You can just cut eye holes in it to see out of, duh.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Family Sues Apple Over Wreck Caused by FaceTime
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
You can just cut eye holes in it to see out of, duh.
No. She should have got what she originally wanted: Her medical bills paid and McD's to change their policies. There was NO reason for the coffee to be that hot. Absolutely none. It was hot enough to actually be dangerous. Imagine what could have happened if some poor employee or a customer had tripped and the coffee splashed their face. On top of that there were over 700 complaints of people suffering severe burns due to the coffee being so hot. 190 degrees Fahrenheit is beyond ridiculous. That's hot enough to potentially cause burns to your mouth and throat, that is incredibly dangerous. Also, she was wearing sweatpants at the time, which protected her skin from even worse damage. During the trial McDonald's even acknowledged that they had been aware of the risk for over a decade and yet didn't do anything about it. They even admitted to making absolutely zero attempt at warning customers just how dangerously hot the coffee was and could not come up with an excuse as to why they didn't. The temperature of the coffee was even mandated by corporate policy, in their official handbook.
For more fun facts: She offered to settle for $20,000 originally. Which was the cost of her medical bills. That's all she wanted. McDonald's offer was a measly $800.
The jury did find her partly at fault, which is why the damages they awarded her were fairly small.
Their punitive damages award was based on what jurors saw as a "callous disregard for the safety of of the people".
Despite claims to the contrary, the woman was not driving when she spilled the coffee. The car was parked and she was sitting in the passenger's seat. It was stupid of her to have it sitting between her knees when she went to put in her cream and sugar, however coffee at a reasonable temp would never have caused those kinds of burns.
Jesus, does everything need a damn warning? Or is there really enough stupid people out there that need to be told by the devices? "This screen may distract you from driving, please watch the road." If this isn't common sense, I've lost hope in humanity.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
Yes, there are too many stupid people. I know the coffee was hotter then normal, but she spilled it on herself. Still not anybody's fault but her own.
Yes, hope is lost. hehe
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
everyone needs to have their hand held these days.
common sense is so uncommon it's a god damn super power.
do i need to be told not to use a hair dryer in the shower? no.
but there's a warning.
http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/2/5/3/5/3/ar128619897735352.JPG
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,990
Look up the case, stop being so naive.
The hot coffee case was legit. There was also a successful smear campaign that was launched and became viral amongst mainstream media which only solidified an unjustified negative opinion of the woman that sued.
So congrats, you fell for the lies like so many other millions of people. Don't feel too bad though, I thought the same thing for a couple years until someone pointed it out to me.
Mainstream media is quite the bitch sometimes.
+1. Someone who actually knows the facts.
Last edited:
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
If you read my post above I did read it and why. Still makes no difference.
When people think the court of law is just a playhouse and try and sue for something this retarded, if you lose (and you will) you will be fined/counter-sued by the defendant for the exact same amount of money they tried to claim.
I'm just ranting, don't mind me.
I'm just ranting, don't mind me.
scojer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2009
- Messages
- 10,004
Why not sue the government? The guy was clearly driving on one of their roads.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,338
While I think the suit is retarded (especially since it mentions apple patenting a technology to allow it to be disabled if moving a certain speed, which is not relevant) and should be thrown out, I feel terrible for the family. That is the worst, you can do everything right and careful and then have something horrible happen to you because someone else didn't care.
I really don't understand the hate toward the family. Yes the suit is stupid, but when you just lost your daughter tragically you aren't thinking correctly, and any small time lawyer can easily convince you this is the right thing to do. Was the other driver even insured? Might not be able to get a penny out of him or insurance.
I really don't understand the hate toward the family. Yes the suit is stupid, but when you just lost your daughter tragically you aren't thinking correctly, and any small time lawyer can easily convince you this is the right thing to do. Was the other driver even insured? Might not be able to get a penny out of him or insurance.
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
I do not feel for the family at all. They forfeited their right to my sympathy with this bullshit lawsuit. I am at the age where I have lost many loved ones in my life; I am sure I could dig up reasons to sue some party or another for a fair portion of them . . . if I was a complete asshole.
