backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Sep 29 at 11:07 PM


Page 1 of Jayne's hand-written complaint on Google  (Source: Dylan Stephen Jayne)
Pennsylvania man sues Google founders for $5 billion over secret code in his social security number

Even with all the serious lawsuits surrounding Google every now and then there's still a case that seems just ... off. The latest suit against Google and its founders stems from a man who cared enough to handwrite all 23 pages of his complaint.

One Dylan Stephen Jayne of Pennsylvania filed suit against “Google Internet Search Engine Founders” in Pennsylvania Civil court, seeking the small amount of $5 billion dollars. Jayne claims that his safety is in jeopardy because of Google releasing personal information about him.

Jayne asserts that individuals looking to perform acts of terrorism could obtain his information from Google, making it more likely that he will be detained wrongfully in the future. Jayne’s statement of claim is that, “Dylan Steven Jayne, plaintiff, has a social security number that when the social security number is turned upside down in its entirety it is a scrambled code that does spell the name Google.”

Jayne goes on to state that the United States Department of Justice is heading the investigation into the allegations of crimes against humanity by the Google Search Engine founders and that he was illegally detained as a juvenile in the Milford, Pennsylvania County Court of Common Pleas. Jayne also claims, amongst other things, that he was placed in jail for two-years under misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest and public drunkenness.

Luckily for Google, Jayne is willing to accept the first check in the amount of $250,000 and a second check for the remaining balance. 

Submitted for evidence, Jayne included virtually every piece of his private information; including his credit card, library card and bank overdraft statements.

At the time of publication, "Dylan Stephen Jayne" revealed no hits on Google.  "Dylan Jayne" revealed approximately 200 hits regarding this suit.  In time, Jayne's lawsuit may become a self-fullfilling prophecy -- documents from this case are quickly being circulated through the Internet.  While it may not consistute crimes against humanity, Jayne's personal information is quickly becoming everyone else's business.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LMAO
By SandmanWN on 9/25/2007 10:17:47 AM , Rating: 5
This guy is his own personal terrorist. He just car bombed his life away.

What can you do other than to laugh at this guy. He clearly needs some medical attention. This guy, in a desperate act to save his personal identity from terrorist, releases everything that could ever possibly be needed to ruin his life.

Oxy moron at its finest.




RE: LMAO
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/25/2007 10:19:55 AM , Rating: 5
Either that or he's incredibly smart. Claim Google leaked all of your personal info out on the Internet, submit a case with your personal info, then watch the media and Google link the hell out of it. $250k thy name is Jayne.


RE: LMAO
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2007 10:22:34 AM , Rating: 4
I see where you're coming from, but I'd still love to smack this guy for him thinking he's going to get $5 billion dollars.

Hopefully this will be thrown out in court.


RE: LMAO
By mdogs444 on 9/25/2007 10:24:27 AM , Rating: 5
I personally hope it goes to court - made public hearing on live tv - and this guys gets ripped to shreads, and then fined massive amounts of money that he does not have. Make a prime example out of him.

Perhaps then it will start making these people think twice about bring about stupid lawsuits.


RE: LMAO
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2007 10:29:10 AM , Rating: 4
......ok. Your idea sounds better. :)


RE: LMAO
By mdogs444 on 9/25/2007 10:36:48 AM , Rating: 1
You know, there should be some sort of law out there for bringing bogus cases to court in search of making a huge profit from scamming a someone/company. The person who brought about the lawsuit should be fined up to 100% of what the lawsuit is suing for if the jury finds the case of ridiculous nature.


RE: LMAO
By SandmanWN on 9/25/2007 10:41:52 AM , Rating: 5
Or the Defendant should be allowed to beat the Plaintiff with a Wiffle Ball Bat until he/she/they can no longer swing the bat, and the video rights given to Google/YouTube. Oh the irony.


RE: LMAO
By SiliconAddict on 9/25/2007 2:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Those RIAA lawsuits would go away pretty damn fast if this was the case...I like. :-D


RE: LMAO
By ZmaxDP on 9/25/2007 7:24:54 PM , Rating: 4
In England,

To bring a suit to court, the plaintiff is required to cover both parties legal fees unless the trial is judged in their favor. Then, they get the cash. Really cuts down on frivolous lawsuits. The downside is that some legitimate cases are never brought because the plaintiff can't get enough money together to start it off. However, in most such cases legal firms will take some risk if they think the case has merit and cover the costs up front if they believe they can win. It is an interesting alternative to a legal system in the US that wastes billions of dollars each year on ridiculous lawsuits.


RE: LMAO
By TomZ on 9/25/2007 7:32:54 PM , Rating: 1
So says you...

In reality, the number of frivilous lawsuits is overstated because of the media coverage they get. For each silly suit, there are a million legitimate ones.


RE: LMAO
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 9:57:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In reality, the number of frivilous lawsuits is overstated because of the media coverage they get. For each silly suit, there are a million legitimate ones.


Well there's lots of shouting about tort reform, but the McDs case shows that we already have tort controls. The judge reduced the reward, which the press never made a big issue of. What the politicians want is for rewards to become insignificant from a corporate point of view, which is pushed by lobbyists. But then there would be no incentive to stop the wrong no matter how many people got hurt.


RE: LMAO
By TheGreek on 9/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: LMAO
By djkrypplephite on 9/27/2007 6:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well when you put it that way, you're talking percentages. Hard numbers is what he's taking about.


