Cl

"CC"

30/06/2009 5:42 AM

friends working together in shop

Not talking about job workshops, but
working with friends on projects at home shop.
Looking for some advise or experiences.
My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
from possible legal problems associated with
an accident. How do you protect yourself
without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
making sure they know how to use tools safely
but what else.
CC


This topic has 72 replies

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 6:01 AM

On Jun 30, 1:42=A0am, "CC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not talking about job workshops, but
> working with friends on projects at home shop.
> Looking for some advise or experiences.
> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself
> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
> with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
> making sure they know how to use tools safely
> but what else.
> CC

I have only one piece of advice---> read Robert's (nailshooter) post
three times, take 3 asprin and call your lawyer and insurance broker
in the morning. DO NOT proceed without doing that.
I spent 560 hours of pay to someone to look after just that kinda
paperwork, in 2008, just to cover my butt.
Even if your friends broke into your shop and used your tools without
your permission, you could liable.
It can be that bad.
The short answer: don't.

A good friend of mine is heavily involved with church youth-groups. He
wanted to take a dozen boys and girls and have them make simple
projects in his (my old) shop. The bullshit was HUGE. Parents signed
waivers, the kids could not touch anything that was plugged in, or
attached to an air-hose. Just nuts.
So he decided to take them on a hike instead.......oh really? you say?
Hello? A group over 5? Where's the nurse? Has this guide ever had a
parking ticket? Overdue library books?

The Nanny State is out of control.

Fucking liberals.

kk

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:12 AM

On Jul 2, 12:30=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > CC wrote:
>
> >> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> >> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> >> screw someone for their mistakes.
>
> > That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
> > is hot, deal with it".
>
> > The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
> > her skin. =A0McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
> > places keep theirs at 140 or so. =A0At 155 or less, the coffee would
> > have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. =A0At the higher
> > temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
> > bad enough that she needed skin grafts. =A0Initially she tried to
> > settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>
> No, the case _is_ that coffee is hot, deal with it.
>
> The ANSI standard for coffee makers requires that the holding temperature=
be
> not less than 170F, and between 170 and 205F. =A0Most engineers would spl=
it
> the difference and design to hold at 187.5, allowing the largest possible
> margins in both directions.
>
> Similar lawsuits brought against McDonalds in the UK have failed. =A0A la=
wsuit
> brought against Bunn-O-Matic on similar grounds failed. =A0 =A0As for "mo=
st
> other places keeping theirs at 140 or so", that would, I guess, be most
> other places besides Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Wendys, and Burger King, a=
ll
> of which require similar holding temperatures and all of which have been
> sued on similar grounds.

"Similar grounds"? Very punny.

nn

nhurst

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 8:18 AM

On Jul 1, 9:46=A0am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> >> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> >> screw someone for their mistakes.
>
> > The problem isn't that everyone is ready to sue at the drop of a hat, i=
t's
> > because people like your McD's coffee spill woman sue and actually win.
> > After that happens, the incentive is there for everybody to sue. When t=
he
> > system decides it's easier to pay off someone than spend the money on
> > lawyers for court proceedings, than it's exactly the same has hanging o=
ut a
> > sign that says "Free Money".
>
> I believe the largest cost of health care is the insurance for liability
> protection that doctors, hospitals, manufacturers, etc. must carry to
> protect themselves from frivolous law suits. =A0While people like to
> believe medicine is an exact science, all of the testing done to show
> the safety and effects of a medicine is based on statistics. =A0While the
> statistic can define the general trends of the medication, any
> conclusions on one individual based on those statistical conclusions are
> not valid as each person is different.
>
> If obama wants to reform health care they will place a cap on medical
> liability lawsuits. =A0They also need to define what should be considered
> medical malpractice. An bandage left in the patient would be
> malpractice, a drug not responding as expected would not.

It won't help. Florida did that in 2003, even though insurance
companies said that capping lawsuit damages won't affect their rates.
http://www.medrants.com/archives/1401 (a random link gotten by
Googling: florida malpractice cap, insurance).

Here's another article in which an actual malpractice insurer says
caps don't help:
http://www.bethjanicek.com/NEWS/4-10-26CapsUseless.htm

The problem with the insurance companies is that they're being hit as
hard as the rest of us in economic downturns. They're answer to
maintain profitability is to raise rates.

-Nathan

Cl

"CC"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 3:31 AM


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9182b89d-add6-40a5-b7c1-3d5078168b64@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 11:38 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > will ask you, "then how do you know you are using it the correct way,
>> > the safest way? And what in the world qualified you to be a teacher?"
>>
>> Left some blood (less than many, more than most) on foreign soil,
>> supposedly to "defend" this country and what it(once) stood for.
>>
>> Now, just "why" was that again ...??
>
> Anymore Karl, I just don't know. I don't know. I sure don't feel
> like the Liberty Bell rings like it used to.
>
> I don't know if I am turning into just another grouchy old shit, or if
> I am just fed up with just about everything because of the way things
> are going, and actually have been going for some time.
>
> When I see how badly our legal system has been perverted, and how it
> affects even the most innocent events of our lives, I am literally
> confounded.
>
> I feel sometimes like I understand how things work, but certainly not
> why.
>
> I found out a lot of the things I mentioned in this thread because I
> was working with someone that wanted to teach woodworking classes in
> his large outbuilding. He has a nice shop, but doesn't know how to
> use the tools, so that's where I was to come in.
>
> We thought it would be fun (possibly make a few bucks) to teach some
> of the older retiring fellows woodworking as a hobby, or even perhaps
> a second profession. I liked working with the older guys (early-mid
> 70s or so) in our old woodworking club, so I thought "why not?".
>
> After several meetings with his insurance provider, we decided the
> liabilities would be too great. After researching the whole idea
> completely, we let it drop. I couldn't afford the insurance, nor
> could he. The recommended amount of insurance was to be $1,000,000
> per person, per occurance. Also, they wanted to raise the General
> Liability on the home to something like $5,000,000.
>
> And the policy would only be granted after a shop inspection by an
> OSHA approved insurance adjuster to verify that all compliance issues
> were in order. The inspection fee BTW from a third party inspector
> was about $1000, and the property had to be reinspected once a year
> before renewal.
>
> As one time (one job) safety compliance officer on a construction
> project, I knew it would be impossible to get the guys to wear the
> protective equipment every minute in the shop. Besides, most older
> guys think safety gear is for pussies.
>
> We decided to give up the idea of a casual woodworking school.
>
> I know this isn't the same thing as CC asked about originally, but you
> can see the distinct parallels.
>
> And apparently, there is no end to this madness. I have seen some of
> the new laws proposed, and they are completely absurd and work against
> the public good. All they are doing with most of the new laws is to
> create new grounds for lucrative legal actions.
>
> Gee... with almost every politician now being an attorney, I wonder
> how that happened....
>
> I think at this stage of the game in the court/legal system you would
> be better off to be a law breaker constantly breaking the law than to
> face the consequences of being a law abiding citizen that breaks the
> law unknowingly.
>
> Robert

I agree with you about the legal system Robert,
I've been around 62 years and the changes in attitudes of people
and the lawyers are making things ridiculous.
Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes. And at the forefront with their
hands in the pockets of all concerned is the lawyers. They gonna
win either way. (win or loose) The system has become as greedy
as wall street and the rest of the bunch that has melted down. And
with everything else going to hell... there's the legal system still
raking it in from both ends
CC

Uu

"Upscale"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 1:41 AM


"CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> screw someone for their mistakes.

The problem isn't that everyone is ready to sue at the drop of a hat, it's
because people like your McD's coffee spill woman sue and actually win.
After that happens, the incentive is there for everybody to sue. When the
system decides it's easier to pay off someone than spend the money on
lawyers for court proceedings, than it's exactly the same has hanging out a
sign that says "Free Money".

Uu

"Upscale"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:59 AM


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Typically that proportion suggests
> the problem lies with the user not the provider.
>
> Same as Microsoft Windows.

Shit disturber!

nn

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 9:10 AM

On Jun 30, 9:55 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't know if the shop would qualify as the "attractive nuisance"
> hazard since it isn't outside tempting the neighbor kids as the pool but
> certainly the possibility of a potentially serious (read "expensive")
> accident is raised w/ power tools.

