Man Sues Bethesda Over 'Fallout 4' Addiction

[Stiletto]

People like these should not be allowed to survive in society. If our society allows the creation of this kind of person, then society needs to step back so that such malformations can expire and not reproduce.

 

[amdgamer]

Look into the final resolution on the McDonald's case. They lady lost on appeal. McDonald's did choose to lower the temperature of the coffee. People need to be responsible, I mean if they threw it at her or something, yes McD's would be in the wrong. But people have to have some responsibility.

Exactly. That was a hot cup of coffee for goodness sake, not one of her battery powered devices.

 

[nutzo]

And the best lawyers will tell Bethesda to settle and sweep this under the rug. It seems no one posting understands how these lawsuits work. I've had to deal with 3 now, and it's always in the best interest to settle early because you end up spending more in lawyers fees to "win" the lawsuit... unfortunately.

Which is why we need a "loser pays" for these type of lawsuits.

 

[Climber]

You are "apart" of the same species? It's also "too" weird for you to think about.

I think we can all see the effect predominantly playing computer games has had on you.

__________________________________________________________________________

Hopefully this guy wins so we can all laugh at him for losing his health/job & wife.

It was most likely the fact he had chosen to spend three weeks on such a shitcake game that his wife chose to leave him.....not the fact he was playing for three weeks. Afterall he's been playing for years since they married.

Ironic you are correcting the grammar of another user when your usage is just as bad.

 

[Climber]

Yea they can, remember a women sued Mcdonalds after you put a hot cup of coffee between her legs like an idiot and burned her self when she squeezed. Was also a guy in brazil that sued mcdonalds as well for gaining 60 pounds when he worked there for 12 years, he won sadly.

So people can sue anyone for the stupidest reasons and win.

Instead of just misquoted wrong information why don't you Google the case and read what it was really about.

 

[pothb]

Heat that wouldn't have really mattered, if she didn't spill it on herself?

 

[nilepez]

Look into the final resolution on the McDonald's case. They lady lost on appeal. McDonald's did choose to lower the temperature of the coffee. People need to be responsible, I mean if they threw it at her or something, yes McD's would be in the wrong. But people have to have some responsibility.

No she didn't. They settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but presumably it was less than 600k

 

[Savi]

You are "apart" of the same species? It's also "too" weird for you to think about.

I think we can all see the effect predominantly playing computer games has had on you.

__________________________________________________________________________

Hopefully this guy wins so we can all laugh at him for losing his health/job & wife.

It was most likely the fact he had chosen to spend three weeks on such a shitcake game that his wife chose to leave him.....not the fact he was playing for three weeks. Afterall he's been playing for years since they married.

oh no i can guarantee it was not pc games that messed up my grammar and spelling habits, it was long before i found pc games and i was only making a quick post not novel

 

[triwolf]

No she didn't. They settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but presumably it was less than 600k

You are right, I stand corrected on the details. I thought she lost the appeal and then settled. Turns out the appeal never actually went to trial, and McDonalds settled. She probably got several hundred thousand dollars because she placed burning hot coffee in her lap and McDonalds had to pay up. It's all about perspective. I'd play it safe and say placing hot coffee in your lap, no matter how much money you win, is rather dumb.

 

[nilepez]

You are right, I stand corrected on the details. I thought she lost the appeal and then settled. Turns out the appeal never actually went to trial, and McDonalds settled. She probably got several hundred thousand dollars because she placed burning hot coffee in her lap and McDonalds had to pay up. It's all about perspective. I'd play it safe and say placing hot coffee in your lap, no matter how much money you win, is rather dumb.

I don't drink coffee, but virtually eveyrone I know that drinks coffee has put it in their lap at some point. I suspect it's somewhat less common now because most (all?) cars have cup holders, but that wasn't the case 30 years ago. I doubt many thought spilling it would give you a 3rd degree burn.

