone in a way that was completely foreseeable. I've spilled hot coffee over my leg or my hand while driving, several times in my life. It never left me with severe skin burns and surgeries and skin grafts, though, did it? That's because those companies recognized the danger of giving people unreasonably hot coffee, and took measures to address the potential danger.

Imagine if somebody eating a Whopper takes their eyes off the road to dip their fries in ketchup. When they look back up there is no an obstacle in the road and they swerve to avoid it but lose control of their car and crash. Is Burger King responsible for the injuries caused in this accident? Of course not. The person driving the vehicle was not behaving responsibly while driving and as a result the person not behaving responsibly is at fault.

Total logic fail: this example is nothing like the McDonald's example. In this case the Whopper didn't do anything. How could she sue Burger King when the Whopper didn't harm her? Your example makes no sense.

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Total logic fail: this example is nothing like the McDonald's example. In this case the Whopper didn't do anything. How could she sue Burger King when the Whopper didn't harm her? Your example makes no sense.

greg

I am not comparing "harm caused by food products" I am comparing "actions taken while driving and their possible results". The point being that the woman contributed to her own scalding by trying to add cream to a coffee while driving a motor vehicle. I think in this instance the majority of the liability for the woman's pain and suffering lies with the woman. Now, if she was sitting inside the McDonalds at a table, spilled the coffee, and scalded her crotch I would be willing to assign more blame/responsibility/culpability to McDonalds but as it was the woman was doing something she shouldn't have been doing* while driving and injured herself as a result.

*Again I want to reiterate that I know most all of us do these types of actions while driving. But simply because most all of us do these types of actions while driving without incident does not absolve us of the responsibility for when something does go wrong while driving and doing something else at the same time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

She spilled the coffee on herself. The fact that she did it while driving is irrelevant because people spill coffee all the time, driving or not. I did it yesterday and I was just standing still. If your only defense against being burnt by coffee is "don't ever spill it," your defense sucks.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

She spilled the coffee on herself. The fact that she did it while driving is irrelevant because people spill coffee all the time, driving or not. I did it yesterday and I was just standing still. If your only defense against being burnt by coffee is "don't ever spill it," your defense sucks.

Umm . . . I don't have a "defense". I have a logical argument.

I have not said that one should never spill their coffee. What I have said, twice now already, is that in the matter of responsibility/culpability in this case, the woman holds more responsibility/culpability than McDonalds for her burns. I did not say there should be no responsibility/culpability on the part of McDonalds. I said that more of the culpability/responsibility lies with the woman then with McDonalds.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That's not what you said at first: "How is McDonalds responsible for the actions of a person who chose to drive a car while simultaneously trying to add cream to coffee?" Now you are answering your own question, the answer is "less responsible but still partly responsible." And her losses (her genitals) were greater than McD's losses (2 days' coffee profits) as well. It sure sounded like you were objecting to at least something that was said already... but I can't figure out what that was.

[ctt1wbw]

Coffee is hot. Don't spill it on yourself. Don't put it inside your crotch.

Don't try to run across I95 during rush hour. Don't put your finger in a wall outlet. Don't eat razor blades. Don't rip that tag off the mattress. How stupid do people get that they don't know these things?