Double standard.

[Zyglamail]

Here is a question for all you legal eagles. Its not so much AAS related but just Law related in general.

It seems that more and more lately that people/companies are being held accountable for how their products are used or misused. For instance the lady who won a lawsuite for spilling hot coffee in her lap and she sued McD's. I still dont understand how that worked. Im sure you lawyer types have all sorts of examples where things like that have occured.

Anyway, if the prosocution goes after XYZ because an item was shipped via usps in a usps supplied container and the contents used for something other than intended, why isnt the usps being held responsible, after all if something is sold and used in a manner the seller did not intend and can be held accountable even though they had no idea what the buyer inteded, then why cant the usps be held accountable for supplying the boxes and actually delivering the box?

 

[HULKSTER]

Because corporate scumbags have a helluva lot more money, lawyers and overall power (especially political) that they can use to help out their case, while the average Joe has shit compared to them to use in a fight court fight.

 

[Citruscide]

Anyway, if the prosocution goes after XYZ because an item was shipped via usps in a usps supplied container and the contents used for something other than intended, why isnt the usps being held responsible, after all if something is sold and used in a manner the seller did not intend and can be held accountable even though they had no idea what the buyer inteded, then why cant the usps be held accountable for supplying the boxes and actually delivering the box?

Well... the USPS is a federal agency... and in fact... they are a "victim" when you use them to send out these "products" -- which is why alot of times you see "mail fraud" or other related charges involving use of the US Mail.

I know of a guy who sold the ingrediants for Crystal Meth... from a website... the ingrediants, are legal. He also, provided instructions on how to make it... which... is also legal... however, he ended up getting busted because there was a connection made between the two... that he was actually promoting himself as someone who could help people MAKE the crystal meth (I mean... having designs to make a nuclear weapon online isn't illegal...)...

So... I hope that somehow helped you out.

C-ditty

 

[Zyglamail]

Re: Re: Double standard.

Well... the USPS is a federal agency... and in fact... they are a "victim" when you use them to send out these "products" -- which is why alot of times you see "mail fraud" or other related charges involving use of the US Mail.

I know of a guy who sold the ingrediants for Crystal Meth... from a website... the ingrediants, are legal. He also, provided instructions on how to make it... which... is also legal... however, he ended up getting busted because there was a connection made between the two... that he was actually promoting himself as someone who could help people MAKE the crystal meth (I mean... having designs to make a nuclear weapon online isn't illegal...)...

So... I hope that somehow helped you out.

C-ditty

Well, I can under stand the meth situation, but in the McD's situation how can they actually be held accountable for someone spilling coffee in their lap? I guess im more thinking generally speaking, noth specific in mind, but I know its happened (just cant remember anything off thge top of my head) where someone(or some organization, has been penalized for the way their product was used when it was used outside the realm for which it was intended by the supplier. The law that makes the supplier responsible seems so grey and open to inturpretation but it rarely seems to work against the government.

 

[Citruscide]

Re: Re: Re: Double standard.

Well, I can under stand the meth situation, but in the McD's situation how can they actually be held accountable for someone spilling coffee in their lap? I guess im more thinking generally speaking, noth specific in mind, but I know its happened (just cant remember anything off thge top of my head) where someone(or some organization, has been penalized for the way their product was used when it was used outside the realm for which it was intended by the supplier. The law that makes the supplier responsible seems so grey and open to inturpretation but it rarely seems to work against the government.

Well, McD was found negligent because they made their coffee scalding hot... I think it was 70% McD and 30% old lady... she still gets the millions...

Many times a company has been held liable for not putting a warning on their product... say "May cause blindness in 1% of all users" -- it is basically a defective product... without the warning... even though doctors may tell the patient... a patient may loan out the pills to a friend... who in turn, may get blindness... Liability on the friend? no... bailee liability doesn't extend in this instance, because the whole thing could have been avoided if the warning was simply placed on the label... now we get into an argument of how risky was teh defect?... but that is hours of discussion.

C-ditty

 

[Zyglamail]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Double standard.

Well, McD was found negligent because they made their coffee scalding hot... I think it was 70% McD and 30% old lady... she still gets the millions...

Many times a company has been held liable for not putting a warning on their product... say "May cause blindness in 1% of all users" -- it is basically a defective product... without the warning... even though doctors may tell the patient... a patient may loan out the pills to a friend... who in turn, may get blindness... Liability on the friend? no... bailee liability doesn't extend in this instance, because the whole thing could have been avoided if the warning was simply placed on the label... now we get into an argument of how risky was teh defect?... but that is hours of discussion.

C-ditty

Its al so convoluted that it makes me ill to be honest. One situation comes to mind where a child fell through the bleachers and the school (if I remember correctly) was sued and lost due to the design of the bleachers. Now this design has been in use since bleachers were first used and im sure there have been accidents in the past, but where does the line get drawn? When does the responsibility shift from the parents allowing thier kids on the bleachers to the school for actually having the bleachers? As people we are confronted with dozens if not more situations every day that can be very dangerous or fatal. Look at simple cross walk, a curb or what have you. If I stumble off a curb and get plastered by a car can I sue because the cure wasnt painted yellw, red or purple so I could more easily diferentiate that there was a change in elevation? After all I am pretty much blind in one eye so I have reduced depth perception, lack of "identifying" the curb isnt very handicap friendly is it? Has society and government become so anal retentive that we need a 20 page handbook with a pair of sunglasses on the dangers of looking at the sun even with them on? Do we need a bulliten board by every cross walk explaining the dangers of trying to cross the street?

 

[Stud Diesel]

From what I understand a jury awarded the woman $200,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punitive damages. However we will never know the final amount awarded since the parties entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.

Okay so we presume that she still probably made a million or more. The point is that many times when you read about these obnoxious multimillion dollar lawsuits, you automatically assume that the person will win the amount stated. This is not always the case.

You can sue for just about anything—doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily win. Also, just because a company settles, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are guilty.

 

[HULKSTER]

From what I understand a jury awarded the woman $200,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punitive damages. However we will never know the final amount awarded since the parties entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.

Okay so we presume that she still probably made a million or more. The point is that many times when you read about these obnoxious multimillion dollar lawsuits, you automatically assume that the person will win the amount stated. This is not always the case.

You can sue for just about anything—doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily win. Also, just because a company settles, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are guilty.

Shit, I'd let someone spill boiling hot coffee on my ballbag if I would get at least a million or more. I'm sure there are a lot of wealthy, kinky homosexuals in San Franscico, NYC, etc. who would be into that kind of thing. AAP, are you rich?

 

[Stud Diesel]

Shit, I'd let someone spill boiling hot coffee on my ballbag if I would get at least a million or more. I'm sure there are a lot of wealthy, kinky homosexuals in San Franscico, NYC, etc. who would be into that kind of thing. AAP, are you rich?

Sounds like an idea for Fear Factor.

 

[HULKSTER]

Sounds like an idea for Fear Factor.

Which Fear Factor.....the one on television, or on EF? LMAO!