It isn't an attractive nuisance. It is considered something far
worse, which thankfully, the name escapes me. But it has to do with
you holding meetings/get togethers or what ever you want to call them
in unsafe or unsupervised conditions. I will personally guarantee
that sight unseen I could go into anyone's shop, mine included and
find a half dozen OSHA violations in just minutes, rendering them
unsafe. And if you know they exist (loose rung on a ladder, poor dust
ventilation, ungrounded plug, etc.) then you could be found negligent.

All an attorney has to do in open court is to get you to admit that
you knew you had a frayed wire, a plane with a worn out frog that lets
the blade slip, a saw with a guard doesn't return to cover the blade
in a crisp manner, and you are toast. If you admit to one thing, it
is the same as admitting you knew all along there were unsafe
conditions in your shop, thus making it a >>unnecessarily<< dangerous
place.

You will be questioned as well as to who trained you (and their
qualifications) if someone gets hurt while using tools under your
tutelage. Believe me, the "I learned it from an old fella that had
been doing it for 30 years" won't count. You won't believe what a
dumbass you will feel like when they ask you, "how did you learn to
use this tool?" and make you state you had no "formal" training.

Knowing you didn't take a class to use a circular saw, the (attorneys)
will ask you, "then how do you know you are using it the correct way,
the safest way? And what in the world qualified you to be a teacher?"

As important, the question will be asked concerning your "plan" for
first aid. What was it? Did you know people can get hurt using edged
or powered tools? You knew that, right? OK.... then what were you
prepared to do about it? Do you even have the proper sized first aid
kit for 3-4 people in the shop?

And the worst sin possible? To sell anything that you make in the
shop/not shop. That defines it as a commercial enterprise. I think
you actually have to sell a dollar amount, but it's pretty low.

Can anyone here tell I have been sued more than once?

> The facts are that "friends" and/or even more likely w/ "just neighbors"
> is that the friendship or acquaintanceship will disappear if there is an
> accident of any consequence and the insurance companies get involved.
> At that point it becomes a case of what the actual legal liabilities
> are, friendship or no.

Absolutely true. And the insurance companies don't care who was
friends or not. They will take all responsibility, common sense, and
well meaning efforts out of the equation.

The key here is to understand that the insurance companies will take
control of who pays what, who sues who, and how it all comes together
completely away from the homeowner. They will do what they need to do
to protect their own interests, with or without your participation or
input. In some high ticket settlements, they will sue each other just
to mitigate the losses they face. You will have absolutely no control
whatsoever in their actions.

For example, my insurance my and I were talking about this situation,
and he went to a class to renew his license a few years ago. An
example they studied was where the insureds were doing exactly as CC
described. But in his case study, the example folks had a rule of
putting in $5 a week for refreshments and to contribute a couple of
bucks for the use of the facility (aka - the garage).

Since they ragged each other to make sure they collected so they would
have money in the kitty for cold drinks, a possible lunch, and maybe a
cold beer at the end of a hot summer day, they were considered dues.
Dues were defined >very< simply as a set amount, collected at a
specified time, by a certain person that kept record of who paid and
who didn't.

Further, they called themselves something stupid thanks to a wife that
thought the nearly weekly assembly was "cute". They were "The
Termites", "Nahmies" something like that.

Now we have a club. 1) It was an organized meeting ("we try to meet
around 6:30 or so in the evening, either Tuesday or Thursday during
the week") with 2) dues to be paid, and 3) it even had a name. I am
sure they would have sealed their own fate if someone got them tee
shirts.

A "club" meeting in the house violated his homeowner insurance
description of coverage, so the injury that brought these conditions
to light was denied by his own insurance. No coverage.

Everyone sued everyone in an attempt to hold each other responsible
and to collect, and in the end only the attorneys were made whole.

So... if anyone wants to play that game, go ahead. It's like running
through the house with a kitchen knife in your hand; no big deal
unless you trip.

Robert

nn

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 3:44 PM

On Jun 30, 11:38 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > will ask you, "then how do you know you are using it the correct way,
> > the safest way? And what in the world qualified you to be a teacher?"
>
> Left some blood (less than many, more than most) on foreign soil,
> supposedly to "defend" this country and what it(once) stood for.
>
> Now, just "why" was that again ...??

Anymore Karl, I just don't know. I don't know. I sure don't feel
like the Liberty Bell rings like it used to.

I don't know if I am turning into just another grouchy old shit, or if
I am just fed up with just about everything because of the way things
are going, and actually have been going for some time.

When I see how badly our legal system has been perverted, and how it
affects even the most innocent events of our lives, I am literally
confounded.

I feel sometimes like I understand how things work, but certainly not
why.

I found out a lot of the things I mentioned in this thread because I
was working with someone that wanted to teach woodworking classes in
his large outbuilding. He has a nice shop, but doesn't know how to
use the tools, so that's where I was to come in.

We thought it would be fun (possibly make a few bucks) to teach some
of the older retiring fellows woodworking as a hobby, or even perhaps
a second profession. I liked working with the older guys (early-mid
70s or so) in our old woodworking club, so I thought "why not?".

After several meetings with his insurance provider, we decided the
liabilities would be too great. After researching the whole idea
completely, we let it drop. I couldn't afford the insurance, nor
could he. The recommended amount of insurance was to be $1,000,000
per person, per occurance. Also, they wanted to raise the General
Liability on the home to something like $5,000,000.

And the policy would only be granted after a shop inspection by an
OSHA approved insurance adjuster to verify that all compliance issues
were in order. The inspection fee BTW from a third party inspector
was about $1000, and the property had to be reinspected once a year
before renewal.

As one time (one job) safety compliance officer on a construction
project, I knew it would be impossible to get the guys to wear the
protective equipment every minute in the shop. Besides, most older
guys think safety gear is for pussies.

We decided to give up the idea of a casual woodworking school.

I know this isn't the same thing as CC asked about originally, but you
can see the distinct parallels.

And apparently, there is no end to this madness. I have seen some of
the new laws proposed, and they are completely absurd and work against
the public good. All they are doing with most of the new laws is to
create new grounds for lucrative legal actions.

Gee... with almost every politician now being an attorney, I wonder
how that happened....

I think at this stage of the game in the court/legal system you would
be better off to be a law breaker constantly breaking the law than to
face the consequences of being a law abiding citizen that breaks the
law unknowingly.

Robert

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

03/07/2009 6:13 AM

HeyBub wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> CC wrote:
>>
>>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
>> is hot, deal with it".
>>
>> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
>> her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
>> places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
>> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
>> temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
>> bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
>> settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>>
>
> On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and she
> is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion suggests
> the problem lies with the user not the provider.
>
> Same as Microsoft Windows.

It was all Bush's fault ...


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Ee

"Ed"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

03/07/2009 8:21 AM


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you're in New
>>> England try Friendlys some time.
>
> And as far south as South Carolina, plus Florida. But they're not
> ubiquitous like they are in New England where just about every town has
> one
> and some have several.
>

I'm very fussy about my ice cream and Friendly's has a good pistachio. Lots
of nuts in it.

CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 4:06 PM

CC wrote:
> I think it has to do with the individuals involved too. If I were
> over at a friends shop working on a project with them, and something
> happened to me, I wouldn't be looking to sue them or anyone else for
> that matter.

It may not be up to you...if you are seriously injured and file an
insurance claim the insurance company may sue them to recover what they
spent on you.

Chris

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 6:42 AM

<[email protected]> wrote:

>My answer to my neighbors is sorry, can't do it.

Unfortunately, Robert's comment above is about the only safe way to
CYA in our litigious society.

Lew


CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 3:27 PM

HeyBub wrote:
> Here's a table of coffee temperatures according to various experts. The
> serving temperature ranges from 83°C to 98°C (190°F to 208°F)
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml

Most of the items in that chart (as well as the text below it) refer to
the brew temperature, not the serving temperature.

According to this study
(http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/techprogram/abstracts/3583.htm) a
serving temperature between 140 and 160 was preferred over both warmer
and cooler coffee.