 

[triwolf]

I don't drink coffee, but virtually eveyrone I know that drinks coffee has put it in their lap at some point. I suspect it's somewhat less common now because most (all?) cars have cup holders, but that wasn't the case 30 years ago. I doubt many thought spilling it would give you a 3rd degree burn.

Ok, you be responsible for you, and I'll keep hot coffee out of my lap. Agree to disagree.

 

[triwolf]

I don't drink coffee, but virtually eveyrone I know that drinks coffee has put it in their lap at some point. I suspect it's somewhat less common now because most (all?) cars have cup holders, but that wasn't the case 30 years ago. I doubt many thought spilling it would give you a 3rd degree burn.

So putting hot coffee in your lap is intelligent? Also, spilling a hot cup of coffee wouldn't give you 3rd degree burns? So exactly where do burns come from, the burn fairy?

 

[Protoform-X]

So putting hot coffee in your lap is intelligent? Also, spilling a hot cup of coffee wouldn't give you 3rd degree burns? So exactly where do burns come from, the burn fairy?

I'm somewhat "uncoordinated" and I have some personal experience in this "spilling coffee on oneself." Never once have I received a 3rd degree burn. At worst my skin is red for a little while. I like my coffee hot, not scalding.

 

[nilepez]

Ok, you be responsible for you, and I'll keep hot coffee out of my lap. Agree to disagree.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. In 92, if you weren't in a Minivan, and you got a coffee in the drive through lane of McDonalds, you either drove with your hand in the air or the cup was between your legs.

Note there may have been some sedans with cup holders, but I just looked at a couple of Camry interior shots from that year and there was no cup holder. And again, I don't drink coffee, so this doesn't affect me at all.

 

[triwolf]

I'm somewhat "uncoordinated" and I have some personal experience in this "spilling coffee on oneself." Never once have I received a 3rd degree burn. At worst my skin is red for a little while. I like my coffee hot, not scalding.

Herein lies the rub. So you are one person, that is a one person study. Your data is anecdotal. It's not scientific. So your coffee wasn't that hot. That only proves that in your one case people don't get burned by coffee. But the lady did didn't she? So who is at fault?

Most people would agree that if you play with fire, you will get burned. That includes hot coffee. I am for personal responsibility. What irks me is when people do things that a normal person would think would alleviate the company from being sued and losing or having to settle the case, for some reason in this world the judicial system has no common sense and sides with someone that did something THAT WILL GET YOU BURNED. I can't keep you from burning yourself, and it shouldn't be my responsibility when you do.

The final injustice is that even after winning the case initially, Mcdonalds had to throw in the towel and take their losses and settle, because it was costing too much to fight with someone that at least was partially responsible for burning herself. So would I win today if I went to McDonalds and scalded myself with their coffee? The answer is probably not, because they have lowered the temperature of the coffee, so that a judge will now say well it wasn't that hot. So I guess you do win, oh well, not really much makes sense in this world anymore, and that case fits right in with the rest of the insanity.

 

[triwolf]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. In 92, if you weren't in a Minivan, and you got a coffee in the drive through lane of McDonalds, you either drove with your hand in the air or the cup was between your legs.

Note there may have been some sedans with cup holders, but I just looked at a couple of Camry interior shots from that year and there was no cup holder. And again, I don't drink coffee, so this doesn't affect me at all.

They had these neat cupholder things you could buy, at just about any store since the 1960's. I'm glad this doesn't affect you or me, I tend to keep burning hot objects away from my lap as it has served me well in not getting burned there.

 

[Thuleman]

hard to believe we are apart of the same species, sometimes it is just to weird to think about lol

dumb ass hole

You are "apart" of the same species? It's also "too" weird for you to think about.

I think we can all see the effect predominantly playing computer games has had on you.

Post of the year!

 

[nilepez]

Herein lies the rub. So you are one person, that is a one person study. Your data is anecdotal. It's not scientific. So your coffee wasn't that hot. That only proves that in your one case people don't get burned by coffee. But the lady did didn't she? So who is at fault?

