Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: April 03 2009 at 13:50
In my personal case, the question should probably be, "why do you NOT sue?". In the past few years I found myself in at least two instances in which I would have had every right to sue the manure out of the people involved. Unfortunately, in the first instance (which was work-related), I would have ended up doing myself a lot of damage before I was ever awarded compensation (the ministry for whom I worked would have retaliated against me, and the suit would have gone on for years anyway). The second instance was immediately before my departure for the US, and had instead to do with my ill-fated PhD. In this case, I decided not to pursue the matter for obvious reasons - it is not easy to take care of a lawsuit when you are halfway across the world.
Joined: January 04 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1335
Posted: April 03 2009 at 14:24
BaldFriede wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
well ridiculous lawsuits are not necessarily representative of the vast majority of them, and even some of the legitimate ones will be dismissed. I remember is the famous McDonalds one where the woman sued over a hot cup of coffee that burned her when she spilled it. "Insane" most said including me, until I saw the photos of her injury and fond out the coffee had been mistakenly heated to a temperature close to that of the sun.
Coffee can't be heated any more than the temperature of boiling water. And when you make coffee the water is boiling too, so the coffee can
not have been unusually hot. It is physically impossible.
Actually it can be heated to a temperature hotter than that of boiling water (even without added pressure as Negoba stated). Any time a solute is added to a solvent, the boiling point increases and the freezing point decreases. The more things the solute dissociates into, the more drastic the change in temperature is. Anyway, I'm sure that the coffee wasn't drastically hotter than normal coffee which isn't drastically hotter than boiling water. I just wanted to lay down some mad science on this forum.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 03 2009 at 18:26
TheCaptain wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
well ridiculous lawsuits are not necessarily representative of the vast majority of them, and even some of the legitimate ones will be dismissed. I remember is the famous McDonalds one where the woman sued over a hot cup of coffee that burned her when she spilled it. "Insane" most said including me, until I saw the photos of her injury and fond out the coffee had been mistakenly heated to a temperature close to that of the sun.
Coffee can't be heated any more than the temperature of boiling water. And when you make coffee the water is boiling too, so the coffee can not have been unusually hot. It is physically impossible.
Actually it can be heated to a temperature hotter than that of boiling water (even without added pressure as Negoba stated). Any time a solute is added to a solvent, the boiling point increases and the freezing point decreases. The more things the solute dissociates into, the more drastic the change in temperature is. Anyway, I'm sure that the coffee wasn't drastically hotter than normal coffee which isn't drastically hotter than boiling water. I just wanted to lay down some mad science on this forum.
You don't even have to add anything to the water to enable its temperature to be raised to over 100°C, nor do you need to pressurise it - you can do it in a standard cup in a standard microwave oven - it is called superheating and it is very dangerous because the superheated liquid is extremely volatile - simply adding sugar or any rough-surface into the liquid will cause it to violently boil spraying superheated water and water vapour out of the cup.
The boiling point of any liquid is the temperature at which the liquid turns to a gas - in boiling water the gas released is steam and the water temperature will be at 100°C when the gas separates from the liquid. The release of energy in the steam bubbles is equal to the heat energy going into the water, therefore once bubbles form in the water its temperature cannot be raised above the boiling point. The bubbles form at what is called nucleation points - imperfections in the surface of the container that trap small pockets of air which "seeds" the formation of steam bubbles.
However, in superheated water there are no bubbles so the heat energy going into the water has no release and the water temperature rises to over 100°C. This is because the water in a microwave is heated from the centre of the volume of water so the temperature of the container can be below the boiling point, preventing the formation of bubbles.
Superheating can occur in easier in liquid that has been temperature cycled without disturbing the container, since this degases the liquid, reducing the liquid's ability to form bubbles as it approaches the boiling point.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: April 03 2009 at 18:34
The simple answer is "because we can".
If people outside of the US could do it as easily as we do, they'd be doing it too. After three years in law school, my general impression is if the law protects stupid people, then stupid people will use it to protect themselves from their own stupidity. Sorry to say, but eventually this will spread to Europe at the very least. My favorite is the three or four fat teenagers who sued McDonald's for making them fat. Although the woman who tripped over her own child in a furniture store and then successfully sued the furniture store is a close second.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 03 2009 at 19:06
yep... and the article made clear that facts sort of got lost in the tabloid nature of the whole affair... like David I laughed about it at first.. and wondered how much I could get for spilling my coffee in my crotch ...
see that youtube video of yours... hell forget that.... what about poor David... did I hear him say earlier he SAW pictures of the aftereffects of that
oh I am bad...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: April 03 2009 at 19:18
cacho wrote:
Here in Argentina the question would be: Why don't you sue?