Chris

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 9:53 AM

CC wrote:
>
> I agree with you about the legal system Robert,
> I've been around 62 years and the changes in attitudes of people
> and the lawyers are making things ridiculous.
> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> screw someone for their mistakes. And at the forefront with their
> hands in the pockets of all concerned is the lawyers. They gonna
> win either way. (win or loose) The system has become as greedy
> as wall street and the rest of the bunch that has melted down. And
> with everything else going to hell... there's the legal system still
> raking it in from both ends
> CC

You are too harsh. It's only 95% of the lawyers that give the rest of them a
bad name.

Ff

FrozenNorth

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 5:16 PM

HeyBub wrote:
> CC wrote:
>> Thanks for all the responses everyone, Seems as if the
>> system is
>> now set up so a couple guys cannot get together to build
>> something
>> for the pleasure of doing it without having to worry about
>> if are you going to
>> loose everything you have for a hobby or a pleasant evening.
>> Also shows what
>> can happen if an accident happens to someone other than
>> yourself and
>> the insurance companies and lawyers take it over and out of
>> your hands
>> Leaves a lot to think about if that comes up. Not what I was
>> hoping for
>> but I wanted to know the reality of what could result.
>
> For the lawyers to take over, they usually have to have a living plaintiff
> (nudge-nudge, hint-hint). Failing that, the deceased's estate gets involved
> (nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean? know-what-I-mean?). Eventually, the search
> for heirs will peter out.
>
Better make sure it isn't Kevin Bacon you let in your shop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon

--
Froz...

Ll

"Leon"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 9:24 AM


"CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not talking about job workshops, but
> working with friends on projects at home shop.
> Looking for some advise or experiences.
> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself without first making a lawyer
> drawn up contract with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
> making sure they know how to use tools safely
> but what else.
> CC

Can you even buy home woners insurance with out coverage for some one
getting hurt on your property? If you don't have home owners insurance you
are asking for trouble.
For that matter, a guest could slip on a spill in your kitchen, or fall in
the the bath tub, or trip over a garden hose, or cut himself on a broken
glass, the list goes on. It would be wise to consult you insurance agent.

CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 7:19 AM

CC wrote:
> Not talking about job workshops, but
> working with friends on projects at home shop.
> Looking for some advise or experiences.
> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself
> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
> with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
> making sure they know how to use tools safely
> but what else.

It's been interesting reading the comments to this. I'm up in Canada so
maybe things are different here, but I haven't heard of anyone suing a
friend because they were injured in a friend's shop. It's probably
happened, but I haven't heard of it.

Chris

DM

"David Merrill"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 9:18 PM

As I recall, a $1M umbrella policy supplement to your homeowners insurance
is not all that expensive. Talk to your insurance agent.

David Merrill


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> snip
>I would surely recommend
> the blanket umbrella policy of at _least_ $1M and make clear from the
> underwriter it covers such activity.
>
> --

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 5:54 PM

"RonB" wrote:

> Good Lord! How did we do this to ourselves?
>
> I spent 2 months in southern California during the late 1980's and
> couldn't understand how the locals could let gangs take over the LA
> area. A few years later they were doing the same thing in Wichita,
> Ks.


For starters, think "DRUGS".

Look at what is going on right now in Mexico.

Lew

Cl

"CC"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 5:42 PM


"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 12:42 am, "CC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
>>> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
>>> from possible legal problems associated with
>>> an accident. How do you protect yourself
>>> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
>>> with them?
>>
>> The sad but easy answer is to refrain from having people
>> work at your
>> shop or on your premises.
>>
>
> See!! I knew damn good and well I was correct in having
> sympathy for the guy, capture on News video a few years
> ago, chasing his lawyer around a tree and shooting him ...
>
> Noble pursuit ...
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

Thanks for all the responses everyone, Seems as if the
system is
now set up so a couple guys cannot get together to build
something
for the pleasure of doing it without having to worry about
if are you going to
loose everything you have for a hobby or a pleasant evening.
Also shows what
can happen if an accident happens to someone other than
yourself and
the insurance companies and lawyers take it over and out of
your hands
Leaves a lot to think about if that comes up. Not what I was
hoping for
but I wanted to know the reality of what could result.
CC

Cl

"CC"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 7:53 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CC wrote:
> ...
>> Thanks for all the responses everyone, Seems as if the
>> system is
>> now set up so a couple guys cannot get together to build
>> something
>> for the pleasure of doing it without having to worry
>> about if are you going to lo[o]se everything you have for
>> a hobby or a pleasant evening. Also shows what can happen
>> if an accident happens to someone other than yourself and
>> the insurance companies and lawyers take it over and out
>> of your hands
>> Leaves a lot to think about if that comes up. Not what I
>> was hoping for
>> but I wanted to know the reality of what could result.
>
> Well, it's just as true if you invite the neighbors over
> for a wienie roast and somebody were to step off the stoop
> so don't get _too_ uptight despite the "what if's" and
> "could be's".
>
> The upshot is in my estimation to live your life but _do_
> be sensible. Make sure you do have sufficient coverage for
> liability and ensure that the coverage includes shop
> tools.
>
> If one were to try to be totally risk-averse there would
> be nothing one could do.
>
> --

I think it has to do with the individuals involved too. If I
were over at a friends
shop working on a project with them, and something happened
to me, I wouldn't
be looking to sue them or anyone else for that matter. As
far as equipment goes,
I wouldn't try to use a power tool that I didn't know
anything about until shown
or read the manual on how to use it. But some people have
different ideas of
how to live and interact with others. There are some that I
know that I'd not want
over to a weenie roast or anything else for that matter. :)
It'd be my fault if they
choked on a hotdog. Those types, you want at a distance
CC

CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 8:43 AM

CC wrote:

> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> screw someone for their mistakes.

That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee is
hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to her
skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other places
keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would have been
cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher temperature,
it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, bad enough that
she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to settle out of court for
$20000, but McD's refused.

Chris

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 11:38 AM

[email protected] wrote:

> will ask you, "then how do you know you are using it the correct way,
> the safest way? And what in the world qualified you to be a teacher?"

Left some blood (less than many, more than most) on foreign soil,
supposedly to "defend" this country and what it(once) stood for.

Now, just "why" was that again ...??

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Dd

"DGDevin"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

29/06/2009 11:29 PM

CC wrote:

> Not talking about job workshops, but
> working with friends on projects at home shop.
> Looking for some advise or experiences.
> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself
> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
> with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
> making sure they know how to use tools safely
> but what else.
> CC

Do you have good homeowner's insurance and will it cover friends using your
tools in your shop? Do your friends have good medical insurance? Do you
have a good lawyer, and plenty of savings to pay that lawyer if something
goes wrong? If the answer to all these questions is "yes" then maybe you'll
be okay even if someone gets hurt. But if somebody is injured on your
property and decides to sue you, or if an insurance company hit with a claim
decides to sue you, then your retirement fund is going to be depleted first
by your legal bills and then perhaps by a judgment against you.

It might be worth a couple of hundred bucks to talk to a lawyer about this.
But I have a couple of friends who are lawyers and I bet I know what they
would have to say about the idea--don't do it unless you enjoy the feeling
of rolling the dice.

TM

Tom Murray

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

08/07/2009 1:14 PM

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> For some reason -
> and I may be wrong, but I thought a wife could not sue her husband for
> this kind of thing. Then there is the matter of the insurance itself
> - what kind of policy was it (I wonder...), and if they were married,
> it seems odd that she was not on the policy as well, which would make
> it impossible for her to sue. That though, is nothing more than a
> pondering sort of question.
>
>

It is possible to sue your spouse.

My cousin broke her back in a single car accident where her husband was
driving. The insurance company refused to pay and she successfully sued
her husband, which forced the insurance company to pay. By the way, she
is still married to him.

The same thing happenned to another friend. I don't recall the details,
but she successfully sued her husband as well. He was a lawyer and
actually did all the work. He had to get a partner in the law firm to
sign the paper work, but he (or his paralegal) did all the leg work.

Sometimes you have to sue your insurance company to get them to do the
right thing.