RE: LMAO
By spluurfg on 9/28/2007 7:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nevertheless, there are a large number of lawsuits that attack persons' or companies' reputations and not only waste time but destroy value. There is definitely a lot of dishonesty in the legal professions (yes, even among supposedly reputable law firms) that promotes litigiousness.

One must consider the fact that in general, the only way to stop a law firm that steps past the line is to get another law firm to sue them. But lawyers are seldom willing to go after another one of their own. Hence, the tort process is often simply used to muscle/harass their victim into submission.


RE: LMAO
By PrezWeezy on 9/25/2007 8:47:57 PM , Rating: 5
I'll guess that's where you're from and comment as such. The difference between England and the US is far more than our simply wasting billions on frivolous lawsuits, see out biggest problem is that most of the time, it's Jury's that award these people stupid ammounts of cash. Not to mention that in England, if you are completely drunk and trip, it's your own damn fault. Not the shoe company, and the tile company, and the owner of shop accross the street who didn't take down a sign that had bright colors on it and distracted you. Our biggest problem is that we have very stupid people, who actually want to blame other people, and other stupid people who think that you deserve a lot of money for being stupid. http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article113...

Don't get me wrong I'm proud to be an American, but some times I think we should let natural selection have another shot at deciding who is smart enough to reproduce.


RE: LMAO
By Upstone on 9/27/2007 3:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thats so true.

I'm often glad I'm english for things like this but it works both ways.


RE: LMAO
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about stupid. Its about understanding the system. Its about handing someone $10K to get rid of them as a nuisance. Like it or not those people are being rewarded for bad behavior, because it's cheaper in the short run. And that raises costs for all of us as it snowballs.


RE: LMAO
By TomZ on 9/25/2007 10:40:16 AM , Rating: 1
Probably the judge will quickly rule this as a frivilous lawsuit and order the plaintiff to pay Google's legal fees.


RE: LMAO
By mcnabney on 9/25/2007 11:32:58 AM , Rating: 3
The case will be thrown out, but he won't have to pay the other parties legal fees. That really is quite rare.


RE: LMAO
By Dactyl on 9/25/2007 1:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's also considered futile to seek legal fees from a nutter who doesn't have two nickels to rub together.


RE: LMAO
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 8:48:17 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree with that.

The reason many "nutters" make these lawsuits is because they dont have two nickels to rub together - so they attempt to create a fraudulent & ridiculous lawsuit, wasting everyones valueable time, effort, and money defending themselves from bogus accusations.

These people need to be made examples of, making the rest of the "nutters" think twice before making allegations and lawsuits.

If you are going to bring about a lawsuit that bears no merit, and make untrue allegations, then you should be responsible for all costs associated with the case - the court costs, your legal fees, and the defending parties legal fees.


RE: LMAO
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 2:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that rich people (who have better lawyers) don't do this sort of thing?


RE: LMAO
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 5:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, im not suggesting that. Im suggesting that most of the frivelous lawsuits out there are for people seeking massive amounts of money from some who has a lot of money.

If a rich person pulled a lawsuit like that, then they should be liable for the same penalties.

But tell me this....how often do rich people sue the poor for monetary damages in a meaningless lawsuit?


RE: LMAO
By acer905 on 9/25/2007 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Damn! you're already at a 5 so i can't rate that up!

Honestly, he didn't even type up the stupid complaint form... it should be thrown out just for that


RE: LMAO
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 10:09:34 AM , Rating: 3
That's nonsense. This suit is clearly frivilous, but homeless people should be able to file legit lawsuits with whatever they can afford.

Got bigotry?


RE: LMAO
By Etern205 on 9/27/2007 10:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree, but someone needs to send this to the news media like CNN and then it'll be something big.
Otherwise it'll just be some small court case even if he's suing against Google.


RE: LMAO
By psychmike on 9/25/2007 7:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
In tort law, the plaintiff has an obligation to minimize his losses and his contribution to the harm is assessed. Because he placed himself in this position, he cannot successfully sue Google for harm.

Mike


RE: LMAO
By jinxed102 on 9/25/2007 1:09:08 PM , Rating: 5
Step 1) Get drunk. Or high. Or in his case, probably both.

Step 2) Make an outlandish scheme to rip off Google because of Step 1

Step 3) While still engaged in Step 1, make your case by sending out all your personal data for anyone to view

Step 4) Convince a court that yes indeed my info does appear on Google so GIMMIE CUZ CRACK AIN'T CHEAP!

Step 5) Get 5 BILLION DOLLARS, dream of rocks the size of your head, and find out your bank account was drained by hackers using your personal info you released in Step 3

Step 6) Call your lawyer, Tyrone Biggins, and ask when the next 5 o'clock free crack giveaway is so you figure out how to sue Microsoft next!


RE: LMAO
By alifbaa on 9/25/2007 5:34:35 PM , Rating: 5
It's pretty obvious to me that this guy has some very serious mental health issues. He is also smart, since he got the format right for the court documents; and obviously did so without access to a computer.

The more you think about this poor guy, the less funny it gets. I'm sure he completely believes everything he wrote, which means he is living a terrified existence. Personally, I wouldn't wish that on very many people. I hope the attention he gets from this will get him some help. I also hope someone gets him some new credit card numbers!


