Wal-Mart sued for improperly assembled bicycle

[Tom Kunich]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
> yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
> shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
> acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
> injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread
> around whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders
> running stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all
> thoughtless and careless actions on the rider's part.

Carl, maybe you ought to start watching driver's behavior when you're
driving next time. I am growing more and more surprised that these people
are being allowed to drive in such a manner! I was pulled over by the
Highway Patrol and my car was seized and towed because it had an out of date
license sticker (DMV made an entry mistake saying I owned money on the car
and so the finance company owned it - trouble is that there was no other
name on the pink slip and hence PLAINLY there was no finance company to own
it).

While that officer was doing that there were tractor trailers passing us IN
THE COMMUTER LANES at 70 mph. After towing my vehicle the officer got back
in her car and drove back to the office where she was awarded (no kidding!)
Officer of the Month.

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
>> yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
>> shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
>> acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
>> injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread
>> around whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders
>> running stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all
>> thoughtless and careless actions on the rider's part.
>
> Carl, maybe you ought to start watching driver's behavior when you're
> driving next time. I am growing more and more surprised that these people
> are being allowed to drive in such a manner! I was pulled over by the
> Highway Patrol and my car was seized and towed because it had an out of
> date license sticker (DMV made an entry mistake saying I owned money on
> the car and so the finance company owned it - trouble is that there was no
> other name on the pink slip and hence PLAINLY there was no finance company
> to own it).
>
> While that officer was doing that there were tractor trailers passing us
> IN THE COMMUTER LANES at 70 mph. After towing my vehicle the officer got
> back in her car and drove back to the office where she was awarded (no
> kidding!) Officer of the Month.
>

Tom,

I'm not saying there isn't much reprehensible conduct on the part of motor
vehicle drivers. There is far too much and it does seem to be getting worse
daily. Regardless, what happened to you does not change the fact that some
bicycle riders are at fault in tragic accidents and that some drivers suffer
emotionally for it.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm not saying there isn't much reprehensible conduct on the part of motor
> vehicle drivers. There is far too much and it does seem to be getting
> worse daily. Regardless, what happened to you does not change the fact
> that some bicycle riders are at fault in tragic accidents and that some
> drivers suffer emotionally for it.

I'll agree that many bicycle accidents are caused by the rider. Even the
people I ride with will often run stop signs without looking. While I also
will run back street stop signs, I only do so when I can see that it is
clear.

And I have seen bicyclists (thank heavens none that I ride with) run stop
lights THROUGH MOVING TRAFFIC.

Stupidity knows no bounds. Just because you're on a bicycle doesn't make you
smart.

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:29:17 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>Sorry but you're wrong.
>
>If someone buys HOT COFFEE and doesn't know it's hot then it is a clear case
>of Buyer Beware.

You don't understand the difference between HOT and DANGEROUS to human
flesh. Thankfully the court did.

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:00:25 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>Dear Andrew,
>
>She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.
>
>You might want to look into the other details and reconsider things.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

And you could google for more. I no longer have the journal on hand
that described the case and testimony in detail. The burns were
severe. Again, it's important to note that she didn't sue initially,
she just asked Mc Donalds for help with the sizeable ($10K) medical
bills related to the grafts and treatment.

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>come sailing through.
>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>10mph)
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
whichever you chose to do was wrong.

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
>> how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
>> surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
>> skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
>> the hospital?
>
>Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
>cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
>it without spilling it all over yourself.

That wasn't the issue - even McDonalds didn't argue that point.

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!

And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

>I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>anything. Here's why.

The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
their decision.

>And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>aren't being sued and vilified.
>

I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
could choose to argue.

>Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.

Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
that she sued.

This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
hand.

