Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

That may be true for some, but people who know the law or simply think they know the law and want to make life miserable for a decent amnd reasonable landlord can indeed make life miserable. As one example, it used to be that landlords routinely used to allow occasional late rent with a credible reason, as long as it didn't become a habit. Today a landlord is opening him/herself up to a lawsuit if they give grace to one person and not to another, even though the former had an arguably valid reason for being late, and the latter was a parasite. Result? A landlord has to turn into an asshole and not listen to any reason/excuse, no matter how justified, and charge late fees, send letters threatening to evict if not paid by such and such a date, etc., even though he trusts the particular tenant to make good on the late rent, in order to pre-emptively preserve his/her rights to evict in the one-in-a hundred chance that the back-rent never gets paid and to protect him/herself from a lawsuit (discrimination or otherwise).

It's also why a landlord is at risk unless he has a 10 to 20 page lease to cover all the contingencies, and even then, in certain landlord-hostile legal systems (Detroit, parts of New Jersey, parts of New York, much of California), even a perfectly reasonable and legal lease will not hold up in court of law.

Those are just examples of the legal environment - and why I just got rid of my rental property a few months ago (and I am in a place that has a reasonable and fair legal system). I reiterate: An asshole lawyer or pre-law or law student can make life miserable for a decent and fair landlord.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Maybe you were intentionally being silly, but your fallacy there is in thinking that in a reformed tort system anyone should be awarded $10k, much less $20 million, for being served coffee that was "too hot".

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Maybe you are being silly. Either that or you missed my serious ideas for tort reform. And if you knew the true facts of the McDonald's case you would know that it was judged by a very conservative Nixon appointee and he thought McDonald's deserved what they got.

You forgot to include Massachusetts in your list of states which make if difficult for landlords.... unless things have changed

If you did a google search you would know what was special about the McDonald's case. The judge was a very conservative Nixon appointee and he could have overruled the jury but he thought McDonald's got exactly what they deserved. They had purposely designed a means to serve ultra hot coffee so people would still have hot coffee after eating their hamburger. They did not want people to get on line again to get their coffee re-warmed. They had received thousands of complaints of burns from their coffee and ignored them. In fact the injured woman had needed several surgeries to repair her injury and had written several letters to McDOnald's asking for out of pocket reimbursement for medical expenses. Only when her letters were ignored did she sue. Indeed McDonald's got what they deserved. And the result is cooler coffee at McDonald's.

$25 million? Hey - why not $1 billion. Or why not $10 billion. How absurd.

I have complained to hotels that their bath water was way too hot if turned all the way to "Hot" - that someone could get scalded (and possibly sue). $25 million for that? No way. At that rate, I should get maybe $20k for bringing it to their attention.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Good, McDonald's no longer has hot coffee... what a relief. Why does the judge matter at all? I don't see how that has any bearing on it being a stupid pay out. Obviously the judge thought they deserved it, he approved it. I think that goes without saying. Ultra hot coffee? How hot is that? As far as I have been told fresh brewed coffee is supposed to be between

185º and 200ºF... and seeing as coffee is mostly water, this doesn't leave much room for "ultra hot" coffee... about 12º. So now McDonald's probably has to keep their coffee about 145ºF so it is made poorly and tastes like shit. Nothing like a fresh cup of bean acid during that morning drive to work. It should be common knowledge that you make coffee by heating water to near boiling, and we all learned long ago that a pan of boiling water can scald us severely. Why is it that this lady suddenly is a victim because a cup of fresh coffee is hot? It's suppose to be hot.

And he was wrong. The person who put hot coffee between her legs got what she deserved. We shouldn't reward stupidity with cash. It sets a very bad precedent. Look at all of the stupid cases now with respect to Oreos, eating at McDonalds, etc. This only ties up an already burdened court system and means that real issues may have to wait too long to be heard. And it increases the costs for us all. Stupidity should have consequences, and they should be NEGATIVE consequences.

Matt

And we now all get to drink lukewarm coffee because somebody was too stupid to handle hot coffee, which was clearly marked on the cup. If people didn't want hot coffee, they didn't have to buy their coffee at McDonalds.

Matt

_________________________________________________________

I must disagree. Transferring money from one person or group to another person or group does *not* spur the economy. True wealth can only be created by the sweat of one's brow, both personally and nation-wide. Paper shuffles do not do anything of benefit to the economy as a whole.

Sure it can. Transferring money to a person who will invest it in something that increases our GDP is adding to the economy. Someone who just hoards their money under a mattress does nothing to increase wealth. So moving money from a place where it isn't working to a place where it can work, definitely benefits the economy as a whole.

Matt

Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you know, including the amount involved, is wrong.

Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you know, including the amount involved, is wrong.

Indeed the result is cooler coffee at McDonald's, albeit at a much higher price. You, the consumer ALWAYS pays for the doings of the shark lawyers. Either the retail price goes up or the company like, Johns Manville and Corning, go bankrupt and go out of business. Their thousands of employees end up loosing their jobs. Come to think of it, that is one way to create more jobs in NC, vote for Kerry/Edwards. If Edwards gets to be VP there will be one less shark there to rob the people that create the jobs there. LOL

Art wrote:

You mean the way Warren Buffit did? ;)

mike hunt

Bill Turner wrote:

I just read the entire article at the site you listed above. It didn't change my mind one bit. This was a stupid lawsuit.

You could replace "hot coffee" in that article with almost any consumer product that is dangerous if missused, anything from a circular saw to a chain saw to a lawnmower. I own a chain saw that can cause much more damage in much less time than spilled McDonald's coffee. If I mess up and cut my leg off should Stihl be liable simply because their product has the capacity to cause harm?

This is the stupidest legal theory I've ever seen, but it is, unfortunately, being applied to many products these days. In another 20 years we won't be able to buy a knife that is sharp enough to cut a sandwich, power tools, etc., because the risk to anyone who makes them will simply outweight the business benefit of selling them.

Matt

I like the Buffit response. Though one does wonder why the Exxon Valdez spill was counted as adding to the GDP the year that happened (or why Exxon hasn't paid yet for the cleanup).

Wealth transfer in some circumstances works. (read a bit on the Plague's effect on the British economy and the effects of war mobilization in some countries, I won't mention the US but...).

I'm just saying that every toxic cloud has a silver lining (even if it is only shiny lead....

_________________________________________________________

Except that nobody "hoards" money except a few hermits up in the hills. Money is always invested, one way or the other.