View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 28th, 2014, 6:42 pm



Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Best Wideout in three years? 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11942
Post 
The only good lawyer is a dead lawyer.............thanks to them we have all these wonderful frivolous lawsuite..

Plaintiff: I brought hot coffee from McDonald's and burned my mouth
Lawyer: Let's sute, that's just not right, they should've warned you that their coffee is actually hot
Plaintiff: But isn't that wrong?
Lawyer: Hell no!! We're going to get you a lot of money and that's always good.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 6th, 2005, 12:31 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
I have heard that there are more people in school to become lawyers than there are lawyers currently in practice in the United States. That is pretty disheartening, since I feel this country has too many 'low class' lawyers as it is. Too many ambulance chasers and trouble makers.

But I won't make the mistake of lumping them all together. I know some lawyers that are very stand up, honorable people who are very good at what they do and truly help the people they work for. Unfortunately it's the idiots who seek to hog the limelight that get all the press. People like Geoffrey Feiger just piss me off. I hate that guy.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 6th, 2005, 12:47 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
The only good lawyer is a dead lawyer.............thanks to them we have all these wonderful frivolous lawsuite..

Plaintiff: I brought hot coffee from McDonald's and burned my mouth
Lawyer: Let's sute, that's just not right, they should've warned you that their coffee is actually hot
Plaintiff: But isn't that wrong?
Lawyer: Hell no!! We're going to get you a lot of money and that's always good.


Ouch. That hurts. I hope that you really don't want me to drop dead upon receipt of my JD.

Also, an interesting fact about the McDonald's case. The coffee that was served to that woman caused 3RD DEGREE BURNS and she would've been seriously injured had she drank the coffee as directed (letting it cool, etc). McDonald's also had complaints numbering in the 70s from persons who were injured from drinking their coffee. Furthermore, McDonald's kept it's coffee much hotter than Burger King, Wendy's etc: so it's not as if they were just going by fast food standards. Additionally, the woman did not make "millions of dollars": she had her judgment reduced to about $800,000, which admittedly is a nice chunk of change, but not a huge penalty for an entity like McDonald's, who exercised extreme corporate recklessness in that case.

A lot of the cases that get blown up in the press as "frivolous" are really successes by corporate marketing departments. Granted, there is such thing as a frivolous lawsuit, but it's best to take a lot of news reports about frivolous lawsuits with a grain of salt.

_________________
Alphonso Smith for Dan Gronkowski? Epic fail, McDaniels.


May 6th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
I agree that many of the supposedly "frivilous" law suits, do not measure up to their critics hype when you actually examine the details of the case. Although there are excesses everywhere, the current attack on our tort system is just another arm of a movement that seeks to disempower normal people in favor of corporations.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


May 6th, 2005, 1:46 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
It's not always about 'disempowering normal people in favor of corporations'. Working at General Motors I have heard/seen my share of 'frivolous' lawsuits being brought against this corporation and the lingering effects these lawsuits have. Case in point:

The side saddle gas tanks on the full size pickups of the late 1980's and early 1990's. These tanks passed EVERY FEDERALLY MANDATED IMPACT TEST. EVERY SINGLE ONE. They also passed GM's internal impact standards which are actually HIGHER than that of the Federal Governments. Then those genius' at Dateline decided to PROVE they were defective. They had to rig their 'test' to make the vehicle burst into flame by using a radio controlled spark source on gas that escaped the tank through the fuel filler tube intentionally left open. They never got the tank to puncture, and couldn't cause a fire through standard impact. Despite all this, cases were lodged at GM with the basis that this particular design was 'unsafe'. Despite all records and proof to the contrary, GM was FORCED to settle some cases because the decidedly biased judges would disallow the test results as part of the evidence in the defense of the design. NOW HOW IS THAT SLANTING THE FAVOR TOWARDS THE CORPORATE WORLD. That, to me, seems highly suspect and unjustified.