And the simple answer would be: because justice/trials/whatever takes years here, it's not worth it, believe me
Same as in Italy, though people do sue. For years I dreamed about suing the Ministry for the moral (and material) damage they did to me, but then life rewarded me in a different way, and now I'd rather enjoy what I have than spend money on a lawsuit.
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
Posted: April 03 2009 at 19:24
Raff wrote:
cacho wrote:
Here in Argentina the question would be: Why don't you sue?
And the simple answer would be: because justice/trials/whatever takes years here, it's not worth it, believe me
Same as in Italy, though people do sue. For years I dreamed about suing the Ministry for the moral (and material) damage they did to me, but then life rewarded me in a different way, and now I'd rather enjoy what I have than spend money on a lawsuit.
that's the cool heavy prog team you're leading, right?...hope you told that to Micky, he wouldn't be up to such a surprise, would he?
Just kidding....always, me, getting off-topic, and making silly jokes....
Seriously, back on topic, my brother crashed last year, and still NOTHING has happened, however, my father got sick of waiting, and took the car to a mechanic to fix it, and pay it himself.... hopefully some justice will arise...
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: flyover country
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
Posted: April 03 2009 at 19:57
rpe9p wrote:
Ive got no real problem with the system, I just wish there were not so many lawyers so that there wouldnt be so many frivolous lawsuits. People do something stupid, and there are a thousand lawyers waiting there to help the person blame anyone but themself.
THIS. There's way too many lawyers out there, and every one of them wants to earn a living. So they create work for themselves. How? Hel-LO frivolous lawsuits!
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 04 2009 at 07:47
visitor2035 wrote:
Apart from greed there are no sufficent answers to why you would sue.
For you maybe, (not that you'll appear particularly receptive to other peoples answers), people sue for compensation for loss caused by the negligence of others. That negligence is often driven by greed so it is only fair that those greedy people are made to pay for causing the accident.
If someone runs into the back of your car you expect that person's insurance company to pay for the damage repair, and you certainly don't expect to have to pay for the repair of the other car (you have already decided balme in this case - it was not a knock-for-knock blameless accident - a rear-end shunt is always the fault of the person who shunted you.). If you receive a physical injury in that accident you will get NHS treatment so why claim for compensation for that? Because of loss of earnings, because "out-of-pocket" expenses caused by having restricted movement or no transport, maybe from now on you have to have specially adapted equipment to enable you to go about your daily life - this costs you money that you would not have to spend if the accident never happened - and because perhaps the quality of your life is now restricted through no fault of your own. (How can you put a price on quality of life? There is no magic formula and no figure will ever be right, but I can tell you it isn't "nothing").
So don't give me "accidents happen" because there is no such thing as a blame-free accident - all man-made accidents are caused by the carelessness, negligence or down-right stupidity of someone, and by that, most accidents are preventable (all are preventable in hindsight).- if you can prove that the person responsible did not take proper precautions to ensure your safety then you have a right to compensation for their neglect... the Prosecution services may even do that for you where criminal neglect is involved.
Modern employment law is structured so the company owners, management and directors are responsible for the safety of their workforce - this is not so we can sue the nuts off them when we have an accident, it is to ensure that they comply with safety procedures to protect themselves from being sued. They in turn place that responsibility back onto the employee - all employees are responsible for their own safety and that of their co-workers. This means that you have the right to refuse to do something you deem as unsafe. We have a Manual Handling safety demonstration every year - if I then put my back put lifting a PC monitor that is now my fault and I cannot sue the company (in fact they could fire me for breaking safety codes and rendering myself unfit for work).
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 04 2009 at 07:59
I remember the case of a former coworker at a company I used to work with....
was trying to repair a light .. working on the top step of an 8 foot ladder and dropped a screw and did the natural thing and reached out to catch it and fell. Broke both of his elbows and arms. .and was out of work for almost a year. During the time while he was gone... certain unsavory aspects of his personal life came out.. nothing illegal.. but not exactly upstanding behavior either. What it was though was in his personal life and did not reflect upon his job or preformance of his job.
The company was going to fire him when he came back to work... so what did he do... he got a lawyer and threatened to sue the company... not only did they not fire him... they promoted him to management. Personally I thought the guy was a scumbag... but he turned to the legal apparatus and tools to make sure he as not trampled on as a worker...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 04 2009 at 08:27
^ we had some equipment delivered in the early morning - the only people around were a collegue and his technician - rather than wait for the rest of us to arrive, they decided to move it themselves. Needless to say, it toppled and crushed the tech's leg, putting him in traction for several months - he could have sued the company and my collegue, he did not, but he did claim for compensation and won. My collegue had to live with the guilt of seeing a once athletic young lad limping around with one leg now shorter than the other - it had a profound affect on him that no one could help with - you could say that both parties were damaged in that accident.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.