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 4:01 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
>
> There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
> temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more
> than 160 (and 140 is better).


United States Navy Cookbook - 1945

Instructions:
Water, freshly drawn, cold---6-1/4 gal.
Coffee, regular Navy grind3 lbs.3-3/4 qt.

Method:

Pour water into hot water boiler. Heat to boiling temperature.

1. Fill jacket of coffee urn with water 3/4 full as indicated on the gauge
glass. Maintain temperature of this water at 185° F to 190° F.

2.Rinse urn bag with clear, cold water. Place in position in empty urn, in
which coffee is to be made, making sure that both the urn bag and urn ring
are correct size.
\
3. Place coffee in urn bag.

4. Draw off boiling water, 1 gallon at a time. Pour slowly in a curricular
motion over coffee in bag. Keep covered between pouring of each gallon of
water to keep heat and aroma in the coffee brew.

5. Repour 4 gallons brewed coffee over coffee grounds.

6. Remove urn bag and coffee grounds, immediately after all the brewed
coffee has dripped through.

7.Draw off 1 gallon brewed coffee. Repour into urn to insure uniform
strength throughout the brew.

8.Hold finished coffee at temperature of 185° F to 190° F until served.

-----------
Here's a table of coffee temperatures according to various experts. The
serving temperature ranges from 83°C to 98°C (190°F to 208°F)

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml








>
> Espresso machines would be a bad comparison, because the coffee cools
> off so quickly after coming of the machine.
>
> You make a good point about some of the other fast-food places serving
> coffee almost as hot...arguably they would be at fault as well.
>
> I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat
> colder, but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as
> fast. Personally I drink my coffee in an insulated mug and it keeps
> its temperature for hours.
>
> Chris

kk

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 10:45 AM

On Jul 2, 12:20=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Chris Friesen wrote:
> >> CC wrote:
>
> >>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> >>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> >>> screw someone for their mistakes.
> >> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
> >> is hot, deal with it".
>
> >> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
> >> her skin. =A0McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
> >> places keep theirs at 140 or so. =A0At 155 or less, the coffee would
> >> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. =A0At the highe=
r
> >> temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
> >> bad enough that she needed skin grafts. =A0Initially she tried to
> >> settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>
> > On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and =
she
> > is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion sugges=
ts
> > the problem lies with the user not the provider.
>
> You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
> providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is the
> exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.

Except that it wasn't true. Dunkin' Donuts, for one, had a corporate
standard, backed up by spot inspections and franchisee fines, of 180F
(+/- 3F) coffee. People *want* hot coffee.

nn

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

29/06/2009 11:10 PM

On Jun 30, 12:42=A0am, "CC" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself
> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
> with them?

The sad but easy answer is to refrain from having people work at your
shop or on your premises.

It is easy for an attorney to sue you, even if the incident was an
accident. Simple questions will be asked:

- WHO was it that decided this person was qualified to use the tools
in question?

- Did you know the risks before you let him use the XXXX saw? Did you
make him aware he could lose an eye/finger? Did he UNDERSTAND
completely the risks involved?

- Since you were the one with the tools, the one that checked him out
to work with your tools, did you supervise him? Who watched him while
you went to the bathroom/got a cold drink/checked on dinner/talked to
your kids, etc.?

- And BTW - who died and made you the King of all power tools and
their use? Did you specifically tell and demonstrate him the correct
approach to using the tool that cut off his finger?

*********************

It goes on and on and on. There is NO way for you to dodge liability,
even it was an accident. You or your insurance will be liable, and
YOU possibly face the evils of subrogation. Even in the face of it
being an actual accident, if it is an expensive injury your insurance
company will make all efforts to recoup their medical, legal,
processing and case monitoring costs.

I have been coached well in this by my insurance agent. Further by my
sister that is an underwriting trainer and claims supervisor for a
large company.

My answer to my neighbors is sorry, can't do it.

And remember this; the larger the accident, the more likely they will
be to sue, just from the sheer economics of the cost of medical
treatment, deductibles, time off work, etc.

A legal contract simply will not protect you. Worse, if they can
prove simple negligence on your part (cords not grounded correctly, no
safety glasses, no gloves, no ground faults, no dust collections or
masks, adequate workspace, etc. ) you could be open to civil
liability as well.

Robert




LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 9:58 PM

Somebody wrote:

> I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I
> don't
> think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in
> places,
> anyway) and it is consistent.

If it's hot and black, less than 2 hours in the pot, I'll drink it.

If I'm on the road, give me a truck stop.

Lew

MM

"Mike Marlow"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

08/07/2009 10:48 AM


"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> My first thoughts on any of these silly ass law suits for big money is
> that everyone is on the take, the lawyers, the plaintiff, the defendant,
> the judge, the insurance guys, all of them or most of them.
>
> I recall reading a short article in the newspaper in the 70's where a guy
> took his wife on an African Safari where she was stepped on by an
> elephant. She sued her husband for $1 million (which was worth a bit in
> the 70's) and she WON so his insurance company had to fork over the tax
> free cash. The news article listed their names, the names of the
> attorneys, and the names of the judge and I think the name of the
> insurance agent that paid the claim. It seemed clear that everyone was in
> cahoots far as I could tell, and I think the reason the reporter listed
> all the names was to lead the reader to my conclusion, even though it
> wasn't actually said.

I think your memory of that event might have faded some. Insurance agents
don't pay claims. Nothing else about the story sounds plausible given the
way insurance works, but I wouldn't go any further than to say something
doesn't sound right about it. For some reason - and I may be wrong, but I
thought a wife could not sue her husband for this kind of thing. Then there
is the matter of the insurance itself - what kind of policy was it (I
wonder...), and if they were married, it seems odd that she was not on the
policy as well, which would make it impossible for her to sue. That though,
is nothing more than a pondering sort of question.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Ff

FrozenNorth

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 2:36 PM

dpb wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> CC wrote:
>>
>>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>>
>> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee is
>> hot, deal with it".
>>
>> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to her
>> skin. ...
> ...
>
> Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
> _really_ stupid to start with... :(
>
Going to McD for coffee?
;-)

Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was really bad.
--
Froz...

Rr

RonB

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 7:12 AM

Good Lord! How did we do this to ourselves?

I spent 2 months in southern California during the late 1980's and
couldn't understand how the locals could let gangs take over the LA
area. A few years later they were doing the same thing in Wichita,
Ks.

But sometimes I think we have let lawyers do as much damage as gangs.

RonB

nn

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 8:38 PM

On Jun 30, 10:31=A0pm, "CC" <[email protected]> wrote:

> They gonna
> win either way. (win or loose) The system has become as greedy
> as wall street and the rest of the bunch that has melted down. And
> with everything else going to hell... there's the legal system still
> raking it in from both ends

You bet. I couldn't agree more.

Robert

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 10:57 AM

Chris Friesen wrote:
> CC wrote:
>
>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>
> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
> is hot, deal with it".
>
> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
> her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
> places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
> temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
> bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
> settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>

On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and she
is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion suggests
the problem lies with the user not the provider.

Same as Microsoft Windows.

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 6:32 AM

CC wrote:
> Not talking about job workshops, but
> working with friends on projects at home shop.
> Looking for some advise or experiences.
> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself
> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
> with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
> making sure they know how to use tools safely
> but what else.

Lots and lots and lots of liability insurance. Or have it be generally
known that you're so poor that even if they sued you and won and you sold
everything you had they wouldn't get back legal fees and court costs.

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 9:55 AM

Leon wrote:
...
> Can you even buy home woners insurance with out coverage for some one
> getting hurt on your property? If you don't have home owners insurance you
> are asking for trouble.

If one has a mortgage, that's undoubtedly a requirement.

The problem generally isn't that there is a policy; it's that the limits
are too low (by far)...

I don't know if the shop would qualify as the "attractive nuisance"
hazard since it isn't outside tempting the neighbor kids as the pool but
certainly the possibility of a potentially serious (read "expensive")
accident is raised w/ power tools.