Fuck these people.
Fuck these people.
ChoGGi
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,915
They aren't small time lawyers, they have office suites in Long Beach and Dallas, and they specialise in getting people money.
"SGPB’s mission is the recovery of financial compensation for our clients".
They aren't the only ones to have lost loved ones stupidly.
Apparently we do. As far back as 1976, when my motorcycle manual had a disclaimer warning the owner not to drink the battery's acid. Again, Carlin's rant is relevant: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and then remember half of 'em are stupider than that!"
The law firm, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, should be fined, and all involved lawyers should all be disbarred. They're a blight on society.
Education, something sorely lacking around here it seems.
Here is a clue guys, rarely will what you read in the media not be pushing some agenda. There are LOTS of frivolous lawsuits and people who should be scorned. The hot coffee one was not one such case. Go educate yourself before continuing to look foolish.
Here is a clue guys, rarely will what you read in the media not be pushing some agenda. There are LOTS of frivolous lawsuits and people who should be scorned. The hot coffee one was not one such case. Go educate yourself before continuing to look foolish.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
The coffee was way hotter than it should of been. Mcdonalds made her spill it on herself which caused burns?(or did she spill it?)
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,338
Should look up the photo, i seen it at one point the damage done to her. 3rd degree burns on her legs and pelvis and she needed lots of skin grafting to repair it. Mcdonalds used to sell coffee at 190 degrees F, which was really just asking for trouble from a business side of things. The intent was to 'keep it hot for when you get to your destination ie work' but a safer route would have been better insulated cups so that way also people buying inside could drink the coffee and not have to wait a half hour for it to reach normal temperatures lol.
She made a bad choice and even admitted it. I have spilled coffee plenty of times on myself, it hurts and i feel like a dumbass and I get angry. I couldn't imagine the pain and scarring I would be left with if my medical bill for spilled coffee cost me $20,000. That goes way beyond just making a mistake. The media really did spin this story poorly at the time, even still articles get written about it defaming her. As a society we like to pass judgement on things with only hearing part of a story and really cannot be swayed much after making that choice.
Point really is, coffee served that hot in a cheap polystyrene cup is dangerous. Mcdonalds handled the entire situation poorly, and frankly just watching 'trends', people expected samsung to pay out more money to people than this coffee incident, which the damages for coffee were much more common than phones catching fire. Had samsung did what mcd did and just said "LOL your problem not ours, here is a coupon" we would be asking for that company to burn.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
Understandable. My point is the amount of money for something that she did. She spilled it. The phone was exploding with no help from the owner?(AFAIK).
Maybe the system needs a screening process. This face time suit would be thrown out before it even wasted money and time. I did not read the whole article. Are the parents suing the driver as well for lots of money?
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
I don't think the family is really that stupid, I think they are suing Apple because the other driver doesn't have money. Or at least not the kind of money they are hoping to get out of this.
No reason for 190F? You don't know much about brewing coffee do you? You understand that is the minimum temperature you would want for brewing right? You know that the ever popular Keurig brews at 192F? And most people consider 205F the best temperature for brewing? Coffee is HOT, it WILL burn you, unless you want someone to serve you lightly flavored warm water.
I had someone total my car many years back and the lawyer for my case happened to help on this case, I remember talking to him about it almost as much as my own. It does not matter if the coffee was 2,000F, the lady spilled it on herself, she made the choice to remove the lid and place it between her legs, the leggings actually did NOT help, but held the fluid in contact with her skin (her own vascular surgeon is even the one who stated this), any clothing would do this. Also, lets just assume that 190F was crazy hot and that brewing coffee was not done by EVERYONE at 190-205F, you do understand that even 150F water will cause third degree burns in 2 seconds? Which is far to low to brew coffee at! People would complain about cold coffee if you served that to them and it would still cause the burns.
