Are you serious?

[BlackBII]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11062201?source=rss

"Vegas Police Officers suing a Taser company saying the company failed to properly warn the department about the potential for injury."

What happened to common sense?

Like the people suing for the kid attacked by a bear....Your in the freakin forest! Duh!

 

[truckmanson]

my all time favorite was when mcdonalds was sued for burns suffered by a driver spilling HOT coffee. everyone is too happy to sue now days

 

[OldJunk]

Why not? people have been trying to sue Smith & Wesson for years.......what a joke.

 

[dburton07]

my all time favorite was when mcdonalds was sued for burns suffered by a driver spilling HOT coffee. everyone is too happy to sue now days

that was dunkin donuts, but a couple girls sued mcdonalds and won because it made them obese

 

[Sunk]

Dee de Dee....

 

[Shran]

that was dunkin donuts, but a couple girls sued mcdonalds and won because it made them obese

McDonald's got sued too. The story as I heard it goes like this:

Lady orders coffee at the drivethru, and pulls up to the window. The employee starts to hand her the cup of coffee, but notices that she is nude from the waist down and drops the cup into her lap as a result of the surprise. She sues for burns to the genitals. I don't remember who won.

 

[metalmacguyver]

Dee de Dee....

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I heard there once was a guy who sued a motorhome manufacturer (Winnabago maybe?) when he set the cruise on the highway and went back to make a cup of coffee, the motorhome crashed and he sued for the motorhome and injuries, and WON because it wasnt specifacly stated in the owners manual that cruise control did not control steering.

later,
Dustin

 

[Mac]

The company I used to work for got sued by the widow of a comercial pilot, he walked into a still rotatating propeller. I thought that's why the tips are usually painted. The lawers said that the prop should have stopped right now. Now you would think that he would have known better after sitting there for many hours looking out his window. I was on a jury trial once when again the widow was suing, her husband has been painting their new house and instead of putting the 22 ft aluminum extension ladder down to move, he kept it extended to move to the other side of the house when he hit the incoming power cables. Lawers said the lines should have been insulated even though they were the legal 22 ft ground clearence. Another Darwin winner!
Dave

 

[97BlackBetty]

I hate people.

 

[BLOODBANE]

The McDonalds thing was real. The woman ordered the cup of coffee in the drive thru. When she got the coffee, she took the lid off, and put it between her legs. She then drove off, and got burned. Her attorneys and her claimed it was hotter than its suppose to be(it was 2 degrees hotter than normal, crazy because coffee is suppose to be hot)

 

[shadetree]

None of the above about McDonalds is true. For those who GAS:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

shady

 

[1996 fordranger 4x4 stx]

FACT, old lady sues McDonald's over coffee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the “McDonald's coffee case,” is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation;[2] ABC News calls the case “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”[3]

Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming that it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served any other place. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[4] Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially accurate; note that the vast majority of judges to consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury; and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing.[5][6]

 

[truckmanson]

that was dunkin donuts, but a couple girls sued mcdonalds and won because it made them obese

might have been dunkin donuts to but I do know there was a case against mcdonalds to

 

[Confederate Forge]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11062201?source=rss

"Vegas Police Officers suing a Taser company saying the company failed to properly warn the department about the potential for injury."

What happened to common sense?

Like the people suing for the kid attacked by a bear....Your in the freakin forest! Duh!

Funny thing is they will more than likely win since they are the "good guys".