There was a case of a 17 year old boy getting killed in Texas. He was driving a GM truck with the side saddle gas tank design. He was impacted on the side of his truck by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was travelling at well over 60 miles per hour when the crash occurred. The impact has so much force that the young mans cerebellum was partially torn from his spine. His aorta, according to autopsy reports, was partially severed from the force alone and would cause him to have bled to death in a matter of less than a minute. A fire took place, caused by the radiator of the vehicle that hit the truck travelling through the reinforced side panel and cracking, not puncturing, the gas tank. The spark that caused the fire came from the broken headlight of the car. It caused the fire to start on the ground where gas had spilled from BOTH vehicles. The fire started some 20-25 seconds after the initial impact. According to the reports, this young man would have lived ONLY if there had been a trauma cardio surgeon on site who would have had to have cracked that kids chest immediately and re-attach his aorta to prevent his bleeding to death. Even if that boy had lived, the brain damage alone could have killed him, and had he lived through that, would have been in a vegetative state the remainder of his life. In effect, this boy had no chance of living through this horrific accident. An accident caused not by the design of the truck, but by the driver of the other vehicle. Despite all this evidence, the jury found GM partially liable for the boys death. Two seperate, independently done autopsies found that the boy was dead by the time the fire reached him in the cab of the truck. A third autopsy, contracted by the parents of the boy, found that the evidence was 'inconclusive'. Funny how the judge allowed only that report.

Sometimes the 'normal' people need to be disarmed because they have too many greedy f-ing lawyers who convince them to 'follow the money'. Want to know why your car insurance and the cost of vehicles is so high? Just thank the hundred of people like this that continue to bring forth unjustified cases into court. Thank the lawyers and judges that foster these cases and create unfair environments decidedly biased against the corporations. And remember that without these large corporations, most of us would not have a job and wouldn't be able to afford access to the internet.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 6th, 2005, 2:23 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11942
Post 
Strawberries&Chocolat wrote:
Also, an interesting fact about the McDonald's case. The coffee that was served to that woman caused 3RD DEGREE BURNS and she would've been seriously injured had she drank the coffee as directed (letting it cool, etc). McDonald's also had complaints numbering in the 70s from persons who were injured from drinking their coffee. Furthermore, McDonald's kept it's coffee much hotter than Burger King, Wendy's etc: so it's not as if they were just going by fast food standards. Additionally, the woman did not make "millions of dollars": she had her judgment reduced to about $800,000, which admittedly is a nice chunk of change, but not a huge penalty for an entity like McDonald's, who exercised extreme corporate recklessness in that case.

A lot of the cases that get blown up in the press as "frivolous" are really successes by corporate marketing departments. Granted, there is such thing as a frivolous lawsuit, but it's best to take a lot of news reports about frivolous lawsuits with a grain of salt.
What else was McDonalds ordered by the court to do? ie lower the temp on their coffee bakers? put idiotic disclaimers on their coffee cups? From what I can tell, besides paying a rediculous amount of money for a hot cup of coffee the only other thing they had to do was to put a disclaimer on their coffee cups. Where I come from we have this thing called Common Sense, well at least we used to until lawyers killed it. Common Sense would dictate that if I get a hot cup of coffee I'm going to think its going to be hot, un duh!!! I've tried drinking cold coffee and I just don't like it. Thanks to all the lawyers that help to kill our dear friend, Common Sense, may forever RIP.

And no, I don't group all lawyers together, but the majority of the ones that I have had the displeasure of dealing with are scum and bottom feeders and I think that the Human Gene Pool average would increase if they were gone.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 6th, 2005, 2:24 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
A lot of the cases that get blown up in the press as "frivolous" are really successes by corporate marketing departments. Granted, there is such thing as a frivolous lawsuit, but it's best to take a lot of news reports about frivolous lawsuits with a grain of salt. What else was McDonalds ordered by the court to do? ie lower the temp on their coffee bakers? put idiotic disclaimers on their coffee cups? From what I can tell, besides paying a rediculous amount of money for a hot cup of coffee the only other thing they had to do was to put a disclaimer on their coffee cups. Where I come from we have this thing called Common Sense, well at least we used to until lawyers killed it. Common Sense would dictate that if I get a hot cup of coffee I'm going to think its going to be hot, un duh!!! I've tried drinking cold coffee and I just don't like it. Thanks to all the lawyers that help to kill our dear friend, Common Sense, may forever RIP.

And no, I don't group all lawyers together, but the majority of the ones that I have had the displeasure of dealing with are scum and bottom feeders and I think that the Human Gene Pool average would increase if they were gone.


Real Wags, thanks for your response. I know this thread has veered wildly off topic, but what good is a forum if it can't handle some spontaneous discussion? I would also like to respectfully disagree.

Firstly, if you believe that a corporation should not be held responsible when it violates "common sense" by serving coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns simply because someone contributed to their own harm, well I don't think we're going to be in agreement. No coffee should be hot enough to cause third degree burns. Her genital area was charred from the coffee (this is the stuff of victims of fires), and as I mentioned, she would have suffered similar injuries if she had allowed the coffee to cool off and then consumed it normally. I've touched hot coffee before--it's hot, but it shouldn't cause third degree burns.

