Former players trying to sue the NFL can go F themselves...

[Iamtdg]

http://www.dallascowboysuniverse.com/showthread.php?10158-Former-players-trying-to-sue-the-NFL-can-go-F-themselves&p=163054&viewfull=1#post163054

See, I'm sort of hesitant to form an opinion based on assumptions of what someone "could" have known, or what they "could not" have known. I mean, you can form an opinion I guess, but until you know the facts it's not an intelligent one. It's not particularly compelling to me when people shout their uninformed opinions based on mere speculation.

You're right, common sense left the justice system a long time ago. I can't argue with that.

I guess reasonable doubt shows that the jury couldn't have thought that she deserved $2.8 million...? :confused

She actually only ended up with less than 600k after an appeal by McDonalds. Not that it makes those jurors any less of a moronic group.

 

[bbgun]

You're right, common sense left the justice system a long time ago. I can't argue with that.





She actually only ended up with less than 600k after an appeal by McDonalds. Not that it makes those jurors any less of a moronic group.

That's what the NFL has to worry about. Even if the plaintiffs can't prove that the NFL was negligent regarding safety, the jurors might stick it to the league as a form of back payment to older players who toiled for puny salaries and punier pensions.

 

[peplaw06]

You're right, common sense left the justice system a long time ago. I can't argue with that.

Yeah, it's much better to let internet pundits with no idea of the actual facts of the case to decide the merits based on make-believe.

She actually only ended up with less than 600k after an appeal by McDonalds. Not that it makes those jurors any less of a moronic group.

I know what she ended up with. Doesn't change what the jury actually awarded her. They heard the facts of the case, and made a decision. The judge reduced the award and both the plaintiff and McDonald's appealed. The parties reached an agreement rather than spend the money on taking it through the appeals process.

But the jury actually heard the evidence, unlike you. You sit behind a keyboard and a blurb about a lady spilling coffee on herself and declare it "frivolous" without even looking up the facts. Yeah, someone's a moron here. Hint: It's you.

 

[Iamtdg]

She opened the god damn coffee and spilled it on herself. With it in her lap. I need to know nothing else to know it was her fault. You think you're the only one that has read up on the details of the case? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're a lawyer. Or a law student. You fit the bill perfectly either way.

 

[Iamtdg]

Make-believe is what he said.

Because the 90 yr old ex-players have a fantastic case based on real life facts. Not "make-believe".

 

[superpunk]

Everyone else's lawsuits are frivolous.

 

[peplaw06]

She opened the god damn coffee and spilled it on herself. With it in her lap. I need to know nothing else to know it was her fault. You think you're the only one that has read up on the details of the case?

See how this works... I assume you don't know what you're talking about, so I ask you about it. Turns out, you don't know what you're talking about... but I only state it as my opinion after I see you attempt to talk about. "I need to know nothing else..." (translation: "I know nothing else.") This is the evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

Make-believe is what he said.

Because the 90 yr old ex-players have a fantastic case based on real life facts. Not "make-believe".

I said "make-believe" in reference to what you know about the facts, not in reference to whether the ex-players have a fantastic case or not. How many times do I have to say I don't know the facts?

Not only are you making up fairy tales in your head, but you also appear to have difficulty reading.... How old are you?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're a lawyer. Or a law student.

Nothing gets past you. At least we know you can read my screen name.

 

[superpunk]

I believe in justice if you daon't why don't you revolutionize about it?

 

[Midswat]

Everyone else's lawsuits are frivolous.

They've done studies you know. 94.735% of lawsuits filed in todays society have been deemed frivolous by the American Frivilous Lawsuit Seekers Society.

 

[Midswat]

One time I stuck a stray cat into a microwave and it died.

No idea that would've happened. I was just trying to warm him up (he'd been out in the cold).

BRB off to sue General Electric.

 

[Jon88]

She opened the god damn coffee and spilled it on herself. With it in her lap. I need to know nothing else to know it was her fault. You think you're the only one that has read up on the details of the case? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're a lawyer. Or a law student. You fit the bill perfectly either way.

She actually had some very major burns.

 

[peplaw06]

One time I stuck a stray cat into a microwave and it died.

No idea that would've happened. I was just trying to warm him up (he'd been out in the cold).

BRB off to sue General Electric.

What were your damages?

 

[Midswat]

Cat guts all over my microwave and my favorite Tommy Hilfiger shirt. And an emotional scar that cuts to the very core of my being.

 

[Iamtdg]

See how this works... I assume you don't know what you're talking about, so I ask you about it. Turns out, you don't know what you're talking about... but I only state it as my opinion after I see you attempt to talk about. "I need to know nothing else..." (translation: "I know nothing else.") This is the evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

I said "make-believe" in reference to what you know about the facts, not in reference to whether the ex-players have a fantastic case or not. How many times do I have to say I don't know the facts?

