Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 wow BRENTWOOD – Paul Sanchez, a 67-year-old "occasional" golfer, sued Candia Woods Golf Links this week over an accident that left him blind in one eye. Sanchez, of 20 Country Club Drive, Manchester, was golfing with two or three friends in September 2006 when a ball he hit bounced off a yardage-marker and "whacked him" in the right eye, according to his attorney, Barry M. Scotch. "Before he could even -- pardon the expression -- blink, he was hit," Scotch said. "It just ricocheted right back at him." In the lawsuit, Sanchez faults the course's owners for failing to warn him about the markers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Reminds me of the time that I drove a ball into some sort of stake that was just off the tee box, about 15 yards from the tee. If I didn't pull a Dubya-like dodge, the ball would have hit me in the eye, and killed me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If I didn't pull a Dubya-like dodge, the ball would have hit me in the eye, and killed me. On top of all that, you'd also be required to assess yourself a 2 shot penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I wish the papers would follow through on these lunacies so we could find out which judge threw them out. Because that's pretty much what happens to 99% of them, despite Rush's rantings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I wish the papers would follow through on these lunacies so we could find out which judge threw them out. Because that's pretty much what happens to 99% of them, despite Rush's rantings. Exactly....everyone like to bring up the McDonald's lawsuit...but on appeal, the lady got virtually nothing....some..but certainly not millions...however, what most forget to mention in that suit is that McDonald's was warned on numerous occasions for giving out coffee way hotter than what the federal regulation was. They got burned.....there is a reason why there are regulations....to keep people from hurting others for a profit. But his case is ignorant....I am sure it won't make it past summary judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Left wrist straight, right elbow in...problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Exactly....everyone like to bring up the McDonald's lawsuit...but on appeal, the lady got virtually nothing....some..but certainly not millions...however, what most forget to mention in that suit is that McDonald's was warned on numerous occasions for giving out coffee way hotter than what the federal regulation was. They got burned.....there is a reason why there are regulations....to keep people from hurting others for a profit. I looked it up to see. her actual damages were found to be $200,000 and the jury awarded her $160,000 finding her to be 20% at fault, and they also awareded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. on appeal, the punitive award was reduced to 3 times her compensatory damages. so she ended up with $640,000. I'm not sure if that meets your definition of "virtually nothing". "keep people from hurting others for a profit"? apparently, in 10 years, 700 people reported burning themselves with mcdonald's coffee. according to mcdonald's, that is one injury out of every 24 million cups sold. mcdonald's was "punished" in this case for serving coffee at 180-190 degrees fahrenheit. the national coffee association recommends coffee be brewed at 195-205 and drunk immediately, or, if it can't be served immediately, should be maintained at 180-185 degrees. that case is held up as the epitome of stupid lawsuits for good reason. hopefully, this guy doesn't get a cent...but at least one lawyer was happy to take the case, that says something right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 fecal blemish got PWND!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I looked it up to see. her actual damages were found to be $200,000 and the jury awarded her $160,000 finding her to be 20% at fault, and they also awareded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. on appeal, the punitive award was reduced to 3 times her compensatory damages. so she ended up with $640,000. I'm not sure if that meets your definition of "virtually nothing". "keep people from hurting others for a profit"? apparently, in 10 years, 700 people reported burning themselves with mcdonald's coffee. according to mcdonald's, that is one injury out of every 24 million cups sold. mcdonald's was "punished" in this case for serving coffee at 180-190 degrees fahrenheit. the national coffee association recommends coffee be brewed at 195-205 and drunk immediately, or, if it can't be served immediately, should be maintained at 180-185 degrees. that case is held up as the epitome of stupid lawsuits for good reason. hopefully, this guy doesn't get a cent...but at least one lawyer was happy to take the case, that says something right there. Oh, snap! Hey Az, is there actually a "federal regulation" defining this phantom law McDonald's supposedly broke, or was he just pulling more "shiznit" from his "el guapo"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) I am also wondering where I can find these supposed federal regulations regarding the temperature at which coffee should be served shiznit referred to. edit: wva beat me to it Edited February 5, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I am also wondering where I can find these supposed federal regulations regarding the temperature at which coffee should be served shiznit referred to. edit: wva beat me to it I figured that since you're the federal lawyer, you'd just be able to spout these