RE: LMAO
By Etern205 on 9/27/2007 11:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's pretty obvious to me that this guy has some very serious mental health issues. He is also smart, since he got the format right for the court documents; and obviously did so without access to a computer.


He's smart? I say this guy had planned this for soo long that he studied and remembers the formats of a court document. :P


RE: LMAO
By Gneisenau on 9/26/2007 12:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
What Google needs to do is invite this poor guy out to dinner to discuss the merit of his suit, then have a few guys in white coats waiting at the diner for him to finish his meal.
Case solved. Man being treated for his problems. Society saved once again.


WtF
By TimberJon on 9/25/2007 11:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
I want to know who utterly convinced this guy that legally this would hold water, at least initially.

It would be a bit of legal genious and if he can think this up in the stew pot, why hasnt he done anything else?

If he WINS at least a billion, I expect him to squander it or to invest and start a business. Which if this level of thinking is any indicator (again if he had no outside help) that business is going to be brutally aggressive and successful.

My opinion and observation.




RE: WtF
By rpgman1 on 9/25/2007 11:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
This is personal information being seen over the Net. He'll most likely lose because there isn't any law about protecting personal information on the Internet. It is not like the McDonalds case with hot coffee or the Winnebag case with cooking in the kitchen while on cruise control. If he wants to take on Microsoft for faulty Windows software, he'll lose big time.


RE: WtF
By 16nm on 9/25/2007 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want to know who utterly convinced this guy that legally this would hold water, at least initially.

Probably the same person that convinced Stella Liebeck to sue McDonalds.


RE: WtF
By themadmilkman on 9/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: WtF
By 16nm on 9/25/2007 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 5
So. Coffee is supposed to be hot, 180F-190F. It's as simple as TAKING PRECAUTIONS NOT TO SPILL HOT COFFEE ON YOURSELF. Duh! It was her fault, not McDonald's.

When you are cooking food, do you take precautions not to burn yourself with the flame. Of course! Would you sue the manufacturer of your stove if you burnt yourself on it?


RE: WtF
By TomZ on 9/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: WtF
By TomZ on 9/25/2007 2:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
Doing some googling, I answered my own question. Coffee should be brewed at 175-190°F to extract the best flavors, however, is best drank at 145-160°F.


RE: WtF
By mdogs444 on 9/25/2007 3:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
Not just brewed - but maintained. COffee needs to be maintained at a temperature of 180-190. Well, how much time in the "fast food" business do you have to take coffee off the burner adn then give it to a customer? Unless you pour it into a glassful of ice first, chances are its going to be as hot as the burner when you first get it.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/25/2007 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 3
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

quote:
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.[8] 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.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

quote:
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.


This fact warrants a law suit:
quote:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800.

Not even enough to cover the skin grafts? Now the punitive award, based on coffee sales, is ridiculous. It's like saying a local street vendor that makes a thousand dollars a week is on the hook for far less in punitive damages simple because he makes less money in the first place.

From http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_m...
quote:
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;


And if all that wasn't reason enough:
quote:
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;


quote:
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Now who exactly wouldn't sue if they had to get skin grafts on their private areas?


RE: WtF
By 16nm on 9/25/2007 4:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that everybody knows that to make coffee requires boiling water. This is when common sense kicks in and says, "OK, listen here! We know that coffee is hotter than hell, so let's be extra careful not to spill it on ourselves."

There are so many things in life that require common sense. If we rewarded people for being dumbasses then all the corporations in the world would go bankrupt.

If she ordered an ICE COFFEE and McDonalds served her a HOT coffee and she then proceeded to burn herself with it then I do think McDonald's would be at fault. That's different.

It's all water under the bridge now, but I do wonder what she did with her reward.


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/25/2007 5:40:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's all water under the bridge now, but I do wonder what she did with her reward.

Me thinks she bought a new crotch. :P


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 10:06:57 AM , Rating: 3
That's not entirely correct, though it may seem so.

The law for negligence and such measures what's acceptable by what a reasonably prudent person would do, not the all or nothing extremism being offered in the views here. Most people would probably expect first degree burns from such an accident. Take a poll and see how many would expect 3rd degree burns.

Suppose a toddler holding the package had opened the coffee and burned themselves. Then what?

Suppose McD's found a new way to keep drinks cold longer, but if you spilled the contents you'd end up with severe frostbite. Yeah coffee is suppose to be hot, but not boiling in the cup. And if government officials had already ordered McDs to turn it down, then what?

And what of the 700 prior incidents? They don't count for anything towards corporate responsibility?

Seems people here love to make things far simpler than they really are and then believe they are being logical about it.


RE: WtF
By rcc on 9/26/2007 12:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
What about the millions that haven't had problems and may even prefer the coffee hotter?


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 1:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
I asked first, and my questions weren't designed to duck the real issues.

Please continue.


RE: WtF
By airsickmoth on 9/26/2007 6:30:54 PM , Rating: 3
Last time I checked, I bought coffee to drink. I don't buy coffee and have a good time sitting around waiting for it to cool. I buy that coffee and I hate waiting to drink it. At the temperature at which is was served is unsafe for human consumption and is dangerous, as proven by the fact she got 3rd degree burns. If she had put it up to her lips and drank it, it would have burned her throat.