I think most of us would be angry if we made a similar mistake and suffered tremendous rather than minor injuries because a corporation who was aware of a dangerous product continued to sell it unmodified. Similarly, if we you were driving down the street at ten miles over the speed limit, and you were blindsided by a drunk driver who ended up killing your entire family, would you want the drunk driver to get off simply because you shouldn't have been driving over the speed limit? Wouldn't you be angry even if they could prove that the accident would not have occurred if you had been driving the speed limit?

Also, in the history of the case at hand, the woman did not simply sue McDonald's after the injuries. The lawyers for the old woman offered McDonald's a settlement which only included a payment of her medical fees (which were extensive). McDonald's (inexplicably) refused, so she was forced to file suit. It's not as if she's litigious.

I agree that there exists frivolous lawsuits (perhaps m2karateman has listed some examples above), and I also agree that there are some pretty sleezy characters in the law profession (believe me, I've met plenty of those already). The McDonald's coffee case, however, was by no means a frivolous lawsuit.

_________________
Alphonso Smith for Dan Gronkowski? Epic fail, McDaniels.


Last edited by Strawberries&Chocolat on May 6th, 2005, 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.



May 6th, 2005, 4:38 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11942
Post 
Strawberries&Chocolat,

I honestly don't know anything about the case other than what I've heard and you just told me. If the facts that you are stating are true (coffee would've casued 3rd degree burns) then maybe McDs should've been held responsible, but for $800,000?????? Give me a break. That just tells me that the lawyer was a greedy bum and wanted to make sure he got plenty with his cut.
By chance did anyone at anytime throughout these proceedings check to see why the coffee was so hot? ie malfunctioning coffee maker or electrical problem?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 6th, 2005, 5:03 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
Strawberries&Chocolat,

I honestly don't know anything about the case other than what I've heard and you just told me. If the facts that you are stating are true (coffee would've casued 3rd degree burns) then maybe McDs should've been held responsible, but for $800,000?????? Give me a break. That just tells me that the lawyer was a greedy bum and wanted to make sure he got plenty with his cut.
By chance did anyone at anytime throughout these proceedings check to see why the coffee was so hot? ie malfunctioning coffee maker or electrical problem?


Actually, McDonalds kept its coffee that hot on purpose (god knows why). I read about it in my casebook, and unfortunately it didn't say why McDonald's felt that they needed to keep their coffee that hot (Burger King, Tim Horton's, etc did not keep their coffee nearly as hot). I remember that by the time trial began McDonald's had already reduced the temperature on their coffee for obvious reasons.

_________________
Alphonso Smith for Dan Gronkowski? Epic fail, McDaniels.


May 6th, 2005, 6:36 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
conversion02 wrote:
Fellers (blueblood and Strawberries) - question about law school.

My girlfriend's dream is to become a Corporate Lawyer. She is in her Sr year at Iowa State studying Chem E. What's law schoo like? I don't know anyone who's been to law school, so I'm pretty dumb on this one. Any info about applying, good schools, the LSAT, etc would be appreciated!!


Conversion,

Law school isn't nearly the nightmare that's portrayed in the national media. Although it's definitely more work than undergraduate, it's still better than the 9-5 grind in my opinion. When I took the LSAT I used one of the commercially available prep books, which worked out well. Kaplan/Princeton Review offers a class on the LSAT but most people that I've talked to say that the class is pretty useless. It's hard to recommend schools when we don't know what we're dealing with in terms of LSAT, but if your girlfriend knows she wants to do big firm corporate law, she should try hard to go with a big name. I don't know where your girlfriend is in the application process so it's hard for me to give more advice than that: is she applying/has applied this upcoming year or far into the future?

_________________
Alphonso Smith for Dan Gronkowski? Epic fail, McDaniels.


May 6th, 2005, 6:48 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10286
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post 
She hasn't taken the LSAT yet. She's taking it this fall.

She's from Illinois, but is moving to MI, so that's where she's going to school. She's going to work for a year, and acquire in state status and then go to school, so she hasn't started the application process yet. She's hoping for U of M, but being a Chem E student (and hating it), her GPA reflects that.

She's taken many of the practice LSATs and scored near a 160 on all of them, which isn't too bad. I told her she needs to shoot for mid to upper 160s to balance out her GPA.

I just would like to know a little bit about the process so I can throw in my two cents.