Not only are you making up fairy tales in your head, but you also appear to have difficulty reading.... How old are you?

Nothing gets past you. At least we know you can read my screen name.

I know plenty about the case. But the only relevant parts are what I posted. Unless you want me to go off into a diatribe about how McDonalds keeps their coffee between 170-180 F when they serve it at their drive thru which is 30 degrees hotter than average. I didn't bring it up because it doesn't fucking matter. She took the lid off the cup and spilled it on herself. They didn't serve her a cup that was faulty nor did it have a faulty lid. She burned her own damn self. Mickey D's didn't burn her. It is yet another example of the gross propensity of this country for frivolous law suits.

 

[Iamtdg]

She actually had some very major burns.

Dumb bitch.

 

[peplaw06]

Cat guts all over my microwave and my favorite Tommy Hilfiger shirt. And an emotional scar that cuts to the very core of my being.

Cool... $50 bucks should cover your cleaning costs and a new shirt. Otherwise, see you in small claims court.

 

[peplaw06]

I know plenty about the case. But the only relevant parts are what I posted. Unless you want me to go off into a diatribe about how McDonalds keeps their coffee between 170-180 F when they serve it at their drive thru which is 30 degrees hotter than average. I didn't bring it up because it doesn't fucking matter. She took the lid off the cup and spilled it on herself. They didn't serve her a cup that was faulty nor did it have a faulty lid. She burned her own damn self. Mickey D's didn't burn her. It is yet another example of the gross propensity of this country for frivolous law suits.

Well, look who found google. So the fact that they had almost a thousand complaints over a 10 year period about other people being burned by the temperature of the coffee (including some third degree burns, which is what Liebeck suffered), and have literally IGNORED them, means nothing to you? Did you ever see the pictures of her burns?

A good analogy would be if the NFL were doing nothing about concussions now, not educating people, no rules changes, no requirements for players who have suffered a concussion. The NFL knew all about it and the risks, but just ignored it completely. You said yourself in this thread that there's no way the NFL could have known about the risks of concussions years ago. Sounds to me like that's your justification for saying this lawsuit would be frivolous. Leads me to believe that if the NFL did know the effects of concussions it would make a difference to you.

Well McDonald's knew.

And news flash. Coffee is made to have contact with your body. If she had tried to take a sip and the lid had popped off and coffee went all over her face and gave her third degree burns, would that make the lawsuit legitimate to you?

You know what, it doesn't matter. The real issue here is that the jury system is set up the way that it is in this country so people who feel like they have been wronged have a recourse against these multi-million dollar corporate behemoths who turn a blind eye to these issues. It's not your place or my place to judge whether that person's lawsuit is frivolous. It's the courts' and the juries' places to do that. People like you who think they are judge and jury without knowing all the facts have led to this "tort reform" business that everyone harps about. It's hurting real people with real issues. And it's not helping the corporations or medical practitioners with their insurance costs, which is typically the stated benefit of "tort reform."

 

[Iamtdg]

Of course the lawyer is all about defending frivolous lawsuits, as that's how he gets paid. I get that, but it doesn't make all of these types of lawsuits any less frivolous.

And, yes, had the lid been faulty and popped off I feel it would have made for a more legit case.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Well, look who found google. So the fact that they had almost a thousand complaints over a 10 year period about other people being burned by the temperature of the coffee (including some third degree burns, which is what Liebeck suffered), and have literally IGNORED them, means nothing to you? Did you ever see the pictures of her burns?

A good analogy would be if the NFL were doing nothing about concussions now, not educating people, no rules changes, no requirements for players who have suffered a concussion. The NFL knew all about it and the risks, but just ignored it completely. You said yourself in this thread that there's no way the NFL could have known about the risks of concussions years ago. Sounds to me like that's your justification for saying this lawsuit would be frivolous. Leads me to believe that if the NFL did know the effects of concussions it would make a difference to you.

Well McDonald's knew.

And news flash. Coffee is made to have contact with your body. If she had tried to take a sip and the lid had popped off and coffee went all over her face and gave her third degree burns, would that make the lawsuit legitimate to you?

You know what, it doesn't matter. The real issue here is that the jury system is set up the way that it is in this country so people who feel like they have been wronged have a recourse against these multi-million dollar corporate behemoths who turn a blind eye to these issues. It's not your place or my place to judge whether that person's lawsuit is frivolous. It's the courts' and the juries' places to do that. People like you who think they are judge and jury without knowing all the facts have led to this "tort reform" business that everyone harps about. It's hurting real people with real issues. And it's not helping the corporations or medical practitioners with their insurance costs, which is typically the stated benefit of "tort reform."

:Clap

 

[Jon88]

Cat guts all over my microwave and my favorite Tommy Hilfiger shirt. And an emotional scar that cuts to the very core of my being.

I am so sorry. Someone needs to pay. Afterall, it's someone else's fault.