Kind of a silly question on liabialty insurance | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Kind of a silly question on liabialty insurance

Forum Sponsor
Riceburner said:
yeah, McDs got sued for hot coffee..
Click to expand...

no. mcdonalds got sued for negligence.
they served their coffee at about 185*. normal coffee is at best 140*.

coffee at 180 causes 3rd burnes in 2-7sec.
Mcdonalds already had claims of damages for how hot their coffee was served. since they were aware of the risk of damages, that made them liable

also, her burns were awful
May be considered graphic
http://harmfuldruginfocenter.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/mcdonalds.jpg


don't spread BS
 
Last edited:
How is that not safe for work?
 
Paul1000RR said:
The fact that someone actually would actually have to ask this question just goes to show how retarded we as a society have become
Click to expand...


The question was just out of curiosity, the other day had to warn a few kids that the metal is hot while looking at my bike, they were normal playfull kids not retard, plus I watch Judge Judy a lot :D
 
Although this is an example of the USA's judicial system, it just goes to show what a litigious world we live in. Again, I would not be surprised if daddy-deep-pockets tries to sue the pants off you if his kid "accidentaly" bumped into your hot exposed exhaust.. in say... Yorkville. Especially if the exhaust was an aftermarket / custom.

Have a quick read: Man (who happens to be a judge himself) sues a laundry-mat for losing his pants - demanded $67 million.. eventually after years it was thrown out, but the damage was done.. the people had to sell their other business just to pay for the legal bills.. even though they had assistance from people donating towards their cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung
 
Dresden said:
Have a quick read: Man (who happens to be a judge himself) sues a laundry-mat for losing his pants - demanded $67 million.. eventually after years it was thrown out, but the damage was done.. the people had to sell their other business just to pay for the legal bills.. even though they had assistance from people donating towards their cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung
Click to expand...


that guy was ajudge who knew how to work the system, not the average person. not to say ee have a litigious society, just an off example
 
Sorry guys for going OT, but i'm going to jump in. The McD coffee spill was an astronomic propaganda tool. There is no such thing as ******** lawsuits, nobody gets an easy pay day whether you're in the states or in Canada. Keep in mind, that a jury of your peers awards you the money. So you need to convince regular everyday people that you deserve the money.

The whole hot coffee issue was used to introduce tort reform; the maximum amount of money you can sue for medical/quality-of-life. George W. Bush won the 2000 election running on this platform. He got so much money from multi-national corporations. Chamber of Commerce spent millions brainwashing the entire country into thinking that we had an epidemic of "frivolous" lawsuits. When in reality, it was every day regular folks trying to get reasonable settlements.

Hot Coffee ended up affecting medical malpractice lawsuits; doctors who royally screwed their patients, legally didn't have to pay over their maximum... which in some states were as low as $100k. Imagine treating life-long brain damage with $100k, that will probably last you a few months at most.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court is bankrolled by corporations, even when victims tried to appeal all the way there. They were denied.

Before you jump on the propaganda bandwagon, it's super important you stay informed. Another by-product of tort-reform was 'mandatory arbitration'. That means you can't go to a civil justice system to seek a remedy for your issue. 2/3 of the United States are binded to 'mandatory arbitration'. Most of your credit cards have those clauses as well, so lets say there is some error on your card; you can't go to civil court and fight on a level playing field... you have to deal with the credit card company's appointed arbitrator.

The bad end of the 'mandatory arbitration' spectrum was Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Co; she alleged she was gang-raped by workers at Halliburton, and because she signed a contract that had 'mandatory arbitration'... she could neither go to a criminal nor civil justice system and seek a remedy.

If any of you get the chance, watch this HBO documentary, "Hot Coffee"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/

You'll absolutely learn something.
 
Last edited:
OnAnySunday said:
pop-up headlights were the ****, miss em.
Click to expand...

Still got 'em. Kids love 'em. Too bad I don't like kids. Although I'll pop the lights up and down behind a school bus now and then when I'm not in a grumpy child hating mood. Always gets them excited.
 
iFly55 said:
Sorry guys for going OT, but i'm going to jump in. The McD coffee spill was an astronomic propaganda tool. There is no such thing as ******** lawsuits, nobody gets an easy pay day whether you're in the states or in Canada. Keep in mind, that a jury of your peers awards you the money. So you need to convince regular everyday people that you deserve the money.

The whole hot coffee issue was used to introduce tort reform; the maximum amount of money you can sue for medical/quality-of-life. George W. Bush won the 2000 election running on this platform. He got so much money from multi-national corporations. Chamber of Commerce spent millions brainwashing the entire country into thinking that we had an epidemic of "frivolous" lawsuits. When in reality, it was every day regular folks trying to get reasonable settlements.

