View Single Post
Old 03-16-2008, 07:05 AM   #21
jims69camaro
Avatar Abuser
 
jims69camaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 08721-1716
Posts: 5,056
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by firehawk1120 View Post
Then in going with that theory car makers should reduce the horsepower because some idiot decides to do 150 mph and kills himself. the family should sue the car manufacturer for giving him the ability to go that fast.
they have, unsuccessfully. it's not the same thing as a hot cup of coffee, you know, but i'll let that slide and discuss it on its merits only. there are a number of factors to consider when someone decides to do 150 mph and kills himself. was he of sound mind? did he mean to kill himself? was the car modified? there are warning signs all over the place, but people chose to ignore them, sometimes to their peril. there are speed limit signs. there are cops out there, supposedly enforcing those limits. traffic has a great impact on speed, as in everyone else is obeying the posted limit, then there is no way this guy could hit 150. if he creates a situation where he can go 150, like he waits until the dead of night when there are no other cars, has friends help him block off the road, etc, then he is going all out in order to do that 150 mph, and therefore there is no way in hell anyone but he should be held liable for his speed and subsequent death.

Quote:
Maybe the gun companies should be sued when a crazy moron uses the gun to kill a bunch of innocent people and then himself.
everytime this happens, the gun manufacturer(s) is pulled into court, too. they've not been successful so far, because there are so many people who abide by the law and don't go into a crowd blazing and end up pulling the trigger on themselves. so, when you compare his actions to those of the rest of the populace, there is no grounds to hold the gun manufacturer liable. guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Quote:
Wait I know I should sue the engineer of the bridge I used to jump off to paralyze myself and now and handicapped because he put the bridge over a river and it didn't kill me.
again, the argument comes into play of how many people use that bridge for its intended purpose and not to kill themselves. no way to hold the engineer or the company that constructed the bridge, nor the town where the bridge is, nor the people who operate the bridge liable for one person's aberrant behavior.

Quote:
People need to be responsible for their actions PERIOD. No exceptions, well it was TOO hot, if it wasn't so hot and spilled on her crotch she wouldn't have sued. BS. They should have laughed at her and told her to take a hike. Crap like this pisses me off.
if, in the normal course of action, something unintentional happens, like spilled coffee, should the person that the coffee spilled on be subject to 3rd degree burns? just because a company has their thermostats set too high? everything that happened after the coffee spilled happened because the coffee was too damn hot. 190 degrees fahrenheit cannot be consumed - you'd burn your mouth, tongue, esophagus, stomach lining with coffee that hot. so, why was the coffee so hot? the quality control guy said to keep it at that temperature. his reasoning? well, because of the lawsuit, his reasoning never came out. i know at 180 degrees, bacteria have a hard time living, so maybe it was to make sure that the drink was bacteria-free. i can buy that, but at some point before you give it to the customer, it has to cool down for the customer to drink it. how many times have you burned the tip of your tongue and the roof of your mouth because the coffee was too hot?

i agree, people should be held responsible for their actions. but companies should also be held liable for their actions, and in this case the coffee was too hot.
__________________
JSFBOA


Save a life.

N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

Last edited by jims69camaro; 03-16-2008 at 07:07 AM.
jims69camaro is offline   Reply With Quote