 

[* * Chas]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
> canada wrote:
>
> >What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
> >sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
> >road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
> >come sailing through.
> >Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
> >wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
> >10mph)
> >** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
> act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
> accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
> whichever you chose to do was wrong.
>
>

In California, to be considered a pedestrian you have to dismount and walk
beside the bike. Not too long ago, there were communities that required
cyclist to dismount and walk their bikes across intersections. Most if not
all of these rulings have been struck down.

I've noticed recently that several communities in the Bay Area have
started enforcing traffic laws with regards to violations committed by
cyclists. The minimum fines are usually ~$149 or $271 USD - PLUS court
costs which can total up to several hundred additional dollars.

Citations can be treated the same as CA motor vehicle moving violations
and can be charged against your driving record which could affect your
automobile insurance rates. They can also be treated as local violations
and not reported to the state.

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
> And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
> weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
> that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
> McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
> mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.
>
> >I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
> >their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
> >anything. Here's why.
>
> The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
> are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
> McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
> danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
> the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
> what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
> their decision.
>
> >And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> >scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> >I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
> >with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
> >over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
> >aren't being sued and vilified.
> >
>
> I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
> required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
> house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
> insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
> could choose to argue.
>
> >Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
> Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
> cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
> rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
> that she sued.
>
> This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
> hand.

I'm not trying to defend McDonald's per se but on the other side of the
coin, have you ever been in a restaurant where a noisy annoying customer
was *****ing that their coffee was cold?

Contrary to the advertised image, it's not as if McDonald's is a giant
monolith. Many McDonald's are owned by franchise operators and 600
complaints is not a large number for an operation the size of McDonald's.
How many complaint have they received that their coffee was cold?

Chas.

 

[A Muzi]

-snip meandering conversation-

> A Muzi <[email protected]>
-snip rant-

[email protected] wrote:
> She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.

In that event, I was both off topic and out of line (ranting about
distracted drivers drinking coffee while almost driving).
Sorry.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
> > how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
> > surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
> > skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
> > the hospital?
>
> Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
> cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
> it without spilling it all over yourself.

Maybe she had a drinking problem.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:48:03 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>-snip meandering conversation-
>
>> A Muzi <[email protected]>
>-snip rant-
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.
>
>In that event, I was both off topic and out of line (ranting about
>distracted drivers drinking coffee while almost driving).
>Sorry.

Dear Andrew,

I wish that I--

Er, that the rest of us on RBT could handle our oops! moments as well
as you do.

For what it's worth, here's a page with many of the details of the
case:
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

The only tricky part is that the page may display a "0" for the degree
sign, so 1800 means 180 degrees, 200 means 20 degrees, and so forth.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 9:56 am, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:29:17 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>
> com> wrote:
> >Sorry but you're wrong.
>
> >If someone buys HOT COFFEE and doesn't know it's hot then it is a clear case
> >of Buyer Beware.
>
> You don't understand the difference between HOT and DANGEROUS to human
> flesh. Thankfully the court did.

Again, what about tea? It's properly made by using boiling water.
It's properly served very hot. This has been true for many hundreds
of years. See http://pages.ripco.net/~c4ha2na9/tea/faq.html

Yet that same water is - OMG! - also "DANGEROUS to human flesh"!!!

Is it just that tea drinkers are intelligent enough to understand that
hot water can harm you, and coffee drinkers need to be constantly
reminded of what every first grader knows?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[still just me]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
>DANGEROUS?

Yes it is. Someone may get sued over it. Selling dangerous products to
customers increases your liability dramatically. Any place that gives
scalding hot products to customers should think about the risk they
take in doing that. They should probably serve water at 140 degrees or
less. Certainly some tea gourmet will claim that they can tell the
difference between tea made at 160 degrees and tea made at 140 degrees
but I really have my doubts they could ID it in a blind taste test.

Would the tea shop be found liable for a burn? I dunno, but if there
were repeated written claims on file against them in their own records
and there was documentation that the issue and potential danger had
been discussed internally at the company, then they'd have some
serious exposure.