McDonald's claimed in their defense that they serve coffee that hot because people intend on consuming later when they get home or get to work. This was proven untrue during discovery in which McDonald's own market research shows that most people who buy coffee intend to consume it immediately in their car while they drive. If people want to drink coffee right away, why serve it too hot to drink at all? That shows McDonald's is negligent in their serving of coffee.

And the jury found the defendant to be 20% responsible for her own injuries, which is why the damages were 20% less than the $400,000 awarded. This isn't a murder case where people are 100% guilty or innocent. In cases of negligence both parties frequently contribute a % to the incident.


RE: WtF
By 3kliksphilip on 9/25/2007 4:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I work in Mcdonalds and so many people complain about cold coffee that it's unbelievable. You can't win. (Or more to the point, large businesses can't)


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 10:17:15 AM , Rating: 2
I worked there as well years ago. A hamburger's supposed life span on the shelf was suppose to be about 7 minutes. If they were older than that they were suppose to be thrown out. And yet we sold burgers that were 30 minutes old and had become hockey pucks.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 10:27:53 AM , Rating: 1
Using the same logic the know-it-alls here are using then the burn victims of Ford Pintos got what they deserve as well. After all the car contains gas, which burns, and they use them at their own risk.


RE: WtF
By Icelight on 9/27/2007 1:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, except for the fact that burning gas is always too hot for human safety, while hot coffee is not always too hot for human safety you have something there.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 2:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Also - If 99.9% of all cars don't catch fire in a rear collision would it be correct to believe that neither will the car I drive? Again the reasonably prudent person measure comes into play.

The 1965 Mustang had no trunk floor. The top of the gas tank was the floor. As soon as the tank was pierced there was fuel in the trunk.

Lets state what's going on in a much more general sense to grasp what's being said.

When you are served food or beverage from any vendor, do you ever expect injury so severe you will need skin grafts and multiple operations?

Yes or no?


RE: WtF
By TomZ on 9/25/2007 2:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably the same person that convinced Stella Liebeck to sue McDonalds.

You sound like you don't know the real facts about the McDonald's lawsuit, if you are comparing it to this guy. Here's a quick summary:

http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=785


RE: WtF
By mdogs444 on 9/25/2007 2:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

Great site for it. She was just an idiot. Yeah lets try to put creamer in 180' hot coffee in a car while holding it between our knees.

Can you saw Darwin Award?


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: WtF
By rcc on 9/26/2007 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Naw, some of us just figure that you have to take responsibility for your own stupidity, not rely on the government to do it for you.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 1:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Ford Pinto you take full responsibility for.


RE: WtF
By theapparition on 9/26/2007 8:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
Tom,
Those "facts" do nothing more than show the fallacy of our legal system and that judges now fail to utilize the "common sense" standard.

quote:
By its own corporate standards, McDonald’s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

So does most of the world. Coffee is brewed with boiling water and kept hot for freshness.

quote:
During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years.

I don't see a warning on my stove that it's hot, but I bet the manufacturer knows that it can burn. Should I sue them if I put my hand on it?

quote:
McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not

Because it's common freakin sense. How far do we have to go as a society until we realize we don't have to be warned about everything.

The single reason I feel this case should not have received the judgement it did was because "if" that coffee container had a warning, and it was posted everywhere that coffee would burn that would not have prevented the outcome. This woman would still have not read the container, put the coffee cup between her legs and still received burns. I feel bad her injuries were so severe, but bad things happen to good people all the time, we do not need to find a scapegoat each instance.

"It's not my fault I ran a red light and caused an accident, it's my cell phones, didn't see a warning label on it telling me not to use why driving."

"I'm suing because my son never knew that when he put that iPod on, he couldn't hear the train coming down the track. It's apples fault for not educating consumers on the dangers of MP3 players"

These arguments are about a valid as the McDonald's case, and also without merit. They are also paraphased real litigation that is on-going. I hope they fail for the good of all consumers.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/26/2007 10:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
McDonald’s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. ...So does most of the world.

Then explain why most burns are certainly not this severe.


RE: WtF
By jolan on 9/27/2007 9:57:55 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe it has something to do with that fact that she wallowed in the pool of hot coffee for 90 seconds? I know that when I get burned by something, I remove myself from that situation as QUICKLY as possible, I don't sit in it while it continues to burn me.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
When you get older you get hurt more easily, take longer to heal, and have more complications. Even government officials at the FDA can understand this, why can't McD?


RE: WtF
By airsickmoth on 9/26/2007 7:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So does most of the world. Coffee is brewed with boiling water and kept hot for freshness

Coffee is brewed at high temperatures, but shy of boiling because boiling water makes it bitter. But coffee should not be served at that temperature. In fact, keeping coffee hot on a hotplate also hurts the freshness of coffee. It is better to keep coffee warm in a thermos like container at serving temperature than on a hotplate. Coffee is perfectly fine served at 155 degrees, not the 180+ degrees that McDonald's coffee was served at.

The team defending McDonald's in the case sent a law student to other coffee shops in the area to secretly test the serving temperature of the competitions coffee. The closest temperature found was 20 degrees bellow that of McDonald's.

quote:
I don't see a warning on my stove that it's hot, but I bet the manufacturer knows that it can burn. Should I sue them if I put my hand on it?


Last time I went through a drive through I couldn't buy a hot stove and put it in the passenger seat and cook stuff, or use it while I drove my car.

