Even this was avoidable.

[therealdeal]

I agree with your last post 100%, and I can understand where you are coming from too.

I grew up in New England too(the southern tristate area), but my college yrs were in NH and my buddy and girlfriend in Bar Harbor and/or Boothbay. One nitwit even lived in Caribou(about an 8hr drive from are college). I shouldn't call him a nitwit, but he was definately a maineiac

[Johannes_Paulsen]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Or the woman who was awarded $1M (I think) for spilling hot coffee in her own lap...

I am posting this response because snarky comments about the McDonald's 'hot coffee' case are typically a throw-away applause line in many venues that people do not think much about. This is a pet peeve of mine.

The story of the woman in that case goes as follows.

The woman who was involved in the litigation was 79 years old. She ordered coffee from McDonald's at a drive-through while a passenger in her grandson's car. After getting the coffee, he parked the car so that she could add cream and sugar. As she removed the lid, the coffee spilled into her lap.

As a result, the woman suffered third degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and vagina. The lady remained in the hospital for eight days for skin-grafting. Two years of medical treatment followed.

The woman's past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. She offered to settle the case with McDonald's for $20,000. McDonald's refused, offering $800.

McDonald's had received hundreds of reports of people suffering burns from spilled coffee in the previous ten years, and had settled those cases for approximately half a million dollars. McDonald's quality control manager, claimed that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. At the temperature served, McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if people drank it.

The jury found Liebeck 20% at fault, and McDonald's 80% at fault, awarding her $160,000 of damages. The jury further awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages because of the pattern of behavior of McDonalds. At the time, McDonald's revenues from the sale of coffee alone was $1.35 million per day. This constituted two days' revenues.

The judge then reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000 (for a grand total of $640,000.)

The decision was appealed. Both parties later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Carry on.

[MLeake]

jkp1187, I personally like my coffee that hot, as it will eventually cool. I don't like it served at a temperature that isn't much above tepid, because it will get cold.

Hot coffee is hot. It might be very hot. The little sip holes in coffee lids have caused me to burn my lips with coffee that didn't actually burn without use of the lid, because of focusing... Should I blame the lid manufacturer?

Knives are sharp. I've cut myself on knives...

You can look at it as being snarky; I look at it as a matter of recognizing that some things out there come with anticipatable risks.

And while you might say, "she's a 79 year old woman," as though that means she should be viewed as more vulnerable, you might also say "she's a 79 year old woman," as though it means she should be that much aware - due to her age and experience - and that much more cautious, due to her (known) weaker physical condition.

You could also say that choosing to eat or drink while driving brings with it a certain amount of elevated risk. Go to Germany; cars there do NOT have cupholders. The Germans, strange though it may seem, think that a driver should focus on driving....

[Willie Lowman]

What the heck does how you like your coffee have to do with a teenage girl shooting her friend?

[MLeake]

Willie, he's tying into one of my previous posts about individual responsibility as opposed to the individual being protected from all harm by the nanny state, and the latter resulting in excessive regulation and litigation. So, I'm responding to his criticism of my inclusion of the McDonald's coffee case.

Personally, I think it's on point. Many things out there can hurt us if we are careless. Often as not, though, when we get hurt it's our own fault. The lawyer who came up with the concept of "attractive hazards" should have been tarred and feathered, but I suspect he occurred a few generations too late for that result...

How it all ties into the OP is that the fact of the unlocked gun is something the gun owner may regret, and something that most of us might recommend against; but the shooting is the responsibility of the shooter. A 14yo is old enough to know better, unless she's mentally incompetent.

[briandg]

yes, it is applicable to the post.

Attractive hazard is older than I am. I believe that the idea goes back to the fifties, when men who had gone through the war began to see all of the dangers that their precious children faced every day. Nothing was more important to them than their children; raising them strong and safe. When they saw unfenced pools, it bothered them. That generation of parents, who had seen millions of war dead and horrors beyond imagination, began to fight back against death and pain.

Dragging the law into it and allowing the lawyers to warp the concept to their own benefit is where it went wrong.

The girl found a "toy." an attractive hazard. if it had been a pink ladysmith, it would have been an even more attractive hazard.

M, if your point is that the homeowner should not be held accountable for the death of his guest because of an act of minimal negligence, I agree. I'd like to see the other kid held accountable, but not to the point of prosecution.

Can I point out that for generations, even up to current times, the family deer/home defense rifle hung over the fire place, often loaded?

[manta49]

If the gun hadn't being left loaded and unattended then we wouldn't be having the discussion whether the 14 year was responsible or not.