May 6th, 2005, 8:04 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
Conversion,

The median LSAT score for the University of Michigan Law School is 167 and the median GPA is 3.62. Yeah, I know, it's pretty tough, but U of M Law is considered about #7 in the country. Also, it has been getting more and more difficult to apply to law school in recent years and I don't know if that trend will abate (the economy is supposedly recovering) or not. There is a break from in-state tuition at U of M (about $5K per year) but that isn't earth shattering considering that U of M's tuition is high even for law schools.

If U of M is not an option, I would recommend Wayne State University (which is about #100 on the top lists). If you can get in-state tuition at Wayne State, it's a bargain (the in-state tuition, if I remember, is less than half of U of M's). You do sacrifice a little bit on the "name" however. If your girlfriend wants to practice outside of Michigan, there's not a lot she can do with a Wayne State JD. I would assume that there would be private sector corporate jobs available in Michigan for those with Wayne State degrees given that most people who go to U of M law leave to practice in New York or Los Angeles or somewhere, but to be honest I don't know that much about the firm market in Michigan. A 160, even with a less than stellar GPA should be enough to get into Wayne State (I think).

Has your girlfriend considered patent work? There is a big demand in patent law for people with science backgrounds and firms are a little more willing to sacrifice their preferences for high grades in law school for those persons (sadly, I'm not one of them).

I hope that helps! I'm always willing to answer questions.

_________________
Alphonso Smith for Dan Gronkowski? Epic fail, McDaniels.


May 6th, 2005, 9:06 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
Once upon a time on 30/Apr. this thread was about Wide Receivers.

Now that the lawyers have arrived it's no longer what it used to be.


Sad but true...


:roll:


May 6th, 2005, 9:13 pm
Profile WWW
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post 
Look what I missed by being gone for a couple of days.. N8 getting edited by the forum moderator LMAO.... Brian coming to terms with his rightness... N8 refusing to come to terms with his wrongness, SAC(strawberries and chocalate) rambling like a women on a mission

n8... you assumed correctly I do not Have HBO, I have showtime
8)

and you never said you werent old! :shock:

I reiterate:

1. Larry Fitz
2. Roy W.
3. CROG
4. Andre Johnson
5. Mike Williams
the other 3

Jason Lee only stars in Silent Bob movies?

Edit by mod: Come on Ferris, be fair. You can't comment on someone else getting edited and not expect me to edit what I did! lol


May 7th, 2005, 7:10 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10286
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post 
Ferris wrote:
Jason Lee only stars in Silent Bob movies?


Negative - Stealing Harvard is probably his most popular non-J & SB movie...

Here's a list of his movies:
Southland Tales (2006) (pre-production)
Monster House (2006) (post-production) .... Bones
Jack-Jack Attack (2005) (V) (voice) .... Syndrome
Drop Dead Sexy (2005) .... Frank
The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005) .... Gray
The Incredibles (2004) (voice) .... Buddy Pine/Syndrome
... aka Hum Hai Laajawab (India: Hindi title)
Sonic Youth Video Dose (2004) (TV)
Jersey Girl (2004) .... PR Exec #1
The Incredibles (2004/II) (VG) (voice) .... Syndrome/Buddy Pine
I Love Your Work (2003) .... Dishevelled Man
Dreamcatcher (2003) .... Joe 'Beaver' Clarenden
... aka Attrapeur de r?ves, L' (Canada: French title)
A Guy Thing (2003) .... Paul Coleman
Stealing Harvard (2002) .... John Plummer
Big Trouble (2002) .... Puggy
Vanilla Sky (2001) .... Brian Shelby
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001) .... Brodie Bruce/Banky Edwards
Heartbreakers (2001) .... Jack Withrowe
Almost Famous (2000) .... Jeff Bebe
... aka Untitled: Almost Famous the Bootleg Cut (USA: director's cut (DVD title))
Mumford (1999) .... Skip Skipperton
Dogma (1999) .... Azrael
Enemy of the State (1998) .... Daniel Leon Zavitz
Cuisine am?ricaine (1998) .... Loren Collins
... aka American Cuisine
Kissing a Fool (1998) .... Jay Murphy
A Better Place (1997) (as Dennis Pepper and Linus Peacock) .... Dennis Pepper/Steve
Weapons of Mass Distraction (1997) (TV) .... Phillip Messenger
Chasing Amy (1997) .... Banky Edwards
Drawing Flies (1996) .... Donner
Mallrats (1995) .... Brodie Bruce
Mi vida loca (1993) .... Teenage Drug Customer
... aka My Crazy Life
Video Days (1991) (V)


May 7th, 2005, 7:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.