What is funny is most people who talk about this say "the coffee was not just hot, it was scalding!" Well no shit!, scalding is just enough to cause first or second degree burns, your freaking water heater in your house gets hot enough to do that. You have to remember many people and coffee organizations suggest that 165-180 is the best serving temperature, they even suggest steaming milk so it does not cool the coffee to much, and very, very few people suggest under 150F, which is still hot enough to cause third degree burns in 2 seconds, they now serve coffee at 158F, starbucks has always served at around 165F, both of which would have caused the exact same result, as burns would have taken place in less than 2 seconds. Congratulations.
The only logical place to go with this sort of mind set, is not to serve hot drinks at all, because anything that can cause a burn, such as the still served coffee which will still cause third degree burns in 2 seconds is just unsafe!
Your claim of 700 people with "severe burns" is also not true, the 700 complaints of burns were mostly from drinking it to soon and to fast, this was also over a period of 10 YEARS, less than a handful claimed anything more than a first degree burn. It's easy to make statistics seem crazy when you don't give time frames and make it sound like all of the cases were worst case. 700 people with some light burns, mostly from drinking it to fast over a period of 10 years vs how many people actually drink the coffee over 10 years (which is in the order of millions). "the 700 complaints were only one for every 24 million cups of coffee sold", better chance of being struck by lightening by many fold (1 in 24 million vs 1 in 700,000). It is also worth noting that young children and people over 65 are at higher risk for burns because of skin thickness (the lady in this case was 79).
No reason for 190F? You don't know much about brewing coffee do you? You understand that is the minimum temperature you would want for brewing right? You know that the ever popular Keurig brews at 192F? And most people consider 205F the best temperature for brewing? Coffee is HOT, it WILL burn you, unless you want someone to serve you lightly flavored warm water.
I had someone total my car many years back and the lawyer for my case happened to help on this case, I remember talking to him about it almost as much as my own. It does not matter if the coffee was 2,000F, the lady spilled it on herself, she made the choice to remove the lid and place it between her legs, the leggings actually did NOT help, but held the fluid in contact with her skin (her own vascular surgeon is even the one who stated this), any clothing would do this. Also, lets just assume that 190F was crazy hot and that brewing coffee was not done by EVERYONE at 190-205F, you do understand that even 150F water will cause third degree burns in 2 seconds? Which is far to low to brew coffee at! People would complain about cold coffee if you served that to them and it would still cause the burns.
What is funny is most people who talk about this say "the coffee was not just hot, it was scalding!" Well no shit!, scalding is just enough to cause first or second degree burns, your freaking water heater in your house gets hot enough to do that. You have to remember many people and coffee organizations suggest that 165-180 is the best serving temperature, they even suggest steaming milk so it does not cool the coffee to much, and very, very few people suggest under 150F, which is still hot enough to cause third degree burns in 2 seconds, they now serve coffee at 158F, starbucks has always served at around 165F, both of which would have caused the exact same result, as burns would have taken place in less than 2 seconds. Congratulations.
The only logical place to go with this sort of mind set, is not to serve hot drinks at all, because anything that can cause a burn, such as the still served coffee which will still cause third degree burns in 2 seconds is just unsafe!
Your claim of 700 people with "severe burns" is also not true, the 700 complaints of burns were mostly from drinking it to soon and to fast, this was also over a period of 10 YEARS, less than a handful claimed anything more than a first degree burn. It's easy to make statistics seem crazy when you don't give time frames and make it sound like all of the cases were worst case. 700 people with some light burns, mostly from drinking it to fast over a period of 10 years vs how many people actually drink the coffee over 10 years (which is in the order of millions). "the 700 complaints were only one for every 24 million cups of coffee sold", better chance of being struck by lightening by many fold (1 in 24 million vs 1 in 700,000). It is also worth noting that young children and people over 65 are at higher risk for burns because of skin thickness (the lady in this case was 79).
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,338
Keurig has never allowed the user to set a brew temperature above 170F (back when you could set it, ranged from 160-170). Just brewed a cup off my 2.0 now and measured with fluke 189 and thermocouple, 174F stream temperature (was curious). Only 2 models of theirs brew at at 192F, that model we use at work and yea can't even touch it for 10-15mins.