Do not leave a loaded gun unattended especially if there are children in the house . How difficult a concept is that.

[Nnobby45]

I feel for him, but it doesn't change the fact that for gun owners, safety MUST be the most important thing. Murphy's Law must be obeyed; if you can anticipate it happening, it can happen.

Interesting comment. Yes, it's true. But it seems that gun accidents just aren't allowed to happen without an outcry for punishment---even incarceration.

This even comes from the pro gun community.

Of course, if a child drowns in a swimming pool, gets run over in the street, or meets with serious injury or death as a result of adult negligence, there tends to be more sympathy and a realization that accidents happen.


Few feel that a prison term would serve any purpose. The adult already has the burden of living with the results of their actions.

Obviously, some degrees of negligence deserve no sympathy and should result in charges.


Ah, but a gun accident. The above rules don't apply. The heartbroken adult must, in addition to the moral consequences, go to prison and pay the price for his negligence. The news media believes that, and so do (as I mentioned) members of our own gun community.

To say the gun accidents shouldn't happen is true to the same extent that other accidets shouldn't happen. Accidents have always happened and always will, even though that fact can't be used as an excuse.

In some states, negligence resulting in death of a child (non gun accident) is business as usual in the court system. The prosecuter has the descretion.

But gun accidents mandate charges and jail time upon conviction. Off to jail goes a heartbroken adult who was negligent only for an instant. Something that could happen to any of us. That gun owner faces mandatory prosecution not forth coming for other accidents doesn't sound fair to me.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[aarondhgraham]

I agree with Nnobby45 when he wrote:

Ah, but a gun accident. The above rules don't apply. The heartbroken adult must, in addition to the moral consequences, go to prison and pay the price for his negligence. The news media believes that, and so do (as I mentioned) members of our own gun community.

To say the gun accidents shouldn't happen is true to the same extent that other accidets shouldn't happen. Accidents have always happened and always will, even though that fact can't be used as an excuse.

In some states, negligence resulting in death of a child (non gun accident) is business as usual in the court system. The prosecuter has the descretion.

But gun accidents mandate charges and jail time upon conviction. Off to jail goes a heartbroken adult who was negligent only for an instant. Something that could happen to any of us. That gun owner faces mandatory prosecution not forth coming for other accidents doesn't sound fair to me.

I truly believe that as a society we are becoming a group of self-righteous prigs,,,
We seem to revel in the harsh punishment of even accidental offenders,,,
Our society is trending towards the belief that there are no accidents.

There is a quote attributed to Thomas Paine,,,
I believe it applies very well to this situation.

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty.

It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.

And there's always the old,,,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

JM ns HO

Aarond

[Nnobby45]

I truly believe that as a society we are becoming a group of self-righteous prigs,,,
We seem to revel in the harsh punishment of even accidental offenders,,,
Our society is trending towards the belief that there are no accidents.

Hope I don't get busted for being off topic, but the same anti-gun folks, including some members of the judiciary, seem to feel that repeat offenders, including pedophiles, can't have too many chances to go back out on the street and victimize the innocent.

[briandg]

Lot of interesting points made here.

[therealdeal]

A 14yo is old enough to know better, unless she's mentally incompetent.

That is debatable. Many 14yr olds can't even tell you what came first: WWII or Vietnam.

[therealdeal]

I agree w/Nnobby45's post just after the post I just quoted above. Accidents can and will happen. Period. Maybe I should have mentioned this earlier, but based on what I know about this case(situation) and what Briandg has added: no charges should be filed.

That doesn't change the fact that you must use constant vigilence in your own life to try and avoid this same situation. An accident is an accident, but there are people who don't care, ARE negligent, and/or might even do this kind of stuff on purpose(if I may be so bold).

[MLeake]

therealdeal, if the 14yo girl had hit the other girl with a baseball bat, or stabbed her with a kitchen knife, would you bring up poor knowledge of history?

The fact is, the potential harm from pointing a firearm at a person and pulling the trigger should be just as obvious as the potential harm from clubbing or stabbing a person.

Would I hold a 14yo to the same legal standard as an 18yo? Probably not. But I wouldn't call what happened a true accident, either.

Ironically, I think that hiding guns from kids may actually be a reason why some kids treat guns like toys. They don't internalize the reality of the weapons the way they would if they were used to seeing the damage guns do to game, targets, etc.

Society's efforts to protect everybody from themselves just makes people that much more likely to harm themselves when they aren't under "proper supervision."

[therealdeal]

therealdeal, if the 14yo girl had hit the other girl with a baseball bat, or stabbed her with a kitchen knife, would you bring up poor knowledge of history?

I must go back to my first replies of your posts before agreeing to the last one between these last two between us:

A 14yr old would not hit a friend with a baseball bat by accident unless it was a 'true' accident like during a softball game as example.

The fact remains -society's fault or not - that teenagers especially females and moreso in certain locations are not knowledgeable enough about firearms. It might have to do with the fact that people are scared of guns or anti guns, but it might also have to do with the fact that a 14yr old can buy a bat, hold it in the store, play sports with it, etc. She cannot do this with a firearm.

[therealdeal]

Society's efforts to protect everybody from themselves just makes people that much more likely to harm themselves when they aren't under "proper supervision."

This is how I feel MLeake about the binge drinking(as only one example) that children in America do while a 14yr old in Spain can have a glass of cream sherry with the family. Basically, I agree with the quoted statement.

To quote Ozzy Ozbourne(paraphrase):

"My parents told me they better not ever catch me smoking or I was gonna get it bad. What did I do? I went and got a carton of cigarettes and smoked my brains out with my friends."

[Nnobby45]

That is debatable. Many 14yr olds can't even tell you what came first: WWII or Vietnam.

A function of our "educational system". Not the decision making ability of a 14 yr. old.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

jkp1187, I personally like my coffee that hot, as it will eventually cool. I don't like it served at a temperature that isn't much above tepid, because it will get cold.

Hot coffee is hot. It might be very hot. The little sip holes in coffee lids have caused me to burn my lips with coffee that didn't actually burn without use of the lid, because of focusing... Should I blame the lid manufacturer?

Knives are sharp. I've cut myself on knives...

You can look at it as being snarky; I look at it as a matter of recognizing that some things out there come with anticipatable risks.

And while you might say, "she's a 79 year old woman," as though that means she should be viewed as more vulnerable, you might also say "she's a 79 year old woman," as though it means she should be that much aware - due to her age and experience - and that much more cautious, due to her (known) weaker physical condition.

Actually, there is a principle of law that dates back over one hundred twenty years colloquially known as the "eggshell skull rule". It means that the tortfeasor takes the victim as they were, even if they were in a more vulnerable state than the average person, and even if this was not reasonably foreseeable by the tortfeasor. As a matter of policy, we don't want the victim's unusual vulnerability to injury to mitigate the damages from the tortfeasor; (s)he should be taking steps to ensure that (s)he doesn't injure people generally.

For example, if you have a negligent discharge at the range and hit me in the arm, but because I'm a hemophiliac, I bleed out before medical help can arrive, you wouldn't be able to get the damages reduced at the inevitable civil suit because you didn't reasonably know that I was a hemophiliac.

Vosburg v. Pitney, though I do not think it mentions it by name, is considered one of the exemplars of the rule. You can find it here if you're curious: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/torts01...rgvputney.html

Remember that in this case:

(1) A 79 year old woman is more susceptible to injury, will take a longer time to recover from those injuries, and may have more difficulty with manipulating the cups. This may have weighed on the amount of actual damages awarded.

(2) Of course, anyone regardless of age, could have spilled the coffee. One of the facts relied upon during the case was that the coffee at that temperature would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

(3) It actually was forseeable that people would be seriously injured by the temperature of the coffee -- in fact McDonald's had already spent $500,000.00 (five hundred thousand U.S. dollars) settling injury claims.

(4) It took the woman several surgeries and two years to completely recover.

You could also say that choosing to eat or drink while driving brings with it a certain amount of elevated risk. Go to Germany; cars there do NOT have cupholders. The Germans, strange though it may seem, think that a driver should focus on driving....

(5) I'm sorry, apparently I was unclear. The 79-year old woman who spilled the coffee was not driving a car. She was a passenger in the car. Her grandson, the driver, had pulled into a parking spot when the coffee was spilled. Anyway, would it have made a difference if she was sitting in a booth at McDonald's, from which she couldn't get up quickly? Come on.

(6) The jury did find the woman 20% at fault, and the award for actual damages was reduced by 20%. McDonald's was also hit with punitive damages because they were aware that people were getting injured (having paid out $500,000 in settlements previously) and decided not to change anything.

(7) Don't forget, the woman offered to settle for $20,000 (twenty thousand U.S. dollars) to cover her $18,000 medical bills + pain and suffering. McDonald's rejected this and offered to settle instead for $800 (eight hundred U.S. dollars). In the end, even though McDonald's was technically on the hook for $640,000, they settled for an undisclosed amount before the appeal was completed (which probably means: less than $640,000.

(8) And finally: $1.35 million was, at the time, the daily profits that McDonald's made from selling coffee alone.

