Why do you need to be compensated for an accident? Life isn't easy all the time....shit happens. Like I said above, medical bills should be covered....just look at the what this guy wants compensation for.
I didn't argue that point (there certainly are a large amount of frivolous cases), so whatever thinking you've got going there is wrong as well. If you're going to call a case bullshit when its not, then yeah I'm going to point out that you're wrong, or at best misguided. Maybe if people actually took the time to learn the facts we'd have less idiocy in general.
We've been playing baseball in America for well over a hundred years. There's no need for more nets and all that other BS. It's part of the experience. BAM!
what other type of compensation would you recommend?
Why do you need to be compensated for an accident? Life isn't easy all the time....shit happens. Like I said above, medical bills should be covered....just look at the what this guy wants compensation for.
That case is ridiculed globally....to me, that's like ordering a steak at a restaurant and then dropping the steak knife and it happens to land point down and stabs you and suing because the knife was too sharp. I bet we will see that exact case in the future. Then we will all be eating our steaks with butter knives.
Why do you need to be compensated for an accident? Life isn't easy all the time....shit happens. Like I said above, medical bills should be covered....just look at the what this guy wants compensation for.
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. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20 percent of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-11Two years of medical treatment followed.
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800.
From your link.assumption of risk does not absolve a defendant of liability for reckless conduct
That case is ridiculed globally....to me, that's like ordering a steak at a restaurant and then dropping the steak knife and it happens to land point down and stabs you and suing because the knife was too sharp. I bet we will see that exact case in the future. Then we will all be eating our steaks with butter knives.
And, just to point out the key thing in that McD's lawsuit you're harping on,
Note, the victim only wanted to be reimbursed for medical costs. Think about it - 3rd degree burns, skin grafting, etc. - most normal people wouldn't suspect that spilling a cup of coffee on themselves would lead to such severe injuries, because most people don't brew their coffee at as high a temperature as the McD's coffee was at.
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.
...
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[18]
Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[19] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit".
From Wiki:
Seems like McDonald's was just following what's been established as the proper temperatures for quality coffee. Their policy today is still to keep the coffee in that range of temperatures. So all the lawsuit accomplished was a stronger warning label on the cup that no one pays attention to anyways.
It says right on the ticket (and it's read aloud over the PA system before every game) to be aware of objects leaving the field of play and that they are not liable for any injuries including death.
And, just to point out the key thing in that McD's lawsuit you're harping on,
Note, the victim only wanted to be reimbursed for medical costs. Think about it - 3rd degree burns, skin grafting, etc. - most normal people wouldn't suspect that spilling a cup of coffee on themselves would lead to such severe injuries, because most people don't brew their coffee at as high a temperature as the McD's coffee was at.
The key though is that DaTT believes the victim is entitled to compensation for medical bills while also claiming they shouldn't be entitled to sue.
Note, the victim only wanted to be reimbursed for medical costs. Think about it - 3rd degree burns, skin grafting, etc. - most normal people wouldn't suspect that spilling a cup of coffee on themselves would lead to such severe injuries, because most people don't brew their coffee at as high a temperature as the McD's coffee was at.
If you had of read my posts you would have seen it was the whole copious amounts of money for this "pain & suffering" of which I was referring too. A little common sense and you would have figured that out. I will be more clear from here on out.
Scary!
Please show me a nation with "free health care"BTW, I feel in a situation like this, because you guys don't have free health care, his medical bills should be paid in full by the league, that's just the right thing to do.
Hookers and Blow.what other type of compensation would you recommend?