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:03:02 GMT, still just me
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
>canada wrote:
>
>>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>>come sailing through.
>>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>>10mph)
>>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
>act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
>accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
>whichever you chose to do was wrong.
>
In Canada a cyclist is a VEHICLE, but not a motor vehicle, and is
bound by ALL "rules of the road".
Only kids under a certain age, on bikes under a certain size are
allowed to ride on the sidewalk (by bylaw in some towns/cities) - and
ALL cyclists are required to dismount if using a crosswalk. That's the
LAW - at least here in Ontario.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:17:52 GMT, still just me
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
>And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
>weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
>that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
>McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
>mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

That's funny, I've been using Propane, MAP, and Acelylene torches for
almost 50 years without incident. I've never, in over 50 years
operating power lawnmowers been injured by one, nor have I ever been
injured by a ladder.

They are expected to be dangerous???
No, they just demand to be respected - as does a cup of hot coffee.

People have just lost respect for just about anything or anybody, and
are not willing to take responsibility for their actions.

If I buy a hot tea or hot chocolate ANYWHERE (I don't drink coffee) I
KNOW I need to be very carefull or I will burn my mouth and be sore
for several days. I also KNOW that if I spill it on myself I will pay
for it in pain.
Just like I KNOW that if the torch is lit, it must be pointed away
from myself and anything flammable or of a low melting point.
Or like I KNOW to keep my hands and feet out from under a running
lawn-mower and not to direct the discharge towards antone or anything
fragile.
Or like I KNOW the ladder needs to be set up properly on a solid base
and safely tied off.
>
>>I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>>their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>>anything. Here's why.
>
>The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
>are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
>McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
>danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
>the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
>what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
>their decision.
>
>>And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>>scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>>I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>>with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>>over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>>aren't being sued and vilified.
>>
>
>I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
>required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
>house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
>insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
>could choose to argue.
>
>>Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
>Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
>cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
>rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
>that she sued.
>
>This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
>hand.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:37 -0600, [email protected] wrote:


>
>Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
>and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
>drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Hot tea and hot coffee in drivethroughs is the HEIGHT of stupidity.
Kinda like the Braille on drivethrough cash machines.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:28:28 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:37 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
>>and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
>>drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>Hot tea and hot coffee in drivethroughs is the HEIGHT of stupidity.
>Kinda like the Braille on drivethrough cash machines.
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Dear Clare,

Many blind people get rides from friends, relatives, and taxis and
enjoy the convenience of using drive-through cash machines as
passengers even more than you and I do.

Naturally, they don't want to tell taxi drivers their PINs.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[* * Chas]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
> >DANGEROUS?
>
> Yes it is. Someone may get sued over it. Selling dangerous products to
> customers increases your liability dramatically. Any place that gives
> scalding hot products to customers should think about the risk they
> take in doing that. They should probably serve water at 140 degrees or
> less. Certainly some tea gourmet will claim that they can tell the
> difference between tea made at 160 degrees and tea made at 140 degrees
> but I really have my doubts they could ID it in a blind taste test.
>
> Would the tea shop be found liable for a burn? I dunno, but if there
> were repeated written claims on file against them in their own records
> and there was documentation that the issue and potential danger had
> been discussed internally at the company, then they'd have some
> serious exposure.

What about hot pizza? Bubbling hot melted cheese on top of a pizza can
certainly burn the roof of your mouth, tongue, lips and throat. Do you see
warning signs in pizzerias? What part of hot didn't you learn as a child?

Most microwavable foods have warnings about possible injuries caused by
heat or steam.

The question is how actively should we protect people from themselves? I
used to go to Europe for 2-3 weeks at a time on business. When I would
return to the US I was always amazed at the large number of rules and
regulations designed to protect us (US) from ourselves.

The US is the most litigatious culture in the world. I believe in strongly
prosecuting companies and individuals who consciously market defective
goods or services but a reasonable amount of common sense needs to
prevail.

Chas.