The facts are that "friends" and/or even more likely w/ "just neighbors"
is that the friendship or acquaintanceship will disappear if there is an
accident of any consequence and the insurance companies get involved.
At that point it becomes a case of what the actual legal liabilities
are, friendship or no.

That said, I'd not say unequivocally "no", but I would surely recommend
the blanket umbrella policy of at _least_ $1M and make clear from the
underwriter it covers such activity.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 12:58 PM

CC wrote:
...
> Thanks for all the responses everyone, Seems as if the system is
> now set up so a couple guys cannot get together to build something
> for the pleasure of doing it without having to worry about if are you
> going to lo[o]se everything you have for a hobby or a pleasant evening. Also shows
> what can happen if an accident happens to someone other than yourself and
> the insurance companies and lawyers take it over and out of your hands
> Leaves a lot to think about if that comes up. Not what I was hoping for
> but I wanted to know the reality of what could result.

Well, it's just as true if you invite the neighbors over for a wienie
roast and somebody were to step off the stoop so don't get _too_ uptight
despite the "what if's" and "could be's".

The upshot is in my estimation to live your life but _do_ be sensible.
Make sure you do have sufficient coverage for liability and ensure that
the coverage includes shop tools.

If one were to try to be totally risk-averse there would be nothing one
could do.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 4:24 PM

CC wrote:
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> CC wrote:
>> ...
>>> Thanks for all the responses everyone, Seems as if the system is
>>> now set up so a couple guys cannot get together to build something
>>> for the pleasure of doing it without having to worry about if are you
>>> going to lo[o]se everything you have for a hobby or a pleasant
>>> evening. Also shows what can happen if an accident happens to someone
>>> other than yourself and
>>> the insurance companies and lawyers take it over and out of your hands
>>> Leaves a lot to think about if that comes up. Not what I was hoping for
>>> but I wanted to know the reality of what could result.
>>
>> Well, it's just as true if you invite the neighbors over for a wienie
>> roast and somebody were to step off the stoop so don't get _too_
>> uptight despite the "what if's" and "could be's".
>>
>> The upshot is in my estimation to live your life but _do_ be sensible.
>> Make sure you do have sufficient coverage for liability and ensure
>> that the coverage includes shop tools.
>>
>> If one were to try to be totally risk-averse there would be nothing
>> one could do.
>>
>> --
>
> I think it has to do with the individuals involved too. If I were over
> at a friends
> shop working on a project with them, and something happened to me, I
> wouldn't
> be looking to sue them or anyone else for that matter. As far as
> equipment goes,
> I wouldn't try to use a power tool that I didn't know anything about
> until shown
> or read the manual on how to use it. But some people have different
> ideas of
> how to live and interact with others. There are some that I know that
> I'd not want
> over to a weenie roast or anything else for that matter. :) It'd be my
> fault if they
> choked on a hotdog. Those types, you want at a distance
...

All the above is true and I've no disagreement at all.

The only other comment I would make is that even someone you've known
long time can become very different person in the event of serious
accident and injury.

I don't do other than you're outlining above, but I am pretty stiff in
the "who" doesn't stay at a distance.

I have the potential issues of employees, of course, but as farm rather
than industrial there's a fair amount of leeway as opposed to some of
the guys here who are actually running commercial shops.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 4:38 PM

David Merrill wrote:
> As I recall, a $1M umbrella policy supplement to your homeowners insurance
> is not all that expensive. Talk to your insurance agent.
...
Typically not much, agreed. I forget the exact kicker but it's in the
noise as compared to the total.

--

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 7:12 AM

CC wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9182b89d-add6-40a5-b7c1-3d5078168b64@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 30, 11:38 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> will ask you, "then how do you know you are using it the correct
>>>> way, the safest way? And what in the world qualified you to be a
>>>> teacher?"
>>>
>>> Left some blood (less than many, more than most) on foreign soil,
>>> supposedly to "defend" this country and what it(once) stood for.
>>>
>>> Now, just "why" was that again ...??
>>
>> Anymore Karl, I just don't know. I don't know. I sure don't feel
>> like the Liberty Bell rings like it used to.
>>
>> I don't know if I am turning into just another grouchy old shit, or
>> if I am just fed up with just about everything because of the way
>> things are going, and actually have been going for some time.
>>
>> When I see how badly our legal system has been perverted, and how it
>> affects even the most innocent events of our lives, I am literally
>> confounded.
>>
>> I feel sometimes like I understand how things work, but certainly not
>> why.
>>
>> I found out a lot of the things I mentioned in this thread because I
>> was working with someone that wanted to teach woodworking classes in
>> his large outbuilding. He has a nice shop, but doesn't know how to
>> use the tools, so that's where I was to come in.
>>
>> We thought it would be fun (possibly make a few bucks) to teach some
>> of the older retiring fellows woodworking as a hobby, or even perhaps
>> a second profession. I liked working with the older guys (early-mid
>> 70s or so) in our old woodworking club, so I thought "why not?".
>>
>> After several meetings with his insurance provider, we decided the
>> liabilities would be too great. After researching the whole idea
>> completely, we let it drop. I couldn't afford the insurance, nor
>> could he. The recommended amount of insurance was to be $1,000,000
>> per person, per occurance. Also, they wanted to raise the General
>> Liability on the home to something like $5,000,000.
>>
>> And the policy would only be granted after a shop inspection by an
>> OSHA approved insurance adjuster to verify that all compliance issues
>> were in order. The inspection fee BTW from a third party inspector
>> was about $1000, and the property had to be reinspected once a year
>> before renewal.
>>
>> As one time (one job) safety compliance officer on a construction
>> project, I knew it would be impossible to get the guys to wear the
>> protective equipment every minute in the shop. Besides, most older
>> guys think safety gear is for pussies.
>>
>> We decided to give up the idea of a casual woodworking school.
>>
>> I know this isn't the same thing as CC asked about originally, but
>> you can see the distinct parallels.
>>
>> And apparently, there is no end to this madness. I have seen some of
>> the new laws proposed, and they are completely absurd and work
>> against the public good. All they are doing with most of the new
>> laws is to create new grounds for lucrative legal actions.
>>
>> Gee... with almost every politician now being an attorney, I wonder
>> how that happened....
>>
>> I think at this stage of the game in the court/legal system you would
>> be better off to be a law breaker constantly breaking the law than to
>> face the consequences of being a law abiding citizen that breaks the
>> law unknowingly.
>>
>> Robert
>
> I agree with you about the legal system Robert,
> I've been around 62 years and the changes in attitudes of people
> and the lawyers are making things ridiculous.
> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
> hot coffee on herself,

Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

Somebody sued Bunn, one of the major manufacturers of commercial coffee
makers, on the same basis a few years later. Bunn's lawyers trotted out the
ANSI spec for coffee temperature, showed that their machines complied with
the spec, and that was the end of that.

> Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
> screw someone for their mistakes. And at the forefront with their
> hands in the pockets of all concerned is the lawyers. They gonna
> win either way. (win or loose) The system has become as greedy
> as wall street and the rest of the bunch that has melted down. And
> with everything else going to hell... there's the legal system still
> raking it in from both ends

I am told (by drunken lawyers) that the problem lies in part with an
unintended consequence. Many many years ago when the civil rights movement
was in its infancy, a lawyer could decide which cases he wanted to take and
which ones he didn't want to take on the basis of his judgment of the merits
of the case. Most lawyers at the time were members f the white
establishment and judged civil rights cases as having no merit, so it was
very hard for a black person who had been wronged by a white person or by
"the system" (for example with "literacy tests" that an illiterate white
person would be given a passing grade but a black professor of English would
not--the graders knew the race of the subject) to get justice. Somewhere
along the way, in order to prevent this, the ethics rules in most states
were changed so that a lawyer could not refuse to accept a case on the basis
of lack of merit. The unintended consequence is that when some idiot comes
to you and wants to sue McDonalds because they spilled coffee on themselves,
he _has_ to take it or risk disbarment. Get some liquor into a group of
lawyers and you'll often hear this complaint--many of them don't like it at
all, but every time any attempt has been made to change it the do-gooders
have trooped into the legislatures and given their song and dance about how
it would result in cases with merit also being denied. Sooner or later
democracy is going to collapse under the weight of squeaky-wheelism and
interlocking constituencies.


dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 8:16 AM

J. Clarke wrote:
...
> I am told (by drunken lawyers) ...

I think they were _too_ far in their cups... :)

> ...Somewhere along the way, ... the ethics rules in most states
> were changed so that a lawyer could not refuse to accept a case on the basis
> of lack of merit. The unintended consequence is that when some idiot comes
> to you and wants to sue McDonalds because they spilled coffee on themselves,
> he _has_ to take it or risk disbarment. Get some liquor into a group of
> lawyers and you'll often hear this complaint--many of them don't like it at
> all, but every time any attempt has been made to change it the do-gooders
> have trooped into the legislatures and given their song and dance about how
> it would result in cases with merit also being denied. Sooner or later
> democracy is going to collapse under the weight of squeaky-wheelism and
> interlocking constituencies.