And stoves are dangerous, that is why they are rather tall, so that kids can't reach the burners. And why the controls are typically on the backsplash, so that larger kids can't reach the controls and turn it on.

quote:
Because it's common freakin sense. How far do we have to go as a society until we realize we don't have to be warned about everything.


The case isn't just about warnings, it's about McDonald's callous disregard for the safety of the people they serve in their restaurants.

The case isn't about stupid people, this case is about McDonald's having over 700 cases in the 10 prior years where people have reported up to 3rd degree burns, and McDonald's settling out of court for over $500,000 in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck had third degree burns and needed skin grafts. A doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

McDonald's served coffee at a temperature where it gives 3rd degree burns, including the inside of your mouth and throat, in less than 5 seconds. Why serve it hotter than people can actually drink it? Why have 700 cases of people being badly burned and settling with them and not change the way you serve coffee? This just proves McDonald's disregard for people's safety and negligence in search of profits.

quote:
Those "facts" do nothing more than show the fallacy of our legal system and that judges now fail to utilize the "common sense" standard.


The case was heard by 12 jurors (6 women, 6 men). It is a jury of our peers. And obviously, common people, when told the all evidence in court, were apauled by the actions of McDonald's. They ruled that McDonald's was 80% at fault, and 20% to Mrs Liebeck for spilling the coffee. So don't say Judges don't work, when the case is heard and decided by common people, including people who like to drink hot coffee.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit....

quote:
"It's not my fault I ran a red light and caused an accident, it's my cell phones, didn't see a warning label on it telling me not to use why driving."


It's against the law to do anything in a car that distracts your attention from the road. It is not illegal to be the passenger in a car and order coffee and try and put in cream while the car is stopped in a parking lot.

quote:
"I'm suing because my son never knew that when he put that iPod on, he couldn't hear the train coming down the track. It's apples fault for not educating consumers on the dangers of MP3 players"


It's considered trespassing to walk on rail road tracks because they are private property. Therefore it is negligent of the person walking on the tracks to assume they are legally allowed to be there and be safe. Again, it is totally legal to use a drive through to buy coffee. Comparing these 2 cases with each other is stupid. I've never seen a train and wished I had one inside my car so I could drink it.

quote:
These arguments are about a valid as the McDonald's case, and also without merit. They are also paraphased real litigation that is on-going. I hope they fail for the good of all consumers.


Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, but saying all litigation against corporations is a bad boat to get in.

The McDonald's case is a prime example. It has been all over the media as a frivolous case, even though a judge and jury seem to think otherwise. The reason all these cases get lumped together and paraded on TV is simple.

TV is run by corporations. Corporations hate being sued. Corporations would do anything to keep people from suing them. So, Corporations are biasing the public against lawsuits so that lawmakers will change the laws and cut down on the number of lawsuits corporations face and cut down on the maximum punishments allowed. Who is this good for? The companies! Not you if you get hurt by a company, now your options are limited. All because you fell for the trick that these lawsuits are hurting everyone, when really, they are help everyone.

After the McDonald's lawsuit, they lowered the temperature coffee is served at to 155 degrees. I haven't heard of a lot of people being burnt recently. Sounds like the lawsuit helped John Q Public get a little safer.

Now, punitive damages are being limited in many states. Who does this help? The companies, it is now affordable for them to disregard public safety, because the cost of losing in court is so low that they can afford to. It hurts everyone else. How is $200,000 in punitive damages supposed to punish a multi billion dollar corporation?


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 10:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
Well said, but I suspect and fear that the logic and facts are falling on deaf ears. People routinely make up their minds with very little information, as you can see here. Then they actually get upset and try to defend themselves when clear facts that can't possibly be argued with are presented in a logical manner.

It is the capability of accepting, comprehending of facts, and adjusting your opinion according to those facts that makes up common sense. The stuff being touted as "common sense" is nothing more than a form of bigotry, which is why there hasn't been any reasonable facts to support it. Only stuff like "I don't see a warning on my stove that it's hot,".

I don't however agree that this one person alone should have been rewarded such a large punitive amount. McDs put a lot of people at risk on a daily basis and disregard prior government officials. They should be fined for not following what law officials said, and then they should have returned to the general public that huge amount of money.


RE: WtF
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
You've presented a well thought out reply, and I applaud you. You still miss some basic facts though.

Her entire incident could have been avoided if she didn't decide to open her coffee in a car and pour creamer into it, all while balancing the coffee between her legs. Fault McDonalds all you want, but she precipitated the incident. She should be held far liable than 20% of the blame.

quote:
Last time I went through a drive through I couldn't buy a hot stove and put it in the passenger seat and cook stuff, or use it while I drove my car.

Your trying to take a logical argument and make it look facisious by taking it out of context. Not a great debating style.

quote:
And stoves are dangerous, that is why they are rather tall, so that kids can't reach the burners. And why the controls are typically on the backsplash, so that larger kids can't reach the controls and turn it on.

LOL, this was classic. Do you really believe stoves are tall so kids can't reach the burners? Sorry, but that is too funny. Stoves are the same height as kitchen counters, which themselves are set at a fixed height. That height is universally agreed upon as the proper ergonomic height for a "standing workstation". You'll find the same height for work centers in manufacturing where the worker stands. Correspondingly, all desks are appoximately the same height as well, for the exact same ergonomic reasons. To make matters worse, I hate to break it to you, but any two year old can reach the stovetop. By your suggestion, perhaps we should make them all 4ft tall? Some stoves are even still sold with controls on the face, not backsplash (check your local appliance store).

quote:
So don't say Judges don't work, when the case is heard and decided by common people, including people who like to drink hot coffee.