right off! No? I'm sure he wouldn't just make shiz up, would he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 I figured that since you're the federal lawyer not exactly. I just make the computers work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I looked it up to see. her actual damages were found to be $200,000 and the jury awarded her $160,000 finding her to be 20% at fault, and they also awareded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. on appeal, the punitive award was reduced to 3 times her compensatory damages. so she ended up with $640,000. I'm not sure if that meets your definition of "virtually nothing". "keep people from hurting others for a profit"? apparently, in 10 years, 700 people reported burning themselves with mcdonald's coffee. according to mcdonald's, that is one injury out of every 24 million cups sold. mcdonald's was "punished" in this case for serving coffee at 180-190 degrees fahrenheit. the national coffee association recommends coffee be brewed at 195-205 and drunk immediately, or, if it can't be served immediately, should be maintained at 180-185 degrees. that case is held up as the epitome of stupid lawsuits for good reason. hopefully, this guy doesn't get a cent...but at least one lawyer was happy to take the case, that says something right there. Paging Mr Wiegie....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Reminds me when we were golfing and we were standing at a 90o angle to my bud who was teeing off. He hit the ball and it came within inches of us shattering the "Tee" sign! What ever happened to "Assumed Risk"? Dayum....It was his BALL and his HIT!!! What if he hit himself in the head w/ his own club?? Sorry...too many ambulance chasers that I think the local/national Bars should start to police. These cases should never go to litigation! Hell...I'm in favor of penalizing Lawyers for frivolity! The courts are too jammed w/ legit suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I once hit a beautiful worm-burner that bouned hard off the ladies tee and bounced back over my head. Like Furd, if I didn't stick and move like Ali, I would be seriously dead. I took a mulligan since I am not Tiger Woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I still think you make tort cases loser pays... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Paging Mr Wiegie....... This oldie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I still think you make tort cases loser pays... +1,000. Solves the problem completely (though I think the problem is exaggerated). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Loser pays what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 no one yelled "Fore"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Loser pays what? Costs - for both sides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Loser pays what? Winner's legal expenses. The reason a lot of these get filed is because, even if a judge dismisses them early it would still cost a few thousand in legal fees to make it happen. Often it's cheaper for a company to settle for a small amount to avoid negative pub and make it go away. If the losers were forced to pay the court costs to the winners, then you'd get good suits settled quickly (if the company knows it's going to lose it's going to make a fair offer to avoid the extra cost of legal fees), frivolous suits would be rare (because the plaintiff knows a loss would cost them) and the only suits decided in courts would be "tweeners", which is all that should be there in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 So only people with money have actionable injuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I'm also stumped as to how much money the State of California owes OJ Simpson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Winner's legal expenses. The reason a lot of these get filed is because, even if a judge dismisses them early it would still cost a few thousand in legal fees to make it happen. Often it's cheaper for a company to settle for a small amount to avoid negative pub and make it go away. If the losers were forced to pay the court costs to the winners, then you'd get good suits settled quickly (if the company knows it's going to lose it's going to make a fair offer to avoid the extra cost of legal fees), frivolous suits would be rare (because the plaintiff knows a loss would cost them) and the only suits decided in courts would be "tweeners", which is all that should be there in the first place. So you think that the threat of having to pay 10 or 30 grand or so in legal fees is going to bring a corporation/insurance company to the table? I'm not sure what your experiences are, but where I come from: 1) no insurance company pays anything to make a case "go away;" 2) no insurance company settles a case quickly or early in the litigation; 3) not many lawyers will take a case expecting an insurance company to pay a small amount to make the case "go away;" 4) frivolous lawsuits are extremely rare; and 5) almost every tort case is a "tweener" to some extent A loser pays rule will effect legitmate claims moreso than so called frivolous claims. Are you going to take a 20% chance to have to remortgage your house or spend your nest egg to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of an injured family member? There is no real way to determine this, but I bet that for evry 'frivolous" case in which a plaintiff gets a significant jury verdict, there are at least 100 cases in which a deserving plaintiff gets nothing from the jury. The thing is, those cases don't make the papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.