I still believe the real culprit was the pathetic cheap cups they use, way too flimsy imo for hot beverages, and the lids pop off too easy
.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Keurig has never allowed the user to set a brew temperature above 170F (back when you could set it, ranged from 160-170). Just brewed a cup off my 2.0 now and measured with fluke 189 and thermocouple, 174F stream temperature (was curious). Only 2 models of theirs brew at at 192F, that model we use at work and yea can't even touch it for 10-15mins.
I still believe the real culprit was the pathetic cheap cups they use, way too flimsy imo for hot beverages, and the lids pop off too easy
From their website:
"Keurig believes that the optimal temperature for brewing coffee, tea and hot cocoa is 192° F. This is the internal temperature of the water in your brewer. However, once your coffee, tea or hot cocoa is brewed, the dispensed temperature can vary greatly. In-cup temperature depends on the cup temperature and material. When brewing into an insulated container, such as a foam or paper cup, 180-185°F in-cup temperature is typically attained. In addition, dispensing into a cold ceramic mug will cool the coffee significantly. Please note that stream temperature of the first brew after turn-on or after an extended idle period can be a couple degrees cooler."
The one in my office here reads at 181F (in cup), tested using a defelsko positector with remote temperature probe. Which matters little, 150F vs 190F or 2 seconds vs 1 second, and probably less considering her age for 3rd degree burns. And funny enough, there are many whole web pages about how they don't brew hot enough and a number of websites about how to mod them so they brew longer and hotter. I think people forget coffee (and other hot drinks) are meant to be sipped, not guzzled like a sports drink.
The cup and lids were not the culprit, she removed the lid herself and in the process spilled the coffee in her lap as she was holding it between her legs at the time.
night_2004
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,229
I don't think Apple will have too much trouble winning this one. The accident was in California -- a hands free state. Apple should argue that the driver who caused the crash had already been served proper notice to not use their phone, or should have otherwise been aware of the law (not 100% sure but California Vehicle Code 23123 was in effect by then if I recall correctly).
Now why the driver isn't in jail for murder for killing the daughter is beyond me.
Now why the driver isn't in jail for murder for killing the daughter is beyond me.
I think cases like this were people go after an app or web site, or even a device should be thrown out. The person that was driving was the one at fault here. Not facefook because they existed. These are just people trying to find a way to make as much money as possible. It used to be you were in an accident and suddenly the insurance companies own you lots of money. I know many people that have pulled that shit after an accident. Now that changed where the insurance companies fight back too much against fraud so now you start going after somebody else in hopes that they will pay out more. Give it another year and you will start seeing "Where you in an accident because somebody was using a device while driving? Call us to get the money you deserve" The "if you were in a wreck you serve a check" commercials will no longer be talking about insurance companies owing you that but app and site owners. "Did the person that rear ended your car have a facebook page? If so call us and we will make sure that facebook pays you millions". Every year that goes by I watch as this BS gets worse and worse with stupid people and us making sure to lower standards for them. Everything needs to have warnings on it for every possible outcome. There was a recall years ago on a basket ball hoop because in 3 separate cases people fell playing basketball trying to dribble and run and bruised / scraped their knees. That was enough for the hoop to be recalled as it was a safety hazard as parents didn't know that kids could get hurt trying to play outside and play sports. I am surprised footballs aren't recalled for people getting tackled holding them. We are becoming a world of people that shouldn't have to take responsibility for their own actions and trying to make everything the fault of others.
I don't drink coffee but from looking at a few sites. The "best" temp for serving is said to be about 175 - 185, lowest anyone would ever drink it but not really consider it hot anymore would be 150. however to make it suppose to be between 195 and 205. Anything less than 195 and it comes out being weak, that range gives you the best flavor extraction. So yeah, like you said even at 150 you are going to get burned from exposure to your body. At the temps we are talking about it is like comparing that you were only agreeing for somebody to stab you in the chest 7 times but they stabbed you 10 times instead. you are still agreeing to be stabbed in the chest 7 times. Just like with the coffee thing, yes they might have served it 5 - 10 degrees hotter than needed, but it is a hot drink at any temp they serve it at and can result in burns if you pour it on yourself. Anyone that thinks that the McDonalds case was 100% justified needs to take a cup of coffee that they would normally drink and just pour it down their shirt and prove that they don't get a single burn from it. Otherwise they really are arguing that she would have gotten 3rd degree burns just not as bad of 3rd degree burns.