Hot Coffee ended up affecting medical malpractice lawsuits; doctors who royally screwed their patients, legally didn't have to pay over their maximum... which in some states were as low as $100k. Imagine treating life-long brain damage with $100k, that will probably last you a few months at most.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court is bankrolled by corporations, even when victims tried to appeal all the way there. They were denied.

Before you jump on the propaganda bandwagon, it's super important you stay informed. Another by-product of tort-reform was 'mandatory arbitration'. That means you can't go to a civil justice system to seek a remedy for your issue. 2/3 of the United States are binded to 'mandatory arbitration'. Most of your credit cards have those clauses as well, so lets say there is some error on your card; you can't go to civil court and fight on a level playing field... you have to deal with the credit card company's appointed arbitrator.

The bad end of the 'mandatory arbitration' spectrum was Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Co; she alleged she was gang-raped by workers at Halliburton, and because she signed a contract that had 'mandatory arbitration'... she could neither go to a criminal nor civil justice system and seek a remedy.

If any of you get the chance, watch this HBO documentary, "Hot Coffee"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/

You'll absolutely learn something.
Click to expand...

If we get the 15% insurance rate roll back it sounds like we also get a good part of the above. Do you think the 15% will come out of the insurance company's pockets.
 
I'm an insurance broker and this is one of the best questions I've seen posted on GTAM.

First off, anyone can sue anyone for anything (American culture has come to Canada). Whether the person would win their lawsuit can't be determined by anyone other than the lawyers who fight the case.

With that said, liability insurance for motorcycles or cars (we'll talk about home insurance in a second) covers you for damage to property and injury caused to others, obviously. If somebody were to sue you for their kid burning them self on your bike, you better believe your insurance company will fight the case with (or even for) you. They'd rather spend the money on lawyers (which they are paying in-house anyways) than have to fork out $1,000,000 - $2,000,000.

Somebody posted a really good point that home insurance should come into play. This is a grey area and quite possibly true. If you cause injury or property damage to somebody anywhere in the world, accidentally, the liability is covered on your home insurance. The only place you are not covered is while on your motorcycle or in your car because your motorcycle/car insurance covers you at that point.

There is noclear yes or no answer as to whether they would win and you'd be on the hook for whatever liability they are trying to claim, but the one thing that is for sure is that insurance companies would fight that lawsuit in any way they could and with all their lawyers. The last thing they want is to set the precedent forthese types of claims to be won.
 
Last edited:
Next thing you know, riders might make a claim against their own insurance for burning themselves on their own bike!
 
I seem to remember a similar case happened years ago, where the motorcycle was parked in a driveway. The neighbour's kids came over and played on it, knocking it over and hurting themselves. The parent's sued and won as the Judge deemed the motorcycle to be an "attractive nuisance". I don't recall if this was the states or Canada. Perhaps our lawyer friend on the forum can pitch in on this term?
 
Lyndsay said:
I seem to remember a similar case happened years ago, where the motorcycle was parked in a driveway. The neighbour's kids came over and played on it, knocking it over and hurting themselves. The parent's sued and won as the Judge deemed the motorcycle to be an "attractive nuisance". I don't recall if this was the states or Canada. Perhaps our lawyer friend on the forum can pitch in on this term?
Click to expand...

Seriously? So if a kid jumped in front that hot red Ferarri, it would be the driver's fault cause the car was too attractive? What the he11?????
 
if you burn yourself on your own hot exhaust that would be covered under the Accident benefits portion of your policy. As for the OP question, it's way too simplified to give an exact answer how the courts would rule in this case. There was so many unanswered questions that would need to be asked. Did you anticipate a kid touching the exhaust? Has it every happened to you before? Did you a park in front of a day care? So many questions needed to make an accurate liability assessment. But, for a simple answer, No you would not be found liable. And yes this is why you pay your premiums so your insurer can defend the frivolous action brought against you. Lastly, it's highly unlikely your insurer would use "In house counsel" to defend you, they would more likely you outside counsel.
 
Riceburner said:
Seriously? So if a kid jumped in front that hot red Ferarri, it would be the driver's fault cause the car was too attractive? What the he11?????
Click to expand...

Don't be dismissive. I believe this is also the case why you have to have a fence of a standard height around a pool.
And I think some places also have a clause that the pool can't be directly visible either.
Because it's attractive to kids and they might drown.

You know for the lazy parents that don't want to watch their kids and don't want to feel responsible for being lazy.
 
Riceburner said:
Seriously? So if a kid jumped in front that hot red Ferarri, it would be the driver's fault cause the car was too attractive? What the he11?????
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree with it, but if you google "legal term attractive nuisance" you'll see what I mean. Where's gambit when you need him?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom