NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is an excerpt from The Telegram, a newspaper that circulates in Newfoundland:

Bus company loses appeal

A Seal Cove bus company has lost an appeal of a 2004 court decision holding it liable for the facial injuries sustained by a passenger when a beer bottle was thrown at one of its busses.

Known as the "bingo bus," the company's route to a Kelligrew's bingo hall regularly took it past an Avondale parking lot, where loitering youths just as regularly pelted the school bus with rocks, eggs and crab apples in summer and snowballs and ice in the winter.

Last year, the Newfoundland Supreme Court ruled the company, Parsons and Sons Transportation Ltd., had a duty to protect its passengers on a route known to be potentially dangerous.

That decision was based on the notion the company operated a regular route -- thereby placing the onus on Parsons and Sons Transportation to show it took reasonable care to avoid injuries to passengers.

The company argued the passenger regularly travelled on the bus and knew the risks associated with it. By boarding the bus, the company said, she accepted that risk.

[...]

The incident dates back to March 30, 1996, when a passenger was hit by the beer bottle while riding home on the bingo bus about 11 p.m.

The bottle broke through the window, striking the passenger who was sitting with her elderly mother on the driver's side of the bus.

[...]

The bus company operator testified the driver had been advised to be vigilant when driving through Avondale.

I tried to keep it to the bare minimum without leaving out important information, both so it isn't too wordy, and to comply with fair use. What amazes me about the whole thing is that the blame game is bouncing back and forth between the victim and the owners of the bus company, but nobody seems to care about the person/people who threw the damned bottle in the first place. :confused: Those are the people I'd be suing.

Just curious what the NS take on this would be.

The following is an excerpt from The Telegram, a newspaper that circulates in Newfoundland:



I tried to keep it to the bare minimum without leaving out important information, both so it isn't too wordy, and to comply with fair use. What amazes me about the whole thing is that the blame game is bouncing back and forth between the victim and the owners of the bus company, but nobody seems to care about the person/people who threw the damned bottle in the first place. :confused: Those are the people I'd be suing.

Just curious what the NS take on this would be.
Remember, the Criminal is NEVER at fault. It is the fault of the Victim or the thing that was used to injure the victim.

Sue the Brewer & its Bottling concern for providing the weapon. That's what they do here in the US... :rolleyes:

The following is an excerpt from The Telegram, a newspaper that circulates in Newfoundland:



I tried to keep it to the bare minimum without leaving out important information, both so it isn't too wordy, and to comply with fair use. What amazes me about the whole thing is that the blame game is bouncing back and forth between the victim and the owners of the bus company, but nobody seems to care about the person/people who threw the damned bottle in the first place. :confused: Those are the people I'd be suing.

Just curious what the NS take on this would be.

Well of course it's the bus company's fault. They MADE the disenchanted youth assault the bus by violating their self established territory. The bus company should have respected the rights of the youth and taken a different route.

Remember, the Criminal is NEVER at fault. It is the fault of the Victim or the thing that was used to injure the victim.Isn't that only when the criminal can't be found or doesn't have enough money for lawsuits to be worthwhile? :p

I don't know. How can you make a bus company responsible for their windows breaking because a bottle was thrown at the bus?

Isn't that only when the criminal can't be found or doesn't have enough money for lawsuits to be worthwhile? :p

I don't know. How can you make a bus company responsible for their windows breaking because a bottle was thrown at the bus?

It makes me feel a little better(in a strange way) that stupid court decisions aren't US exclusive.

Just wait for the flood of lawsuits that's going to arise from this precedent.

Isn't that only when the criminal can't be found or doesn't have enough money for lawsuits to be worthwhile? :p

I don't know. How can you make a bus company responsible for their windows breaking because a bottle was thrown at the bus?Technically, the bus could've chosen to avoid the area due to the history, and take a different route; or use that type of glass which doesn't break (don't know the name -- think it's actually a type of plastic.)

well, if the bus company proved that it took all conceivable action to ensure the safety of its passengers and that the said injury would ocurr regardless of any efforts a normally diligent person could be expected to adopt...theres no negligence here, i suppose. I dont see how the court could ascertain any responsobility in this case...clearly another sympton of the victim culture taking hold of the american legal system...what would you expect from a legal system that awards a hefty compensation to some schmuk who spilled a hot cup of cofee on his pants while in Macdonalds?

Technically, the bus could've chosen to avoid the area due to the history, and take a different route; or use that type of glass which doesn't break (don't know the name -- think it's actually a type of plastic.)

Not disagreeing but then they'ld have to raise prices to pay for the new windows and have charges of discrimination leveled against it for avoiding what are most likely low income areas.

It's a lose-lose situation for the bus company.

It also sets the precedent of allowing criminals to get away w/o repercussions and a probability of frivilous lawsuits against companies and manufacturers.

well, if the bus company proved that it took all conceivable action to ensure the safety of its passengers and that the said injury would ocurr regardless of any efforts a normally diligent person could be expected to adopt...theres no negligence here, i suppose. I dont see how the court could ascertain any responsobility in this case...clearly another sympton of the victim culture taking hold of the american legal system...what would you expect from a legal system that awards a hefty compensation to some schmuk who spilled a hot cup of cofee on his pants while in Macdonalds?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Newfoundland still part of Canada? :p

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Newfoundland still part of Canada? :p
Quite right, my bad, but i believe the Bush administration is working to reverse that :p

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Newfoundland still part of Canada? :p
We're annexing it through the use of US style Jurisprudence. :rolleyes:

It also sets the precedent of allowing criminals to get away w/o repercussions and a probability of frivilous lawsuits against companies and manufacturers.

lawsuits are not the same as or a replacement to criminal charges. if the person who threw the bottle was caught they could face jail time (were they? i don't know).

and based on what has been said, it sounds like a classic case of negligence. bus companies clearly have a duty to protect their passengers. the bus company knew that this route had a high potential for having things thrown at the bus (previous items included rocks) and therefore it was completely foreseeable that eventually someone would throw something that would hit a window and possibly cause damage to one of their passengers. they didn't take strong enough steps to mitigate this forseeable damage and therefore breached their duty to the passenger. their defense was that they tried to show was that the passengers implicitly consented to the risk by riding the bus more than once. the court didn't buy it. i wouldn't either - its a freaking bus ride to a bingo game, and should not therefore carry any inherent risk along these lines to be consented to at all.

Quite right, my bad, but i believe the Bush administration is working to reverse that :p

in addition, you got the mcdonald's coffee case all confused too. and mcdonald's was ridiculously negligent in that case, despite what their pr spin has convinced nearly everyone. and the punitive damages they were ordered to pay out (but never had to - another fact mysteriously missing from the public conciousness) were equal to two days worth of coffee sales for mcd's. that's barely punitive at all, it just looks big because we aren't used to seeing exactly how rich the big corporations are. if you want to punish them economically, you literally have to take millions and millions of dollars from them.

lawsuits are not the same as or a replacement to criminal charges. if the person who threw the bottle was caught they could face jail time (were they? i don't know).

and based on what has been said, it sounds like a classic case of negligence. bus companies clearly have a duty to protect their passengers. the bus company knew that this route had a high potential for having things thrown at the bus (previous items included rocks) and therefore it was completely foreseeable that eventually someone would throw something that would hit a window and possibly cause damage to one of their passengers. they didn't take strong enough steps to mitigate this forseeable damage and therefore breached their duty to the passenger. their defense was that they tried to show was that the passengers implicitly consented to the risk by riding the bus more than once. the court didn't buy it. i wouldn't either - its a freaking bus ride to a bingo game, and should not therefore carry any inherent risk along these lines to be consented to at all.
The bus company surely cant be held responsible by the brakdown of civil order in a certain part of town.

in addition, you got the mcdonald's coffee case all confused too. and mcdonald's was ridiculously negligent in that case, despite what their pr spin has convinced nearly everyone. and the punitive damages they were ordered to pay out (but never had to - another fact mysteriously missing from the public conciousness) were equal to two days worth of coffee sales for mcd's. that's barely punitive at all, it just looks big because we aren't used to seeing exactly how rich the big corporations are. if you want to punish them economically, you literally have to take millions and millions of dollars from them.

And another thing, It was a woman not a man who was burned by the hot coffee. But I still think the judgement was way out of line. A few hundred thou maybe, but millions for burnt thighs? We have way too many bad lawsuits in this country with juries that are out of control......just my 2 cents of course.

in addition, you got the mcdonald's coffee case all confused too. and mcdonald's was ridiculously negligent in that case, despite what their pr spin has convinced nearly everyone. and the punitive damages they were ordered to pay out (but never had to - another fact mysteriously missing from the public conciousness) were equal to two days worth of coffee sales for mcd's. that's barely punitive at all, it just looks big because we aren't used to seeing exactly how rich the big corporations are. if you want to punish them economically, you literally have to take millions and millions of dollars from them.
you got me, im a evil minion of corporate fascism. ;)
How did i confuse the case?

The one thing that caused this suit is not so much that someone was hurt (though thats part of it and its sincerely tragic), but I more basic factor:

Disaffected Juvenile delinquents (or even adult delinquents) don't have......


Deep pockets.


When you sue for damages in a civil court (regardless of country) you don't always go where the fault is. You go where the Money is.

Be well,

How did i confuse the case?

"what would you expect from a legal system that awards a hefty compensation to some schmuk who spilled a hot cup of cofee on his pants while in Macdonalds?"

first off, it was a 79 year old lady. secondly, the actual spilling was a mitigating factor for mcd's - it took away some of their responsibility.

the actual reason they had to pay was their reckless callous and willful negligence by keeping their coffee substantially hotter than any other resteraunt, despite the warnings of their own safety experts and despite the fact that their had previously been over 500 similar burn claims against them. their coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns even after the several seconds it took to soak through clothes and get to the skin. under normal conditions in other resteraunts or at home, that doesn't happen. their coffee was served at a temperature that actually made it dangerous and unsafe for human consumption at all. and they were fully aware of this fact.

and then the bastards decided to fight it out in court rather than accept the lady's offer of a $20,000 settlement to cover her hospital expenses from the 8 days of skin grafts and hospitalization necessary to fix her.

"what would you expect from a legal system that awards a hefty compensation to some schmuk who spilled a hot cup of cofee on his pants while in Macdonalds?"

first off, it was a 79 year old lady. secondly, the actual spilling was a mitigating factor for mcd's - it took away some of their responsibility.

the actual reason they had to pay was their reckless callous and willful negligence by keeping their coffee substantially hotter than any other resteraunt, despite the warnings of their own safety experts and despite the fact that their had previously been over 500 similar burn claims against them. their coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns even after the several seconds it took to soak through clothes and get to the skin. under normal conditions in other resteraunts or at home, that doesn't happen. their coffee was served at a temperature that actually made it dangerous and unsafe for human consumption at all. and they were fully aware of this fact.

and then the bastards decided to fight it out in court rather than accept the lady's offer of a $20,000 settlement to cover her hospital expenses from the 8 days of skin grafts and hospitalization necessary to fix her.
weel, i would contend that it lies in the field of normal everyday life that hot beverages usually are hot...

When you sue for damages in a civil court (regardless of country) you don't always go where the fault is. You go where the Money is.

well, obviously. it's not worth your time to go after people who can't pay anyway. but you can't just get money off of anybody. the party you are suing must have had an actual duty to have prevented the harm and must have neglected that duty for your case to get anywhere. and, of course, the harm must have been foreseeable (whether it was actually foreseen or not), and have been reasonably avoidable, and likely enough to warrant taking those reasonable steps.

well, obviously. it's not worth your time to go after people who can't pay anyway. but you can't just get money off of anybody. the party you are suing must have had an actual duty to have prevented the harm and must have neglected that duty for your case to get anywhere. and, of course, the harm must have been foreseeable (whether it was actually foreseen or not), and have been reasonably avoidable, and likely enough to warrant taking those reasonable steps.


Certainly, but such supposition is easily argued by proper choice of venue and certain other factors (I have been involved in these things, but then I left the dark side and stopped chasing ambulances). Usually a settlement is arrived at by sheerly wearing down the target to such a point that defending themselves against the litigation (whether there truly is fault present) becomes more expensive to defend against rather than just submit to. The litigation against American gun manufacturers is a current and present example.

Be well,

weel, i would contend that it lies in the field of normal everyday life that hot beverages usually are hot...

but the difference between normal coffee and old mcd's coffee was that between 140 degrees and 185. at 155 or lower, spills onto clothing will not cause third degree burns, and liquids will actually be drinkable. coffee made at home is usually between 130 and 140 degrees. at 185, which was the standard mcd's required its coffee to be kept at, it's nothing but third degree burns no matter where it touches you. it literally is not a food product until it cools down by at least 30 degrees and isn't really safe until it cools to 140. which magically happens to be about the temperature that everywhere else serves their coffee at.

hot beverages are normally hot, yes. but hot beverages do not normally require a person to spend 8 days in the hospital with the worst kind of burns that humans can get.

Certainly, but such supposition is easily argued by proper choice of venue and certain other factors (I have been involved in these things, but then I left the dark side and stopped chasing ambulances). Usually a settlement is arrived at by sheerly wearing down the target to such a point that defending themselves against the litigation (whether there truly is fault present) becomes more expensive to defend against rather than just submit to. The litigation against American gun manufacturers is a current and present example.

Be well,
well, american legal system is know by some as a sytem of adversarial legalism...makes sense.

but the difference between normal coffee and old mcd's coffee was that between 140 degrees and 185. at 155 or lower, spills onto clothing will not cause third degree burns, and liquids will actually be drinkable. coffee made at home is usually between 130 and 140 degrees. at 185, which was the standard mcd's required its coffee to be kept at, it's nothing but third degree burns no matter where it touches you. it literally is not a food product until it cools down by at least 30 degrees and isn't really safe until it cools to 140. which magically happens to be about the temperature that everywhere else serves their coffe at.

hot beverages are normally hot, yes. but hot beverages do not normally require a person to spend 8 days in the hospital with the worst kind of burns that humans can get.
Look, i would go so far as to claim that both parties (McD and the old lady) had a joint responsability and work out some sort of compensation on that basis.

Usually a settlement is arrived at by sheerly wearing down the target to such a point that defending themselves against the litigation (whether there truly is fault present) becomes more expensive to defend against rather than just submit to.

yeah, that's a problem with the whole settlement thing. pretty similar to the issues with plea bargains in criminal cases really.

Look, i would go so far as to claim that both parties (McD and the old lady) had a joint responsability and work out some sort of compensation on that basis.

that is precisely what happened

that is precisely what happened
Oh, didnt know that...

Oh, didnt know that...

it's alright. most people don't and you certainly wouldn't have gotten that from the media reports back then. for some strange reason, they never felt the need to talk about the actual facts of the case. the entire debate in the united states about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits is largely a bunch of bullshit made up by corporate pr flacks that the media (itself entirely corporate) has seen fit to reproduce without checking against 'reality' or 'statistics'. it's been rather well played on their part, really.

yeah, that's a problem with the whole settlement thing. pretty similar to the issues with plea bargains in criminal cases really.


Plea bargains are a judicial necessity though. The reduce expense to the public and insure that at least some sort of punishment is meted out. But we are discussing a civil case, not a criminal one. The similarity lies in the fact that the world has become so litigious that the courts cannot and probably never will not be able to handle the docket loads without settlements and bargains.

Too often of late, the judicial system has become a form of lottery where there are no consequences to the person who brings the suit, not even court costs. But the potential reward, even if it is through a settlement, is that they procure for themselves a substantial amount of money that was neither earned nor (often) compensatory for the perceived damages incurred. All of this has led to an increase in fraudulent lawsuits as well and created a new boost in the sector of employment for private and corporate investigators.

The solution is simple(well, nothing in law is totally simple, but this will suffice as a grounding principle):

A loser pays system.


If you have a legitimate lawsuit then you are willing to litigate with the confidence of victory. If you do not and you choose to try to enrich yourself through frivilous litigation, you should be prepared to take the risk of backing your own personal integrity with your own resources. Taking a chance to enrich yourself with no personal responsibility seems a bit too much like a circumvention of the principles of delayed gratification and earned security by personal labors and endeavours.

Be well

Plea bargains are a judicial necessity though. The reduce expense to the public and insure that at least some sort of punishment is meted out. But we are discussing a civil case, not a criminal one. The similarity lies in the fact that the world has become so litigious that the courts cannot and probably never will not be able to handle the docket loads without settlements and bargains.

Too often of late, the judicial system has become a form of lottery where there are no consequences to the person who brings the suit, not even court costs. But the potential reward, even if it is through a settlement, is that they procure for themselves a substantial amount of money that was neither earned nor (often) compensatory for the perceived damages incurred. All of this has led to an increase in fraudulent lawsuits as well and created a new boost in the sector of employment for private and corporate investigators.

The solution is simple(well, nothing in law is totally simple, but this will suffice as a grounding principle):

A loser pays system.


If you have a legitimate lawsuit then you are willing to litigate with the confidence of victory. If you do not and you choose to try to enrich yourself through frivilous litigation, you should be prepared to take the risk of backing your own personal integrity with your own resources. Taking a chance to enrich yourself with no personal responsibility seems a bit too much like a circumvention of the principles of delayed gratification and earned security by personal labors and endeavours.

Be well
If i undestand correctly, in the american legal system the party that looses doesnt pay the court costs?
And doesnt the presiding judge have the legal right to throw out the claim right at the beggining (for instance if the plaintif argues that the defendant is an alien in disguise and performed anal probes on his person) if he finds it rightout ludicrous?

it's alright. most people don't and you certainly wouldn't have gotten that from the media reports back then. for some strange reason, they never felt the need to talk about the actual facts of the case. the entire debate in the united states about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits is largely a bunch of bullshit made up by corporate pr flacks that the media (itself entirely corporate) has seen fit to reproduce without checking against 'reality' or 'statistics'. it's been rather well played on their part, really.
well, abbout tort reform, many Big Pharma loobyists claim that the sheer amount of money needed to settle out of court is taking its toll on medicine prices...isnt that a legitimate claim?