I don't drink coffee but from looking at a few sites. The "best" temp for serving is said to be about 175 - 185, lowest anyone would ever drink it but not really consider it hot anymore would be 150. however to make it suppose to be between 195 and 205. Anything less than 195 and it comes out being weak, that range gives you the best flavor extraction. So yeah, like you said even at 150 you are going to get burned from exposure to your body. At the temps we are talking about it is like comparing that you were only agreeing for somebody to stab you in the chest 7 times but they stabbed you 10 times instead. you are still agreeing to be stabbed in the chest 7 times. Just like with the coffee thing, yes they might have served it 5 - 10 degrees hotter than needed, but it is a hot drink at any temp they serve it at and can result in burns if you pour it on yourself. Anyone that thinks that the McDonalds case was 100% justified needs to take a cup of coffee that they would normally drink and just pour it down their shirt and prove that they don't get a single burn from it. Otherwise they really are arguing that she would have gotten 3rd degree burns just not as bad of 3rd degree burns.
Hold up a sec cause this isn't exactly making sense to me even on a second read through. So the Judge reduced the total award from $2.86 million to $.64 million and if you subtract the $160K in damages from the $640K you get $480K in punitive damages which is still a hell of a lot of money. I don't see many average people looking at almost half a million and sticking their nose up in the air like it smells bad.
That beings said, the actual monetary award was change on the appeal. The woman and McDonalds settled out of court and was this for more or for less money, we don't know?
So from there we have a claim or someone's reasoning that these stories of fantastic awards in court are fabricated and false because someone thinks this scares people into NOT suing?
Is it just me or do any of you other guys have problems with the logic here?
It seems to me that these stories would only encourage such law suites with people and lawyers all looking for the golden jackpot. I see no discouraging effect to be gained here.
I'm not so sure an accelerometer sensor would do anything here. If they worked inside a car in a way that the phone could detect vehicle speed, your screen would be flipping around on every corner. It's like throwing a ball in a bus, the ball does move through the air relative the passengers plus or minus the vehicle speed, it's like you never left the terminal. Would be funny right, sit in the front of the bus and throw a golf ball towards the back and it hits some dude at 85mph, but it only works like that for the Road Runner and that Wile E. Coyote.
Hold up a sec cause this isn't exactly making sense to me even on a second read through. So the Judge reduced the total award from $2.86 million to $.64 million and if you subtract the $160K in damages from the $640K you get $480K in punitive damages which is still a hell of a lot of money. I don't see many average people looking at almost half a million and sticking their nose up in the air like it smells bad.
That beings said, the actual monetary award was change on the appeal. The woman and McDonalds settled out of court and was this for more or for less money, we don't know?
So from there we have a claim or someone's reasoning that these stories of fantastic awards in court are fabricated and false because someone thinks this scares people into NOT suing?
Is it just me or do any of you other guys have problems with the logic here?
It seems to me that these stories would only encourage such law suites with people and lawyers all looking for the golden jackpot. I see no discouraging effect to be gained here.
We don't know if the agreement was higher or lower, but I'd be willing to bet it was lower than what the judge reduced it to. It's hard to find more concrete details because McDonald's released so much fake information about the case to confuse people and the woman kept to the terms of the agreement never revealing the details of the terms. She died in 04 so it's not like anyone can ask her to break her silence at this point.
It's more the social backlash and a lot of the truly frivolous suits get thrown out or get ruled in favor of the company so there is a stigma against it. Maybe scare was the wrong term to use, but more that it created a massive social stigma against suing companies. Companies don't bend over and settle for huge amounts as often as people think they do. Moat of the time when that happens either the company knows they are wrong or it's simply not worth risking the court system when the settlement agreement is much lower than the court would enforce on them. The median payout in injury cases like the hot coffee one is all of $55k. Depending on how high the medical bills are that is not a ton of money.