Judges have far more influence in a court room than you give them credit for. Judges can certainly alther the course of testimony, or override defence objections, even down to allowing/disallowing evidence and removing/replacing jurors without explanation. Remember, this case has to be approved by a judge to go to trial in the first place.

quote:
It's against the law to do anything in a car that distracts your attention from the road.

Could you please point me to that law in your state? There are laws against certain items in some jurisdictions, but nothing that implicitly states "anything that distracts". That argument could certainly be made about the radio, GPS, cigarette lighter, and guess what, drinking in your car! So by your logic, it is completely illegal for any beverage to be sold through a drive through.
Rather the laws state that you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicule. Subtle wording difference, but makes a tremendous real world difference.

quote:
It is not illegal to be the passenger in a car and order coffee and try and put in cream while the car is stopped in a parking lot.

It's not smart either, and my stance has always been that she should have been more than 20% accountable.

quote:
I've never seen a train and wished I had one inside my car so I could drink it.
Once again taking an example too far, to prove your erroneous point. Say that iPod kid was walking across a public street, then what. Or maybe the loud music prevented him from avoiding a danger, all why everyone is legal. You can twist an argument all you want, but the point is still vaild.

quote:
Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, but saying all litigation against corporations is a bad boat to get in.

Never said that, and I agree.

quote:
Corporations hate being sued.

You wouldn't like being sued either, so it's not fair to single corporations out.

quote:
Corporations are biasing the public against lawsuits so that lawmakers will change the laws and cut down on the number of lawsuits corporations face and cut down on the maximum punishments allowed. Who is this good for? The companies!

People know it when they smell a rat. There needs to be a quick, effective measure to completely dismiss frivilous lawsuits. Only when it doesn't become financially viable to sue a corporation for millions of dollars, settle for six figures just because it is cheaper than litigating it will there be change. One thing I know for certain, Lawyers just keep getting richer bringing these cases up. It is one of the few industries that defys supply and demand, the more you have, the more lawyers you need to defend against each other. There needs to be penalties.

quote:
Now, punitive damages are being limited in many states. Who does this help?
It doesn't help the attornies, who sometimes take more than 70% of the proceeds.

I'm not pro-company/anti-consumer. I'm for taking personal responsibility. I don't try to slice a tomatoe in my hand, and if I cut myself because I did it, don't try and sue the knife manufacturer. That sounds like a dumb example because it is, so are many of the other real suits being filed today.
A family sues a department store for being thrown to the ground by security outside the building. They were steeling items worth over 5k. They recieve 6 figures for punative and personal damage. Is this right??? Since you like everything to be legal and such, they committed an illegal act, yet are still compensated. Doesn't make sense to me.

McDonalds should have paid. They should have settled. But she should have the signifigant burden of responsibility. Common sense. It is know that coffee is hot. It is known that you could get burned (even if it was 155). It should be assumed that any rational person will not place an open cup between their legs in a car. A rational person, would hold the cup away from them while pouring the creamer in. If she did this, the entire event would have been avoided.

Now, if a car manufacturer (for instance) made a defective part, knew about the part, and it caused an accident due to brake failure. That person has every right to sue, since they were negligent in fixing the problem. This was caused by failure of a part, not because the driver operated the vehicule any differently. The event was completely out of his control. Spilling coffee on herself was not. Surely you can see the difference.

I feel her responsibility should have been 70-80%. And at the same time, I also feel that some appeals should not be granted, and corporations should have to pay that money right away, rather than trying to appeal ad nauseum to extend it out. In the end, that's exactly what McDonald's did, and why the terms are sealed, I bet she got pretty close to that 20-30% of the original judgement. She could have got her money sooner, the family could have moved on, and the legal system wouldn't have been tied up as long. But the attornies would not have made as much, so that wasn't going to happen.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Her entire incident could have been avoided if she didn't decide to open her coffee in a car and pour creamer into it, all while balancing the coffee between her legs.

This statement doesn't really say anything. People eat, change CDs, radio stations, talk on their cells, in the car all the time. Doesn't give McD or anybody else justification to scar the women's vagina closed. And again dismissal of government orders, prior history, why is that? Are you suggesting that McD could burn customer after customer onto infinity as long as they pay for the medical bills? Where does it end?
quote:
It's against the law to do anything in a car that distracts your attention from the road.

quote:
Could you please point me to that law in your state?

When you rear end someone you typically get a ticket for failing to maintain control of your vehicle. That in essence is saying when you're driving that's your legal priority. You may not get a ticket that actually words it "eating pizza while driving", but that's pretty much it.
quote:
You wouldn't like being sued either, so it's not fair to single corporations out.

I don't hire lobbyists to rewrite law. Big difference. You want people to take responsibility, and not corporations? What would you have done with the Ford Pinto? A NASA engineer called the design of the gas tank "dispicable".
quote:
McDonalds should have paid. They should have settled.

quote:
There needs to be a quick, effective measure to completely dismiss frivilous lawsuits.

