- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:49 am to Cump11b
quote:hot coffee is hot coffee.
she won because McDonald's was heating their coffee up to temperatures hot enough to cause second and third degree burns
quote:i dont agree with that.
They were negligent in heating their coffee up that hot.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:49 am to OweO
quote:
I am curious about the sugarcane truck drivers.
They get paid by the number of loads of sugarcane they are able to deliver, now that many of them have to go around, I am sure it is costing them big time. Friday, I saw about 6 or 7 sugarcane trucks hauling arse down HWY 1 towards Donaldsonville.
so what are you curious about?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:51 am to Lutcher Lad
quote:so you are trash.
Bring on the down votes...it shows what side of the river you're from!
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:52 am to OweO
quote:
I am curious about the sugarcane truck drivers.
They get paid by the number of loads of sugarcane they are able to deliver, now that many of them have to go around, I am sure it is costing them big time. Friday, I saw about 6 or 7 sugarcane trucks hauling arse down HWY 1 towards Donaldsonville.
If the USA gets less access to sugar will that be so bad?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 10:57 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:i dont.
I think its reasonable for them to expect some compensation for their actual increased expenses related to the bridge being closed f
Posted on 10/16/18 at 11:08 am to BamaTiger00
quote:thats interesting. so she really only got 160k for her hospital bills. then she lucked out and got the million because they were punishing McDonalds because of their habitual contempt of previous lawsuits.
There's a reason that a Wake Forest professor called this lawsuit the “the most misunderstood story in America.”
- Happened in 1992. Liebeck was sitting passenger. While the car was stopped, she removed the lid and accidentally poured the hot coffee on her lap.
- She received 3rd degree burns to over 16% of her body.
She was hospitalized for 8 days and had multiple skin grafts and scarring for over two years thereafter.
- Liebeck attempted to settle the matter for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused.
- During the trial, it was established that McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 – 190 degrees Fahrenheit, that liquids at this temperature could cause third degree burns within seconds, that McDonald's had been warned about these dangerous temperatures on numerous occasions through other burn victims and lawsuits, that the coffee was not fit for consumption, that McDonald’s did not warn its customers, and that they had no plans to change their procedures.
- The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault, and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s conduct. The punitive damages award was reduced and the parties later settled post-verdict.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 11:14 am to CarRamrod
quote:
thats interesting. so she really only got 160k for her hospital bills. then she lucked out and got the million because they were punishing McDonalds because of their habitual contempt of previous lawsuits.
Yes. The $160K was to cover her medical bills, which were established at trial. And you can bet that her insurance carrier had subrogation rights, so there's no way she got to keep the entire $160K.
The million dollar punitive damage award was reduced by the court and then the parties settled. The settlement figure is confidential and was never released. There's no telling what she actually walked away with. May have been a few hundred grand. May have been a million or 2.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 11:15 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
I'm not saying those people should get money just for being inconvenienced, but I think its reasonable for them to expect some compensation for their actual increased expenses
I suggest hiring an attorney.
Pay the attorney 2,000 to recoup the $1300 that you lost.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 11:18 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Stop detailing the thread.
How am I detailing this thread?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 11:25 am to Lutcher Lad
quote:
Bring on the down votes...it shows what side of the river you're from! And I assume most of them are from folks who aren't bothered by the incident and inconvenience at all.
exactly. Why should I be upset over your inconvenience (or theirs)? Buck up buttercup, you've got a long drive ahead of you.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 11:47 am to Ash Williams
quote:
Jones Act
The Jones Act is an old protectionist law from Woodrow Wilson whereby any cargo shipped from port-to-port in the US must be done by US ships with at least 75% US citizens onboard.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 12:18 pm to Supermoto Tiger
quote:
I suggest hiring an attorney.
Pay the attorney 2,000 to recoup the $1300 that you lost.
Not my problem since it doesn't affect me, but plaintiffs wouldn't have to come out of pocket to pay an attorney if its a class action. Gordon just gonna get his cut of the settlement after he gets it done.
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:19 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
If someone lives in Donaldsonville and works in Gonzales, they have to go 20 miles out of their way now to get to the Gramercy bridge now. Thats an extra 80 miles per day round trip. Assuming average of 20 MPG, thats about an extra $50/week in fuel costs for someone to get to their job because of the bridge being out.
If the bridge is out 6 months for repairs, someone who works across the river 5 days a week is looking at roughly $1300 in extra fuel costs alone, not even taking into account an extra 10,000 miles of wear on their vehicle plus extra time spent commuting.
I'm not saying those people should get money just for being inconvenienced, but I think its reasonable for them to expect some compensation for their actual increased expenses related to the bridge being closed for an extended time.
I wasn't aware any of these parties were obligated to continue their at will employment through this ordeal.
Some of you are so stupid it's insane
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:22 pm to OweO
quote:
I didn't read the entire OP at first.
It's like three sentences. Do you just look for reasons to word vomit all over every thread?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:24 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
I'm not saying those people should get money just for being inconvenienced, but I think its reasonable for them to expect some compensation for their actual increased expenses related to the bridge being closed for an extended time.
so what are you saying?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:27 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
I wasn't aware any of these parties were obligated to continue their at will employment through this ordeal
So they should have to take on an increased financial burden, or quit their jobs because of the reckless actions of others?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:27 pm to Ed Osteen
quote:
I'm not saying those people should get money just for being inconvenienced, but I think its reasonable for them to expect some compensation for their actual increased expenses
so they should file a class action law suit, but not get money but get compensated? Should they sue the barge company to get more paid time off from their employers or something?
What an incoherent retarded statement
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:29 pm to dfintlyHmmrd
quote:
So they should have to take on an increased financial burden, or quit their jobs because of the reckless actions of others?
Is increased traffic really a material and measurable loss? Who was the negligent party? Barge company? Engineering firm that designed the bridge? Port Authority? Do you really want to litigate that and should we really start suing each other for extra time in the car?
Posted on 10/16/18 at 1:29 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
He means they should receive compensation for the their actual losses related to having to take a much longer route to work, they should not receive any punitive damages for their misery of having to travel a much longer route.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News