I really don't believe this is true at all -- lawyers routinely refuse
cases and the bar ethics rules aren't created by legislative action.

--

KN

Keith Nuttle

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 9:46 AM

Upscale wrote:
> "CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>
> The problem isn't that everyone is ready to sue at the drop of a hat, it's
> because people like your McD's coffee spill woman sue and actually win.
> After that happens, the incentive is there for everybody to sue. When the
> system decides it's easier to pay off someone than spend the money on
> lawyers for court proceedings, than it's exactly the same has hanging out a
> sign that says "Free Money".
>
>

I believe the largest cost of health care is the insurance for liability
protection that doctors, hospitals, manufacturers, etc. must carry to
protect themselves from frivolous law suits. While people like to
believe medicine is an exact science, all of the testing done to show
the safety and effects of a medicine is based on statistics. While the
statistic can define the general trends of the medication, any
conclusions on one individual based on those statistical conclusions are
not valid as each person is different.

If obama wants to reform health care they will place a cap on medical
liability lawsuits. They also need to define what should be considered
medical malpractice. An bandage left in the patient would be
malpractice, a drug not responding as expected would not.

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 1:38 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> CC wrote:
>>>
>>>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>>>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>>>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>>> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than
>>> "coffee is hot, deal with it".
>>>
>>> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
>>> her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
>>> places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
>>> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the
>>> higher temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of
>>> her body, bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she
>>> tried to settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>>>
>>
>> On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee
>> and she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that
>> proportion suggests the problem lies with the user not the provider.
>
> You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
> providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is
> the exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.

If in fact all other coffee providers served it at the lower temperature.
Starbucks doesn't. Dunkin Donuts, whose coffee is generally quite well
regarded, doesn't. Burger King and Wendys don't. Further, percolators and
drip coffee machines and espresso machines and most of the other kinds of
device that one would use at home to make coffee don't.
>
> Chris

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 1:30 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
> CC wrote:
>
>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>
> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
> is hot, deal with it".
>
> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
> her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
> places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
> temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
> bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
> settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.

No, the case _is_ that coffee is hot, deal with it.

The ANSI standard for coffee makers requires that the holding temperature be
not less than 170F, and between 170 and 205F. Most engineers would split
the difference and design to hold at 187.5, allowing the largest possible
margins in both directions.

Similar lawsuits brought against McDonalds in the UK have failed. A lawsuit
brought against Bunn-O-Matic on similar grounds failed. As for "most
other places keeping theirs at 140 or so", that would, I guess, be most
other places besides Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Wendys, and Burger King, all
of which require similar holding temperatures and all of which have been
sued on similar grounds.

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 1:27 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
> CC wrote:
>
>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>
> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee is
> hot, deal with it".
>
> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to her
> skin. ...
...

Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with... :(

She made a mistake in judgment of what do do w/ a full hot cup of coffee
and as unfortunate as the consequences were, it was really nobody else's
fault but her own.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 1:49 PM

FrozenNorth wrote:
> dpb wrote:
...
>> Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
>> _really_ stupid to start with... :(
>>
> Going to McD for coffee?
> ;-)

LOL...

> Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was really
> bad.

I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get anything else,
though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy fare" is at least
edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked any of McD burger
fare, but even them any more don't seem as they once were...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 4:14 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
...
> There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
> temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more than
> 160 (and 140 is better).

That's not what the professionals say...

"Ideal holding temperature: 175ºF to 185ºF (80ºC to 85ºC)
Most all the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points well
below that of water and continue to evaporate from the surface until
pressure in the serving container reaches equilibrium. A closed
container can slow the process of evaporation."

"Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above
150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at
lower temperatures."

<http://bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html>

> I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat colder,
> but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as fast.
...

The best solution would be for folks to not set hot coffee between their
legs in a moving automobile--or take the responsibility of the
consequences of their actions if the choose to do so.

--

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 5:14 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>>> On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee
>>>> and she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that
>>>> proportion suggests the problem lies with the user not the
>>>> provider.
>
>>> You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
>>> providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is
>>> the exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.
>>
>> If in fact all other coffee providers served it at the lower
>> temperature. Starbucks doesn't. Dunkin Donuts, whose coffee is
>> generally quite well regarded, doesn't. Burger King and Wendys
>> don't. Further, percolators and drip coffee machines and espresso
>> machines and most of the other kinds of device that one would use at
>> home to make coffee don't.
>
> There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
> temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more
> than 160 (and 140 is better).
>
> Espresso machines would be a bad comparison, because the coffee cools
> off so quickly after coming of the machine.
>
> You make a good point about some of the other fast-food places serving
> coffee almost as hot...arguably they would be at fault as well.

When did Starbucks become a "fast food place" and how is it that you know
more about coffee than they do?

> I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat
> colder, but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as
> fast. Personally I drink my coffee in an insulated mug and it keeps
> its temperature for hours.

Please identify one brand or type of coffee machine in common use that
chills the coffee to 140 degrees immediately upon completion of brewing.

Also please identify one generally accepted industry standard that supports
your assertion that the ideal serving temperature is 140 degrees.

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 5:15 PM

dpb wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
> ...
>>> Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
>>> _really_ stupid to start with... :(
>>>
>> Going to McD for coffee?
>> ;-)
>
> LOL...
>
>> Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was
>> really bad.
>
> I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
> think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
> anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get anything else,
> though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy fare" is at least
> edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked any of McD burger
> fare, but even them any more don't seem as they once were...

They've been working hard to improve their coffee--it's pretty close to
Dunkin Dognuts standard and arguably better than Starbucks of late.

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 4:45 PM

J. Clarke wrote:
> dpb wrote:
...
>> I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
>> think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
>> anyway) and it is consistent. ...
>
> They've been working hard to improve their coffee--it's pretty close to
> Dunkin Dognuts standard and arguably better than Starbucks of late.

If you take cost into any level of consideration at all, it (MickeyD)
puts Starbucks to complete shame. SB never was worth anything at all
what they got for it and it does seem to have gone downhill in quality
from there but not, unfortunately, in price to match altho I understand
they're now under some pressure to retrench from the MD competition.

Been ages since been in a D-D; there just aren't any around here and
they're not convenient generally on travel stops...

No SB's around here within 200+ miles, either; not enough yuppies... :)

--

KN

Keith Nuttle

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 8:15 PM

dpb wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
> ...
>>> Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
>>> _really_ stupid to start with... :(
>>>
>> Going to McD for coffee?
>> ;-)
>
> LOL...
>
>> Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was
>> really bad.
>
> I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
> think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
> anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get anything else,
> though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy fare" is at least
> edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked any of McD burger
> fare, but even them any more don't seem as they once were...
>
> --

I think one of the best simple hamburgers is the McD quarter pounder
with cheese.

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:13 PM

Chris Friesen wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Here's a table of coffee temperatures according to various experts.
>> The serving temperature ranges from 83°C to 98°C (190°F to 208°F)
>>
>> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml
>
> Most of the items in that chart (as well as the text below it) refer
> to the brew temperature, not the serving temperature.
>
> According to this study
> (http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/techprogram/abstracts/3583.htm) a
> serving temperature between 140 and 160 was preferred over both warmer
> and cooler coffee.

So design a machine that works according to that model and make yourself
rich.