Anyway, I will not comment on this again, because I think these posts are skirting the edge of relevance in this forum generally. I wanted to make these points because I am tired of people who know nothing about the case spreading misinformation about it. If the case still seems unreasonable to you, that's fine--carry on making fun of it. I have found, however, that the case works well as a punchline principally among people who are ignorant of its details.

[MLeake]

jkp1187, the coffee they serve over here at the DFACs in Afghanistan is often so hot that I burn my fingers if I don't double up the cups. So, I learned very quickly to double up the cups, and to allow the coffee to cool before drinking it when it is that hot.

Should the coffee be cooler? Perhaps.

Should McDonald's have set their coffee to a slightly lower temperature? Quite possibly.

Do they bear any degree of responsibility? Yes, since they knew of previous problems.

BUT... in my opinion, the victim should only have been paid actual medical costs. Pain and suffering? No. Punitive damages? No... although I could see government fines being applied. (In general, I don't think private individuals should receive punitive damages unless actual malice can be proven.)

To keep this on topic, degrees of responsibility and culpability vary with circumstance. And there is a difference between what public entities and private citizens do, and for what they should be held accountable.

If I run a gun shop, and I keep weapons about in a haphazard manner, some of them loaded, then I should probably expect problems if anybody gets hurt by such a gun.

On the other hand, if I have a weapon in my home, that an unauthorized individual manipulates without my permission, and in a patently unsafe manner, that should be that person's problem, and only that person's.

I think torts and criminal charges are way over the top in the US; from your posts and citations, I suspect (though I could be wrong) that you work in or with the legal system... and you probably realize that while the US has under 5% of the world's population, we currently have 22% of the world's prison population.

We sue, and we criminalize, far too often for my tastes. Again, people need to own more responsibility for the things they do (generally, much more than 20%...) and quit trying to get the government to put all blame and responsibility onto others for them.

[briandg]

Mleake, I respect your thoughts. They are rational and well considered. Extreme and kinda nuts, in my opinion, but that's your right and you are certainly NOT WRONG in your beleifs that everyone should be responsible.

Unfortunately, you are either not realizing, or ignoring the fact that

PEOPLE, IN GENERAL, ARE STUPID.

for every person in the population that graduated high school and succeeded in college, there is at least one person who sits on the western foothills of bell curve mountain, with iq scores below 80. Even considering all of those people with quantifiable intelligence impairment, there are still a hundred fools for every 15 clear minded, level headed, common sense carrying individuals.

I'm of the mind that we've got to give the stupid a break on things like this. A guy who drives drunk does so deliberately, a guy who robs a bank, ditto, and a guy who deliberately leaves his handguns hanging around the house all the time is not just an idiot, he is laughing in the face of fate, or god, whoever you think is in charge of these events.

The idiot who deliberately challenges fate needs to have his head caved in by the justice system. A person who has been deliberately negligent deserves to suffer consequences.

But is it fair to nail a guy whose brakes failed, or steering died? Is it fair to jail a man who did his best all of his life to do the right thing, over a momentary negligence? Most importantly, is it smart to break the guy over the knees of the justice system when he could be an otherwise productive member of society instead of a prison inmate?

This same argument applies to the girl.

Let's be serious. a 14 year old girl is almost as smart as an adult at the very bottom of the intelligence scale, and she is lacking in any life skills. All of her life, she has watched movies and tv shows that show guns as toys. things that make a lot of noise, and they are always being pointed at other people. She did something that comes naturally to idiots, she emulated people who she thought were cool.

We cant try an incompetent adult. You very rarely see a retarded offender at trial. Juveniles are only tried as adults in extreme cases, when deliberation and full knowledge of their actions are present. How could we ever prosecute her, a full blown kazoo tooting doofus, because she did something really stupid? Will it fix anything? not at all.

In cases like this, the way I see it, punishment is useless. it serves no purpose Punish deliberate offenders. for the stupid, you try to fix the problem. You take away their guns, their cars, etc, so they can't hurt anyone again. We already do that, pretty routinely.

[briandg]

There is one thing that I think would be beneficial to every kid. First, every kid I have ever taught, or discussed shooting with, I tell them that the firearm must be thought of just like a death ray. Pull that trigger, and anything in front of the barrel for as far as the eye can see is probably going to die, or be destroyed. Second, any firearm is almost certain to kill, or absolutely destroy anything that is hit. Sure, maybe it will only be a flesh wound, but NOT VERY OFTEN.

Lastly, I want every kid on the planet to be present at a firearm exhibition. I want them to hear the muzzle blast, I want them to see those watermelons or cantalopes disintegrate. I want them to see what the heck happens when a .22-250 does to a head, and a .45-70 does to a pig.

Then, I want them to watch me shoot a kitten, and remind them that this is what will happen if they are careless

[MLeake]

briandg, if investigators determined from other witnesses' statements, and any other evidence, that it was truly an accident or a case of sheer teenage foolishness, then no, I wouldn't favor prosecution. That may be the case.

However, investigators should in fact make that determination, not just assume that because of the shooter's youth that it must have been an accident.

Fourteen year olds have been known to deliberately shoot people. A former co-worker of mine was shot by a thirteen year old kid, whom he had disregarded during a raid on a gang's drug house. He was focused on the adult threats, and was surprised when a kid shot him. Good thing he had a vest.

A case a few years ago involved a ten or eleven year old kid, who was mad that he couldn't go play. He shot a girl who was outside snowmobiling, killing her. Tried to claim it was a pure accident; problem was the recoil caused the scope to give him a nice ring-shaped bruise over his eyebrow and cheekbone...

Just because the shooter was a kid, does not necessarily excuse the shooter, even if we don't hold a kid to adult standards.

I have to admit, rational yet kinda nuts is a pretty uncommon description. Guess I'm at least making you think on unusual levels...

[briandg]

I remember the snowmobile shooting. .35 remington, I believe.

I know that younger people do it all the time. a 16 year old in that same city shot his girlfriend in the head, in her own bedroom, because she broke up with him. his defense was that he brought the gun to kill himself, had it against his temple, and she yanked it out of his hand, accidentally shooting herself in the head (complete with contact burns) Do you remember the kid in arkansas that took his father's 742 30-06 to shool and sniped the elementary school playground? Can't very well plead that as an accident, can he? (good evidence that the recoil of a 30-06 is tolerable)

prosecuting tragedy doesn't do any good.

prosecute malice, then put them in stocks in the village square so that the peasants can throw horse fewmets at them. When the peasants get bored, give them a proper hanging. I think that we both probably mostly agree here, at least it seems that way.


They did decline to prosecute because there was absolutely no evidence of preplanning, malice, or motive.

[briandg]

Oh, another thing.

who here believes that the kid who gunned down his schoolmates with his dads deer rifle from an adjacent wooded lot, and the kid who shot a school mate on a snowmobile from a bedroom window with a .35 remington constitute solid evidence that kids should not be taught how to shoot until they're 21?

You all know that this is what a lot of people were saying and thinking.

"If their parents had not taught irrational and impulsive children with psychological problems to be deadly proficient with weapons, we would have averted tragedy."

Yeah.

[BlackFeather]

Originally Posted by Briandg

I have a sword that I seized from another individual. Every once in a while, I show it to someone. What do they do? pick it up and start swinging it.

Thanks to over 50 years of tv entertainment and the toy industry, weapons are no longer seen as things that transfer death from one person to another. They are toys, nothing but props in an imaginary game.

Swish! Swish! "look at me, I'm sir lancelot!"

This is one of the reasons people aren't allowed to handle my swords without having prior experience with them. The second is that every time I say "Do not touch the blade", the first thing they do is touch the blade.

A sword or knife is a loaded firearm, a firearm is always to be treated as loaded. The argument that kids see television and movies that show weapons as toys is quite ridiculous to me, as they also show what they can and will do. Taking away toys that replicate weapons will do one thing, make them want to play with the real thing, or make their own weapons. Rocks, sticks, and glass are all just as dangerous. I learned at a young age to make my own weapons, these WERE my toys. At 10 I had my first steel sword. Boys play with toys in mock battles and hunts because it's what we naturally want to do, just like catching bugs is "foraging". I feel like this is being taken away, leading to the poor health and judgment of children lately.

If it was a boy it would have been blamed on TV and movies and video games, being a girl it's because she didn't know better. The father is blamed for leaving the loaded gun around. What about the girl who was shot, what did she say when her friend picked up the gun? Did she know better?

Lastly, avoidable or not, a 14 year old girl is traumatized, and another is dead. No one should be charged, everyone involved is suffering enough. She should devote her time to teaching gun safety, help others who have gone through the same.

People should teach their kids that firearms and knives are deadly, not just by instruction, but by visual aid. It sounds wrong, but images of those who have been shot, cut, or stabbed will show the reality of it all. It's not just safety, it's understanding WHY safety is important. And with that, the principal of letting an adult know the firearm is there, is important. This should further the idea of something like the old warrior societies when everyone knew and understood weapons and their use.