So then why use this case as an example of frivilous lawsuits, as have others? It can't be both ways. Even at 5% responsible(below your favored 20%), if there's a $2,000,000 medical bill that's not frivilous. And you will note that McD did not offer to pay all medical bills. Why is that? Part of the "taking reponsibility" stuff?


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/28/2007 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This statement doesn't really say anything. People eat, change CDs, radio stations, talk on their cells, in the car all the time. Doesn't give McD or anybody else justification to scar the women's vagina closed. And again dismissal of government orders, prior history, why is that? Are you suggesting that McD could burn customer after customer onto infinity as long as they pay for the medical bills? Where does it end?

Something funny I found about this little comment of yours. If you are holding a cell phone while driving in many areas it is illegal and you will be ticketed. If you get into a motor accident while using a cell phone then most insurance agencies will hold you accountable. Same can be said for your food example. If you are eating a full course meal driving down the interstate and you get into an accident, its your own fault.

In the end McDonalds didn't burn this lady, she burnt herself through sheer ignorance. Instead of placing her drink in the freaking cup holder, of which there are about 15 of in any given vehicle these days, she decided her own flesh was the more appropriate form of restraint for a cup of recently BOILED WATER. So, please tell me, what part of this situation is McDonalds responsible for when it comes to what the customer does with their product after it leaves the window? Thats like suing a gun shop for buying a gun and then stepping outside the door and blowing your arm off. How the hell is that the responsibility of anyone besides the person holding the gun or holding the boiling water between her legs.

Whats your deal with protecting this idiot anyway? Do you also hold 100+ degree items in a container with holes it will driving down a bumpy road? Nevermind, don't answer. Given you would side with this person I probably wouldn't care for the number of things you would do and blame on someone or something else.
quote:
I don't hire lobbyists to rewrite law. Big difference. You want people to take responsibility, and not corporations? What would you have done with the Ford Pinto? A NASA engineer called the design of the gas tank "dispicable".

Nice diversionary tactic there. I wonder if the NASA engineer also spelled "despicable" wrong. Ford designed a bad car, BUT McDonalds didn't design coffee! They also didn't design how to make coffee. They didn't design the containers for coffee for that matter either. And they most certainly didn't spill the coffee on the lady. So whats your point of reference for relating these two again???


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
she decided her own flesh was the more appropriate form of restraint for a cup of recently BOILED WATER.

That would imply:
1. She knew it was still this hot, apparently as to be able to sense temperature 100% accurately through styrofoam.

and

2. She did this on purpose.

Need I say more?

quote:
she burnt herself through sheer ignorance.

The burn itself was never an issue, the degree of damage is the issue.
quote:
Whats your deal with protecting this idiot anyway? Do you also hold 100+ degree items in a container with holes it will driving down a bumpy road?

Setting aside your personal attack people who study criminal justice and law tend to have a better grasp of how things work.
quote:
And they most certainly didn't spill the coffee on the lady.

You simply refuse to grasp the issue, you'd fail a 100-level college course with this argument.
quote:
So whats your point of reference for relating these two again???

The "reasonable and prudent adult" point, which occurs routinely in law. What's yours?


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/28/2007 8:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Now your just being silly.

The only thing it implies is this.
1. Recently bought coffee = hot. Duuuuhhhh.
-This goes along the same lines as the first time anyone has hot coffee and has burned their mouth. They instinctively check every coffee with a little sip before drinking for the rest of their life.

2. Shes an idiot. This shouldn't be a huge leap for anyone to grasp seeing as we see about 10-15 post something utterly dumb here on a daily basis.
quote:
The burn itself was never an issue, the degree of damage is the issue.

Incorrect. The issue is negligence which was the issue the courts addressed. What part of hot cup of uncovered coffee in between someones legs instead of the cup holder don't you understand.

I see you skipped the argument that a person buying a gun and placing the barrel in their crotch while driving around has the exact same point as an idiot taking a hot cup of coffee and placing it in their lap with the top off.
quote:
Setting aside your personal attack people who study criminal justice and law tend to have a better grasp of how things work.

First, what personal attack?
Second, you mean those people that absolutely nobody can stand? Those people that have the most horrible reputation on the planet. You mean those people that argued to acquit OJ Simpson and Phil Spector. Yeah dude those guys have such a great understanding of how things work. LOL I'm sorry man but I think I'm going to be laughing at that for at least a few days now.

You gotta get off the rocks.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 2:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you get into a motor accident while using a cell phone then most insurance agencies will hold you accountable.

Only to a degree. The other driver could be drunk, speeding, and running a red light. All factors are weighed and assigned a value. You don't seem capable of grasping this basic way things work.

And we just keep overlooking the 700 prior incidents. Why is that?


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/28/2007 7:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
lol dont be an @ss. No one said anything about drunks, speeding or anything else. Is it your intent to purposefully obfuscate every situation until it suites your opinion.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/29/2007 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
I said it depends. I never made an all or nothing decision, as have so many here. I said all the facts need to addressed, and you have issues with that.

Sorry if logic pisses you off.


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/29/2007 11:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Adding things to a hypothetical to suite your needs. Real logic there. Pff


Definitely not
By Griswold on 9/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Definitely not
By AlphaVirus on 9/25/2007 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, he will be lucky to walk away with $1. After all the legal fees he will be paying once this case is dismissed.

People who think they can just get over on such large corporations need a good backhand every now and then. Maybe if his claim made sense I would back it, but obviously nobody knew who he was before the case so he has no grounds.

Wierdo.


RE: Definitely not
By SpaceRanger on 9/25/2007 12:02:16 PM , Rating: 3
What legal fees?? He hand-wrote his own application...


RE: Definitely not
By themadmilkman on 9/25/2007 12:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, depending on the situation, he can actually be charged Google's reasonable legal fees. But the chances that this case will survive a motion to dismiss (likely for lack of stating a claim for which a remedy is available) are somewhere between slim and none. if that happens there are no fees against the filer that I am aware of.


Tyrone Biggums
By Bioniccrackmonk on 9/25/2007 10:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
And I think I tasted a little egg and cinnamon.

One of the funniest characters from the Chapell Show.




RE: Tyrone Biggums
By DukeN on 9/25/2007 10:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
Mmmmm peanut butter n crack..mmmmm


RE: Tyrone Biggums
By h0kiez on 9/25/2007 11:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'ma tell you somethin you might not know 'bout me Joe Rogan. I smoke rocks.


Sad, really
By IndyJaws on 9/25/2007 12:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
This individual obviously suffers from serious mental health issues. Our company would receive lawsuits like this from time to time. Usually handwritten, often incoherent with wild claims. It's not going anywhere, except that hopefully this person gets some help from a professional.




RE: Sad, really
By Upstone on 9/27/2007 3:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think hes mentally unhealthy, just another american idiot who wants to live the american dream.


RE: Sad, really
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
With whatever means are at his disposal.

Sounds like a corporation.


SSN
By damncrackmonkey on 9/26/2007 12:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a big fan of the blacked out SSN on page 4. It does a lot of good after not blocking the unedited 166-70-6077 on page 2. BTW, that totally looks like google upside-down.




RE: SSN
By Martimus on 9/28/2007 2:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that 319009 would look like google upside down. Of course it needs three more digits to be a SSN.


High Hopes
By AlphaVirus on 9/25/2007 11:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hes thinking if he puts all his information on the interweb that someone will do Identity theft against him. I hope they wait till after this case to do it, teach him what stupidness really is.




Creating an alibi?
By Cherub on 9/25/2007 12:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone think that this wackjob is trying to create an alibi for some sort of violent act? He basically said so by claiming to fear that someone would steal his identity to commit a terrorist act as him.

Granted, only a mental-deficient would think that it would work, and that it would not be seen through, but you can see the logic in it. "Honestly, someone must have stolen my identity when that building blew up!"

But isn't this the sort of defense you come up with after it happens? What are the odds that you identity would be stolen AFTER filing a lawsuit about potential identity theft?




Just Curious
By IceMonkey82 on 9/25/2007 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
Did anyone notice that he had 3 pages of bank statements and 2 pages of overdrafts...lol...something seems off about that too, he's spending money he doesn't even have. No wonder he's trying to sue someone/anyone.




Suicide Web Terrorist
By Oregonian2 on 9/25/2007 2:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, a SWT!




In all seriousness
By Eris23007 on 9/25/2007 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm google, I might consider *NOT* filing a motion to dismiss.

Think about it this way: the chances of this dude actually winning any sort of real money are extremely slim. On the other hand, letting the case go to trial, where Google can subsequently win on the merits of its service being legal and all that, could actually set a valuable precedent protecting the right of indiscriminate (I.E., not having to screen for personal and other types of content) searching on the web.

I'm not certain that web search is completely protected against the personal information lawsuits right now - seriously. This might be a good way to start to establish some legal precedent protecting that right. Better now than to wait for the RIAA/MPAA to decide that they want to try to sue Google for linking to copyright-infringing web pages...

Just a thought. Any legal experts here to comment on whether or not there's any good reason to take such an approach?




Someone shoot this SOAB.
By SiliconAddict on 9/25/2007 2:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
Please? Either that or castrate him. Either case he need to be removed from the pool ASAP.




Relax .. the guy is simply insane
By trajan on 9/25/2007 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
A few others have pointed this out, but there's really no need to get worked up over this (either against the legal system for allowing such suits, or the guy who filed it).

Lawsuits like this are very commonly filed by people with severe mental disorders, usually various forms of paranoid schizophrenia. Delusions of persecution by well-known entities or people are common, as well as a tendancy to see codes and meaning in gibberish.

It's a tribute to the fairness of our legal system that anyone can file a suit, no matter how ridiculous it seems. Just keep in mind that these suits go no where. Sure, Google might have to spend a few hundred or a few thousand dollars on legal fees -- that is part of the price of being a big company in a country that assumes you are sane until proven otherwise ;) I guaruntee you Google's GC is neither surprised, worried, nor even particularly annoyed by this.




By Beavermatic on 9/27/2007 8:27:48 AM , Rating: 2
...spells AOL

High-ho, lets go... I want my $250k!!! booyah!




He is right!!!!!!!
By Fuzzy Rabbit on 9/27/2007 8:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
You go man, stop the evil power from taking or personal info and giving it to the terrorist, but it is bigger then that. Google is just not giving the info to the terrorist but to the aliens in the UFOs. Google did it to me to. I was warned to mind my own business and now I have little green men watching me. I don't want to be probed again.

Down with Goggle and the Aliens

You go Dylan, I got your back.

Remember use the force.




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki