Unless he received permanent injury (and even then) even 10s of thousands is ridiculous for what this amounts to, which is "Shit Happens". I mean there's a 20 foot high fence all around the impound, and the paintball field (supposedly) has netting all around it to prevent stay balls from leaving the range. It was a one in a million shot (again assuming that there is netting there and the field doesn't bump right up to the edge of the tree line there) that the ball cleared both the netting, the trees and the chainlink fence without breaking on anything along the way and hit him with enough force to break. That's not a failure of the state to adequately protect him anymore than a bird shitting in his eye while he stretches in the morning is a failure of the state to protect him. Pay his medical bills, sure. Require the field owner to put up better netting on the prison side, sure. Give him a little extra jelly with his breakfast, sure. Give him 10k+ for a freak accident with no lasting damage, I don't think so.

7/9/2009 12:38:03 PM

It comes down to whether it was an accident, or someone is actually at fault for being negligent. Assuming his injury is real, and it came from the paintball field, I'd say the city is at fault for allowing a paint-ball field to be built near a prison. It's just common sense. You don't give someone a permit to build:
-a strip club next to an elementary school
-a factory meat farm next to the county reservoir
-an iron smelting facility next to the maternity ward of a hospital

When you're in prison, you can't just leave whenever you want. You can't decide "this neighborhood is getting dangerous, time to move".

This also isn't the middle ages, where prisoners are restrained in public, subject to the whims of passersby.

7/9/2009 1:28:50 PM

What do these three logical reasonable zoning conflicts listed below have to do with this situation

Quote :

"-a strip club next to an elementary school -a factory meat farm next to the county reservoir -an iron smelting facility next to the maternity ward of a hospital "

Why is a prison a "special" instance of somewhere one should not allow a paint-ball field nearby???

Quote :

"I'd say the city is at fault for allowing a paint-ball field to be built near a prison [i]car dealership, resedential area, farmer, natural area"

after all we don't want a car, house/person, or a farmer to potentially get marked or even a bird chocking to death in a natural area on a paintball.
Lets just ban paintball courses.

7/9/2009 2:29:18 PM

No one's being forced to expose themselves to a paintball course except the prisoners.

And every paintball course I've been to that wasn't surrounded by 30 foot mesh wire has been outside city limits. It's just common sense.

7/9/2009 5:04:23 PM

Quote :

"What do these three logical reasonable zoning conflicts listed below have to do with this situation "

This.

Quote :

"This also isn't the middle ages, where prisoners are restrained in public, subject to the whims of passersby. "

I was not aware that freak accidents are now the equivalent of chaining prisoners to the public square and hurling rotten fruit at them.

Quote :

"No one's being forced to expose themselves to a paintball course except the prisoners. "

These prisoners aren't forced to expose themselves either. This was (assuming the story is true as claimed) a 1 in a million shot, no different from the prisoner being shat on by a bird or struck by lightning. If he really wants to be totally protected from anything that can harm him outside, I'm sure that the state of New York has a solitary confinement cell or two available. Further, no one here has suggested that if this did occur as stated, that the field owner shouldn't be required to take measures to prevent it from happening again, but that isn't done with a $3M lawsuit.

Quote :

"And every paintball course I've been to that wasn't surrounded by 30 foot mesh wire has been outside city limits. It's just common sense. "

Given that this is Staten Island, there isn't exactly an "outside city limits" like you think of down here. However, given that most prisons are built in light to no residential population areas, one would think that would also make an ideal place for a paintball field no? Also, per the story, this field is surrounded by mesh

[Edited on July 9, 2009 at 7:02 PM. Reason : adsf]

7/9/2009 7:02:00 PM

Quote :

"These prisoners aren't forced to expose themselves either. This was (assuming the story is true as claimed) a 1 in a million shot"

or the 1 in a million chance that time at Carowinds when (can't remember if it was a shooting range or some guy legally hunting/shooting in the woods) a bullet that ricocheted, flew for a very very long distance, did some crazy shit, and ended up hitting some girl in the waterpark

7/10/2009 7:37:28 AM

Paintballs can only travel ~200 feet . Paintball players shouldn't be getting within 200 feet of inmates at a prison.

7/10/2009 10:07:36 AM

Quote :

"#2 He is lying, and his lies are so obvious a novice can sort them out with Google Earth. In that case, I am sure it will come out in court."

Using that logic that bitch never would have gotten millions for spilling hot coffee on herself at McDonalds. Oops, she did.

7/14/2009 10:34:55 AM

^

Quote :

"Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

7/14/2009 10:48:59 AM

Thank you. I'm glad it wasn't millions. But still, she should have gotten a free meal and that's it.

7/14/2009 11:18:00 AM

SO OMFG COFFEE IS HOT AND I SHOULD NOT HOLD IT BETWEEN MY LEGS WHILE DRIVING.

I think even a 12 yr old who has tried to sip his mommy's coffee could tell you that fresh out of the normal home brewing dripper the liquid is scalding hot.

What ever happened to personnal responsibility.
Maybe I'll go to Best Buy, get a heavy 60" projection TV, and as I attempt to get it in my car drop the box on my foot. I can then sue Best Buy for not sufficiently warning me that a big TV is heavy and may break my foot. Futher I will also sue that they need to replace my TV with a new one for not requiring an employee to assist me to the car.

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : a]

7/14/2009 11:26:42 AM

^i haven't bought a big appliance like that at best buy. but i wouldn't be surprised if they require that very thing to avoid the situation you're talking about.

7/14/2009 11:40:20 AM

Quote :

"On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."

What an irresponsible bitch. I've gotten skin grafts plenty of times after spilling coffee on myself. Learn to fucking deal with it, you money grubbing whore!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ``]

7/14/2009 12:13:38 PM

An unaddressed element of envy tends to loom over these conversations.

I'm unclear how this particular lawsuit affects any of us in any meaningful way. I understand seemingly frivolous lawsuits against doctors can drive up healthcare costs. But in the case of the city or the state, they tend to protect themselves pretty well, and I just can't imagine that taxpayers are actually burdened by these lawsuits. (Any numbers on this?) Sure, even an extra penny in taxes could be viewed as a burden, but there has to be some room for folks to sue just in case they have a legitimate claim.

We must be liberal in the distinction between legitimate and frivolous because, otherwise, we risk valuing dominant institutions over individuals--individuals whose only immediate recourse is often a lawsuit. Keep in mind that lawsuits are pitiful compared to the entrenched avenues of power available to corporations and similar organizations. In short, it is better to let some frivolous suits slip through to trial than it is to keep some legitimate suits out...it's better because it helps to ensure that the individual has some kind of power.

Anyway, back to the envy...since this doesn't appear to affect us in any way, why do folks get so passionate about it? I wouldn't be surprised if people were motivated more by "Where's-my-million-dollars?" than any notions about personal accountability or the societal cost of frivolous lawsuits.

7/14/2009 12:16:50 PM

Quote :

"What an irresponsible bitch. I've gotten skin grafts plenty of times after spilling coffee on myself. Learn to fucking deal with it, you money grubbing whore!"

This is where we need to adequately separate emotional appeals from the actual process of the justice system. Yes, she received third degree burns, but a significant part of that was due to where she spilled the coffee, the clothing she was wearing at the time, and the fact that she was old. Steam burns are generally much nastier than liquid burns, and unfortunately for her, she got both. In addition, there is the fact that either she was a regular at this McDonalds or she wasn't. If she was, she knows from previous experience how hot they serve their coffee, if not, then she should have been more cautious until she determined the temperature of the coffee in question as it could be up to 212 degrees.

Regardless of the fact that her settlement was reduced, it remains an example of a ridiculous suit in both the amount of damages awarded (and that the majority were punitive not compensatory) and the fact that McDonalds was found to be 80% at fault for an accident which millions of their customers manage to avoid every day simply by practicing some common sense and for which McDonalds did nothing other than provide her with the means to harm herself. If you get behind the wheel of a sports car after having driven 4 cylinder family vans for years and wrap yourself around a tree when you press the accelerator too hard, is the car manufacturer responsible for not warning you that the vehicle may be faster and more powerful than other vehicles you drive or do we generally expect people to exercise due caution with potentially dangerous products?

As to ^

There are a number of was such lawsuits affect us. There are of course the increased taxes or costs to pay for the lawsuit. There's the increased costs associated with businesses now making future adjustments to avoid possible similar suits in the future. As noted above, many big box stores will not allow you to move or load your own heavy items for fear of lawsuit (and still others will refuse to help you for fears of lawsuits as well, just different suits). Businesses spend billions each year on lawyers, and a chunk of that time is spent making sure that every thing that could possibly maybe harm someone if used or done in the wrong way is kept as far away from the public as possible. It also sets precedents that unless something is 100% spelled out to you, nothing you do is your own fault, leading us to a world in which people will sue because Crunchberries do not, in fact, contain berries. (see http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Opinions/Crunchberries.pdf http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Pleadings/crunchberry_mtn_for_recon.pdf)

These sorts of things are all dead weight on society.

There is also a distinction you are missing between allowing people to sue for compensation and/or resolution of the problem and allowing people to sue to massively large sums of money because the target has deep pockets. The first should always be allowed, the second should be thrown out.

7/14/2009 1:22:37 PM

Quote :

"This is where we need to adequately separate emotional appeals from the actual process of the justice system."

Do you mean the actual process of the same justice system that you are now second guessing? Because in that case, I don't think there is much to separate because she won the initial case. Maybe what you meant to say is "from the actual process of the justice system as I think it should work, based on my extensive viewing of Law and Order."

I think what we really need to separate is what this suit was about. The suit was not about whether she spilled her coffee on her self. That would be too easy to dismiss as frivolous. The suit was about whether McDonalds severed coffee that was unreasonably hot--hot to the point of putting customers in danger. Thousands of people, no doubt, spill coffee on themselves every day. But most of those people don't get second degree burns and skin grafts as a result.

Now, I personally have no idea whether she "should" have won her case. I'm no lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. But I get irked when NCSU engineers want to be internet Jack McCoy, trying cases in the court of public opinion. Its silly and worst of all boring.

That's all of to say about that.

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ``]

7/14/2009 2:31:16 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: There are a number of was such lawsuits affect us. There are of course the increased taxes or costs to pay for the lawsuit. There's the increased costs associated with businesses now making future adjustments to avoid possible similar suits in the future. As noted above, many big box stores will not allow you to move or load your own heavy items for fear of lawsuit (and still others will refuse to help you for fears of lawsuits as well, just different suits). Businesses spend billions each year on lawyers, and a chunk of that time is spent making sure that every thing that could possibly maybe harm someone if used or done in the wrong way is kept as far away from the public as possible. It also sets precedents that unless something is 100% spelled out to you, nothing you do is your own fault, leading us to a world in which people will sue because Crunchberries do not, in fact, contain berries. (see http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Opinions/Crunchberries.pdf http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Pleadings/crunchberry_mtn_for_recon.pdf) These sorts of things are all dead weight on society. [quote]There is also a distinction you are missing between allowing people to sue for compensation and/or resolution of the problem and allowing people to sue to massively large sums of money because the target has deep pockets. The first should always be allowed, the second should be thrown out."

You're right that lawsuits can be very costly to the general public. But to me it seems that the cost is worth the benefits (the biggest of which is individuals having some real recourse against Goliath-sized institutions). You don't want giant, deep-pocketed corporations playing the odds. We have to have a way to really keep them in check, and paying straight-up compensation ain't shit.

7/14/2009 3:08:02 PM

Quote :

"suffered third-degree burns "

You can not get a 3rd degree burn from liquid water.

7/14/2009 5:26:50 PM

you most certainly can get third degree burns from hot water.

7/14/2009 5:35:48 PM

Quote :

"But most of those people don't get second degree burns and skin grafts as a result. "

Most of those people aren't 79 year old ladies pouring hot coffee into their crotch while wearing sweatpants and buckled into the seat unable to move out of it either. The coffee wasn't dangerously hot, any more than the kettle of boiling water on your stove is dangerously hot, it was the specific circumstances of her accident that made the burns so severe, and most of those circumstances were under her control.

Quote :

" But to me it seems that the cost is worth the benefits (the biggest of which is individuals having some real recourse against Goliath-sized institutions). You don't want giant, deep-pocketed corporations playing the odds. We have to have a way to really keep them in check, and paying straight-up compensation ain't shit."

The problem is, we're not actually checking the goliaths. They have the money to afford the litigation and to pay settlements and so they hire lawyers to find the ways to skirt just under the law, and we pay for it all in higher costs.

Quote :

"You can not get a 3rd degree burn from liquid water."

You absolutely can:

http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/newsletter/estime.htm

though most people don't because the liquid doesn't remain in contact long enough and doesn't remain and a high enough temperature. In her case, she had both the time exposure and the steam burns to contribute to it.

But that's my point as well, it wasn't that the coffee was dangerously hot. Even at a relatively mild 127 degrees, she still could have walked away with third degree burns in this case (90 seconds exposure per Sock's link).

7/14/2009 6:12:57 PM

^ They must be using teh surgical burn definition instead of the "traditional" burn scale system. Otherwise everyone in a hot tub or walking around the desert of saudi arabia would be getting "3rd degree burns"

"Hot" Coffee is not going to do this....

7/14/2009 6:22:09 PM

Quote :

"The coffee wasn't dangerously hot, any more than the kettle of boiling water on your stove is dangerously hot, it was the specific circumstances of her accident that made the burns so severe, and most of those circumstances were under her control."

Quote :

"You can not get a 3rd degree burn from liquid water."

I GOOGLED IT!!!!!!


hehe why even need trials when you got geniuses wasting their talents on the internet?

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 9:40 PM. Reason : lol]

7/14/2009 9:40:09 PM

Quote :

"Otherwise everyone in a hot tub or walking around the desert of saudi arabia would be getting "3rd degree burns" "

A hot tub at 105F feels like it's scalding hot. Anything over 140F presents a burn hazard. The coffee they served this lady was around 190F.

Maybe you ought to actually do some research on the McDonald's case before you go making claims about it.

7/14/2009 10:31:14 PM

Quote :

"What is it? A burn is an injury to the tissues of the body. Burns are classified according to the amount of tissue they affect and how deep they are. A third-degree burn is the most serious because it destroys all the layers of the skin. Who gets it? Anyone can get a third-degree burn. Children and the elderly are more likely to experience complications from burns. What causes it? People are more likely to suffer third-degree burns from contact with corrosive chemicals, flames, electricity, or extremely hot objects; immersion of the body in extremely hot water, or clothing that catches fire."

I would classify 190F coffee as extremely hot water.

And to those questioning the veracity of the case:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Quote :

"After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap. The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused ..... McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. .... Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales. Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful."

7/14/2009 10:42:35 PM

wow, that write-up is entirely too calm and rational and contains too many facts.
WE CAN'T BE HAVING THAT!!

7/14/2009 11:08:49 PM