So, we have a case where this woman wins, the Jury awards a substantial sum, which the Judge reduces by about 80% less. Then one side appeals, the other counters with their own appeal, and from the same wiki article;
The original total was $640K and for me, what is unclear is whether this settlement was an additional amount "less than $600K, or an adjustment to the original $640K that could have been more or less. But in my mind, if you appeal a previous settlement and then settle out of court, it could easily have come out to an amount in addition to the previously awarded $640K and not a reduction of the earlier settlement.
I've seen myself how much the plaintiff and what has happened to them matters in such a trial. I was on a medical malpractice case in which a woman went in for an appendectomy, the clip that keeps the cut bile duct from leaking slipped off and caused her some real problems. She wasn't blaming the doctors because the clip came off, that was a known and accepted risk of this procedure. She was suing because she went back and said something was wrong the same day she was released, the Doc found nothing wrong, changed her meds, sent her home, because it was too soon to for a leaking bile duct to have caused noticeable harm and if it was leaking he would need more time to test and confirm it. She decided the Doc was blowing her off, ignored his instructions and spent several days running from doctor to doctor looking for one that would take her at her word that she had a problem and until a doc can see you at least two times, he's not just taking a patient's word for it, they heavily rely on observation of time to determine a worsening condition indicative of a problem. None of the blood tests perform during this time were conclusive enough to support an immediate response, and it wasn't until a doc at a clinic saw her a second time that she got admitted and the problem addressed.
This woman ignored her surgeon's instructions, her Primary Care doctor's instructions, and the Clinic Doctor's instructions to return to her surgeon. She had about $60K in additional medical expenses and the jury I was on awarded her almost $500K total because this woman had such a terrible time and most of these people refused to hold her responsible for her own poor judgement because it's so damned important for women to "feel" like they are being taken care of properly. I watched 60K in damages grow to almost half a million dollars and when the "fault", the percentage was diivied out to the doctors, her Primary Care doctor took 25% of the blame, the surgeon only 5% because she kept refusing to go back to see him so he couldn't have done anything wrong, she didn't give him a chance. It was the little clinic doctor, the one who saw her one day, and on seeing her the next day, got her the help she needed, that is the guy who ate 70% of a half million dollar settlement. The icing on the cake, it's the original surgeon who fixed up the leak and cleaned her out.
This is how law suits go these days and reasonable has nothing to do with it. It's a game of odds, stats, and luck of the dice. The only reason these things get settled out of court is that no one can accurately predict how a jury will go or what ridiculous settlements they may award. It's just a crap shoot.
There are so many incorrect points in your post and his it's difficult to know where to start or end. The temperature a beverage is *brewed* at is completely irrelevant to what it's *served* at and the temperature something is *served* at isn't the temperature at which it should be *consumed*.
If you drank 190 degree coffee you would inflict your mouth and throat with 3rd degree burns and wind up in the hospital--just like the woman in this case and numerous others (not all 700 of those cases resulted in 3rd degree burns but a number of them did). No one drinks 150 degree beverages, either. Think about things before you post! Have you ever seen someone walk over to a coffee pot, a tea kettle, or a boiling pot and just drain the contents into their mouth? You should test your theory and let us know how your experiment went after the hospital discharges you...
While you're in there, hopefully a doctor will explain to you the very simple difference between a few degrees of temperature and how a few seconds can literally save your life in burn situations. It's not a linear relationship (do you understand what "linear" means?)
Sometimes I can't believe the stupid shit people are willing to swallow on this forum sometimes but boiling fluid really takes it to another level!
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Her being dumb and spilling it on herself wasn't why she won nor why she sued. It was far more involved than your extremely gross oversimplification. You are attempting to argue with someone who is usually one of the first to preach personal responsibility and scorn lawsuits such as this. I'm defending this case because I actually did my research and understand it, something you clearly have not/do not.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
Sorry you do not understand. It's all good.
I wish they would make this court case a video and broadcast it.
The accident was on I-35 in TX. Lawsuit was filed in CA.