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:14 PM

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
>>>> _really_ stupid to start with... :(
>>>>
>>> Going to McD for coffee?
>>> ;-)
>>
>> LOL...
>>
>>> Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was
>>> really bad.
>>
>> I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I
>> don't think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in
>> places, anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get
>> anything else, though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy
>> fare" is at least edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked
>> any of McD burger fare, but even them any more don't seem as they
>> once were...
>>
>> --
>
> I think one of the best simple hamburgers is the McD quarter pounder
> with cheese.

While I like those, they're very light on the meat. If you're in New
England try Friendlys some time.

dn

dpb

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:07 PM

Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> If I'm on the road, give me a truck stop.

I don't know, most of the truck stops ain't what used to be w/ the
advent of the biggies taking over so many of them as well... :(

Can't count on them being much good as used to, imo...

--

ST

Steve Turner

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:25 PM

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> I think one of the best simple hamburgers is the McD quarter pounder
> with cheese.

Not bad, but I much prefer a Whopper or a Whataburger.

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

03/07/2009 1:43 AM

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>
>> If you're in New
>> England try Friendlys some time.
>
> Part of Hershey Foods.

From 1979-1988.

> Also in the the MidWest as well as obviously PA.

And as far south as South Carolina, plus Florida. But they're not
ubiquitous like they are in New England where just about every town has one
and some have several.

Cc

Chuck

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

03/07/2009 7:47 AM

Swingman wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> CC wrote:
>>>
>>>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>>>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>>>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>>> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
>>> is hot, deal with it".
>>>
>>> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
>>> her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
>>> places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
>>> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
>>> temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
>>> bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
>>> settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>>>
>>
>> On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and
>> she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion
>> suggests the problem lies with the user not the provider.
>>
>> Same as Microsoft Windows.
>
> It was all Bush's fault ...
>
>
M Jackson is still dead!

ST

Steve Turner

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

03/07/2009 8:45 AM

Chuck wrote:
> M Jackson is still dead!

"Because I'm dead, I'm dead!'

--
If it ain't perfect, improve it...
But don't break it while you're fixin' it!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

JS

Jack Stein

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

08/07/2009 9:57 AM

J. Clarke wrote:

> Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
> here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
> coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
> mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?

Very strange.

My first thoughts on any of these silly ass law suits for big money is
that everyone is on the take, the lawyers, the plaintiff, the defendant,
the judge, the insurance guys, all of them or most of them.

I recall reading a short article in the newspaper in the 70's where a
guy took his wife on an African Safari where she was stepped on by an
elephant. She sued her husband for $1 million (which was worth a bit in
the 70's) and she WON so his insurance company had to fork over the tax
free cash. The news article listed their names, the names of the
attorneys, and the names of the judge and I think the name of the
insurance agent that paid the claim. It seemed clear that everyone was
in cahoots far as I could tell, and I think the reason the reporter
listed all the names was to lead the reader to my conclusion, even
though it wasn't actually said.

Anyway, anytime I hear of a silly law suit with huge payouts, I think of
this case, and I always suspect insurance fraud, or corporate fraud
where EVERYONE involved is ripping off the insurance company or the
company itself for some tax free income.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

JS

Jack Stein

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

08/07/2009 10:07 AM

dpb wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:

>> I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat colder,
>> but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as fast.

> The best solution would be for folks to not set hot coffee between their
> legs in a moving automobile--or take the responsibility of the
> consequences of their actions if the choose to do so.

I think the best solution is to let government take over health care, so
when you burn your nuts off with hot coffee, they will be in Obama's
hands to make all better...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

JS

Jack Stein

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

08/07/2009 10:16 AM

J. Clarke wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you're in New
>>> England try Friendlys some time.
>> Part of Hershey Foods.
>
> From 1979-1988.
>
>> Also in the the MidWest as well as obviously PA.
>
> And as far south as South Carolina, plus Florida. But they're not
> ubiquitous like they are in New England where just about every town has one
> and some have several.

I live in Pittsburgh PA and never heard of Friendly's? Hershey is in
PA but according to their web site, the closest Friendlys to me is in
Ohio? Perhaps some woodworker should look into buying a franchise for
the Pgh area?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

AB

Andrew Barss

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

08/07/2009 7:06 PM

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
: J. Clarke wrote:

:> Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
:> here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
:> coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
:> mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

: Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
: justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?

: Very strange.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's controversial, but some of the facts suggesting it wasn't
a completely frivolous suit were

a) she received third degree burns
b) she originally wanted just her med costs (which included skin grafts)
covered, and only after McD's refused did it go to trial.
c) The larger amount of money was punitive damages, which were
some percentage of McD's coffee profits (as I recall, one day's worth).
Punitive damages are often set as a function of the size of the company
found at fault (i.e. to be punitive to McD's, it has to be more than
a few thousand dollars, which was what she originally wanted them to pay).

If this had happened to my mother, I certainly would have found the
final judgment justified.

YMMV,


Andy Barss

JS

Jack Stein

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

09/07/2009 10:07 AM

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> My first thoughts on any of these silly ass law suits for big money is
>> that everyone is on the take, the lawyers, the plaintiff, the defendant,
>> the judge, the insurance guys, all of them or most of them.
>>
>> I recall reading a short article in the newspaper in the 70's where a guy
>> took his wife on an African Safari where she was stepped on by an
>> elephant. She sued her husband for $1 million (which was worth a bit in
>> the 70's) and she WON so his insurance company had to fork over the tax
>> free cash. The news article listed their names, the names of the
>> attorneys, and the names of the judge and I think the name of the
>> insurance agent that paid the claim. It seemed clear that everyone was in
>> cahoots far as I could tell, and I think the reason the reporter listed
>> all the names was to lead the reader to my conclusion, even though it
>> wasn't actually said.

> I think your memory of that event might have faded some. Insurance agents
> don't pay claims.

True enough, insurance company paid the claim.

Nothing else about the story sounds plausible given the
> way insurance works, but I wouldn't go any further than to say something
> doesn't sound right about it.

Hey, it was in the newspaper, how could anything not be right about it:-)

> For some reason - and I may be wrong, but I
> thought a wife could not sue her husband for this kind of thing. Then there
> is the matter of the insurance itself - what kind of policy was it (I
> wonder...), and if they were married, it seems odd that she was not on the
> policy as well, which would make it impossible for her to sue. That though,
> is nothing more than a pondering sort of question.


I'm not a lawyer, just what I recall was in the article, about 40 years
ago. Point is however, that since then, I have seen lots of silly law
suits and I'm always VERY suspicious of what is really going on behind
the scenes.

Another one more recent was a local radio guy was on every morning and
he did a lot of talking, a lot of sexually explicit humor. He used to
do all sorts of sexual banter with some chick, a program
director/manager or some such broad working at the station. She used to
participate in it with him, some funny stuff. One day, she decided to
sue the dumb ass for sexual harassment type of charges. Any how, it was
really stupid because she was on the radio occasionally with him,
seemingly going along with all the fun. Didn't matter of course, she
won a $600,000 settlement from the radio station. Now, in my mind, I
can see her and the radio guy spitting the cash ripped from the radio
station (insurance company?) It just didn't seem right, and even if
they weren't in cahoots, it still didn't seem right, and I can easily
see how crooked pricks, along with a crooked legal system, crooked
lawyers and so on could use the system, which is obviously broken, to
their advantage.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

JS

Jack Stein

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

09/07/2009 10:42 AM

Andrew Barss wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> : J. Clarke wrote:
>
> :> Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
> :> here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
> :> coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
> :> mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.
>
> : Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
> : justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?
>
> : Very strange.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

> It's controversial,

My point is it is NOT very controversial and I haven't noticed "legions
of people complaining about McDonalds selling hot coffee. About
everyone seems to think it was stupid. So many people thought it was
stupid, there must be a hundred comedy skits related to it. Seinfeld
had at least 3 shows related to it I think. The article you posted up
there notes that ABC news calls it, and I quote, “the poster child of
excessive lawsuits.”

but some of the facts suggesting it wasn't
> a completely frivolous suit were

> a) she received third degree burns

No one I know doubted she got 3rd degree burns. The issue was she did
it herself, and sued McDonalds for HER stupidity.

> b) she originally wanted just her med costs (which included skin grafts)
> covered, and only after McD's refused did it go to trial.

Makes no difference, she was the dumb ass that put a paper cup of hot
coffee between her legs and managed to burn herself.

> c) The larger amount of money was punitive damages, which were
> some percentage of McD's coffee profits (as I recall, one day's worth).

Doesn't matter, McDonalds didn't pour the coffee on her, seems most
people think she was entitled to nothing. You seem to think McDonalds,
being a successful company, entitles her to money.

> Punitive damages are often set as a function of the size of the company
> found at fault (i.e. to be punitive to McD's, it has to be more than
> a few thousand dollars, which was what she originally wanted them to pay).

This makes it even more ridicules. Punishing McDonalds for selling hot
coffee is asinine, and thats why almost no one thinks it was justified,
and why comedians the world over made jokes about it, and why it is
known as the “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.” And why a zillion
hot coffee fans were pissed off, fearing hot coffee would never be the
same. Also noted in the article you listed is the fact most judges
dismiss such cases before the get to jury. Now that is something I
could find amazing, I didn't think "most judges" were that intelligent,
considering most of them are lawyers!

> If this had happened to my mother, I certainly would have found the
> final judgment justified.

YMMV,

Well, that could just mean you are greedy, or really think personal
responsibility is just wrong, or dislike profitable companies, or some
combination of all three.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Mt

"Max"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 1:38 PM


"CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not talking about job workshops, but
> working with friends on projects at home shop.
> Looking for some advise or experiences.
> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
> from possible legal problems associated with
> an accident. How do you protect yourself without first making a lawyer
> drawn up contract with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
> making sure they know how to use tools safely
> but what else.
> CC

It discourages "friends" from asking when I inform them that before using
any tool they must read and demonstrate to me that they understand all the
information in the owners manual. (Exam follows) <G>

Max (who has an umbrella liability policy)

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 10:51 AM

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:42 am, "CC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
>> hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
>> from possible legal problems associated with
>> an accident. How do you protect yourself
>> without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
>> with them?
>
> The sad but easy answer is to refrain from having people work at your
> shop or on your premises.
>
> It is easy for an attorney to sue you, even if the incident was an
> accident. Simple questions will be asked:
>
> - WHO was it that decided this person was qualified to use the tools
> in question?
>
> - Did you know the risks before you let him use the XXXX saw? Did you
> make him aware he could lose an eye/finger? Did he UNDERSTAND
> completely the risks involved?
>
> - Since you were the one with the tools, the one that checked him out
> to work with your tools, did you supervise him? Who watched him while
> you went to the bathroom/got a cold drink/checked on dinner/talked to
> your kids, etc.?
>
> - And BTW - who died and made you the King of all power tools and
> their use? Did you specifically tell and demonstrate him the correct
> approach to using the tool that cut off his finger?
>
> *********************
>
> It goes on and on and on. There is NO way for you to dodge liability,
> even it was an accident. You or your insurance will be liable, and
> YOU possibly face the evils of subrogation. Even in the face of it
> being an actual accident, if it is an expensive injury your insurance
> company will make all efforts to recoup their medical, legal,
> processing and case monitoring costs.
>
> I have been coached well in this by my insurance agent. Further by my
> sister that is an underwriting trainer and claims supervisor for a
> large company.
>
> My answer to my neighbors is sorry, can't do it.
>
> And remember this; the larger the accident, the more likely they will
> be to sue, just from the sheer economics of the cost of medical
> treatment, deductibles, time off work, etc.
>
> A legal contract simply will not protect you. Worse, if they can
> prove simple negligence on your part (cords not grounded correctly, no
> safety glasses, no gloves, no ground faults, no dust collections or
> masks, adequate workspace, etc. ) you could be open to civil
> liability as well.

See!! I knew damn good and well I was correct in having sympathy for the
guy, capture on News video a few years ago, chasing his lawyer around a
tree and shooting him ...

Noble pursuit ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Pn

Phisherman

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 4:36 PM

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:42:49 GMT, "CC" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Not talking about job workshops, but
>working with friends on projects at home shop.
>Looking for some advise or experiences.
>My tools and shop and buddy or neighbor gets
>hurt doing something. What do you do to keep
>from possible legal problems associated with
>an accident. How do you protect yourself
>without first making a lawyer drawn up contract
>with them? Or is that what you have to do. I'm aware of
>making sure they know how to use tools safely
>but what else.
>CC


When someone is making a long rip cut on the tablesaw, don't get
behind him, cover his eye, and say "Guess Who?" Really, the shop is
no place for distractions of any kind. One guest turned on my bandsaw
(without permission) with the blade loosened. Since then I don't
allow visitors.

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

03/07/2009 3:41 AM

"J. Clarke" wrote:


> If you're in New
> England try Friendlys some time.

Part of Hershey Foods.

Also in the the MidWest as well as obviously PA.

Lew

CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 11:20 AM

HeyBub wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> CC wrote:
>>
>>> Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
>>> hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
>>> screw someone for their mistakes.
>> That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
>> is hot, deal with it".
>>
>> The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
>> her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
>> places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
>> have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
>> temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
>> bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
>> settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.
>>
>
> On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and she
> is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion suggests
> the problem lies with the user not the provider.

You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is the
exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.

Chris

CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

02/07/2009 2:46 PM

J. Clarke wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:

>>> On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee
>>> and she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that
>>> proportion suggests the problem lies with the user not the provider.

>> You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
>> providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is
>> the exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.
>
> If in fact all other coffee providers served it at the lower temperature.
> Starbucks doesn't. Dunkin Donuts, whose coffee is generally quite well
> regarded, doesn't. Burger King and Wendys don't. Further, percolators and
> drip coffee machines and espresso machines and most of the other kinds of
> device that one would use at home to make coffee don't.

There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more than
160 (and 140 is better).

Espresso machines would be a bad comparison, because the coffee cools
off so quickly after coming of the machine.

You make a good point about some of the other fast-food places serving
coffee almost as hot...arguably they would be at fault as well.

I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat colder,
but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as fast.
Personally I drink my coffee in an insulated mug and it keeps its
temperature for hours.

Chris

Sk

Swingman

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

01/07/2009 5:27 AM

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:38 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> will ask you, "then how do you know you are using it the correct way,
>>> the safest way? And what in the world qualified you to be a teacher?"
>> Left some blood (less than many, more than most) on foreign soil,
>> supposedly to "defend" this country and what it(once) stood for.
>>
>> Now, just "why" was that again ...??
>
> Anymore Karl, I just don't know. I don't know. I sure don't feel
> like the Liberty Bell rings like it used to.
>
> I don't know if I am turning into just another grouchy old shit, or if
> I am just fed up with just about everything because of the way things
> are going, and actually have been going for some time.

It's a combination of both ... change is a constant, and elders have an
age based perspective that makes it all too apparent the cheese has been
moved.

> When I see how badly our legal system has been perverted, and how it
> affects even the most innocent events of our lives, I am literally
> confounded.

> Gee... with almost every politician now being an attorney, I wonder
> how that happened....

Has been my contention for years that the product of a US law school
should be prohibited from serving in the legislative branch of government.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Hh

"HeyBub"

in reply to "CC" on 30/06/2009 5:42 AM

30/06/2009 4:09 PM

CC wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the responses everyone, Seems as if the
> system is
> now set up so a couple guys cannot get together to build
> something
> for the pleasure of doing it without having to worry about
> if are you going to
> loose everything you have for a hobby or a pleasant evening.
> Also shows what
> can happen if an accident happens to someone other than
> yourself and
> the insurance companies and lawyers take it over and out of
> your hands
> Leaves a lot to think about if that comes up. Not what I was
> hoping for
> but I wanted to know the reality of what could result.

For the lawyers to take over, they usually have to have a living plaintiff
(nudge-nudge, hint-hint). Failing that, the deceased's estate gets involved
(nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean? know-what-I-mean?). Eventually, the search
for heirs will peter out.


You’ve reached the end of replies