Most people would agree that if you play with fire, you will get burned. That includes hot coffee. I am for personal responsibility. What irks me is when people do things that a normal person would think would alleviate the company from being sued and losing or having to settle the case, for some reason in this world the judicial system has no common sense and sides with someone that did something THAT WILL GET YOU BURNED. I can't keep you from burning yourself, and it shouldn't be my responsibility when you do.

The final injustice is that even after winning the case initially, Mcdonalds had to throw in the towel and take their losses and settle, because it was costing too much to fight with someone that at least was partially responsible for burning herself. So would I win today if I went to McDonalds and scalded myself with their coffee? The answer is probably not, because they have lowered the temperature of the coffee, so that a judge will now say well it wasn't that hot. So I guess you do win, oh well, not really much makes sense in this world anymore, and that case fits right in with the rest of the insanity.

I couldn't disagree more. McDonalds could have settle for 20,000 dollars (what the woman thought her medical bills would cost). They refused pay more than $800.
She then hired an attorney who, as the trial got close, offered to settle for roughly 300k (but was apparently willing to take 150k) and they declined.
A mediator (a retired judge) recommended they pay her 225k (because he thought that's what a jury would award the woman). Again, McDonalds declined.

McDonald's rolled the dice and crapped out.

This wasn't even the first time they'd had legal issues over coffee. From the Wall Street Journal, "Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."

 

[triwolf]

I couldn't disagree more. McDonalds could have settle for 20,000 dollars (what the woman thought her medical bills would cost). They refused pay more than $800.
She then hired an attorney who, as the trial got close, offered to settle for roughly 300k (but was apparently willing to take 150k) and they declined.
A mediator (a retired judge) recommended they pay her 225k (because he thought that's what a jury would award the woman). Again, McDonalds declined.

McDonald's rolled the dice and crapped out.

This wasn't even the first time they'd had legal issues over coffee. From the Wall Street Journal, "Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."

I thought you would probably argue. here's what I argue. The case should have never made it to court in the first place, it should have been thrown out and McDonalds shouldn't even have to pay a cent for someone that spills coffee on them. Again, we should just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[triwolf]

It's full circle, it'll be interesting to see if Bethesda is held responsible for this imbecile's behavior that ruined his life, as McDonald's has been for someone who couldn't have the foresight that hot coffee in your lap or between your legs will scald you horrendously.

 

[Geef]

So if this guy wins I guess I'll have to go back and calculate out all the time I spent playing video games and then go find someone to sue!

Yeah Konami will have to beware of me because of all the time I spent replaying Contra on hard mode, and Capcom will have to watch out since I played all of their MegaMan games from the original Nintendo.

If I had spent all the time I had gamed doing something like bodybuilding then I'd look like Arnold did back in the day !

 

[nilepez]

It's full circle, it'll be interesting to see if Bethesda is held responsible for this imbecile's behavior that ruined his life, as McDonald's has been for someone who couldn't have the foresight that hot coffee in your lap or between your legs will scald you horrendously.

If you want to agree to disagree, quit talking about. Until then, I'm going to keep rebutting your opinions.

At the beginning of the trial, jury
foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be
there to settle a coffee spill."
At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic
facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup
of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and
while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing
third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit,
filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective"
because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns.
Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and
of her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking
the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and
daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror
Jack Elliott.
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen
such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the
past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee
burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising
from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

 

[triwolf]

If you want to agree to disagree, quit talking about. Until then, I'm going to keep rebutting your opinions.

At the beginning of the trial, jury
foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be
there to settle a coffee spill."
At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic
facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup
of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and
while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing
third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit,
filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective"
because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns.
Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and
of her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking
the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and
daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror
Jack Elliott.
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen
such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the
past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee
burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising
from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

No, nana-nana boo boo, I will not stop posting even if we agree to disagree. I'm not a lawyer, yet I expect people to comprehend the basics of responsibility. So we should sue and hold someone responsible for making a shoe if I step on your foot and do damage while wearing that shoe?

People get burned all the time. It's horrible and it is not McDonalds or any other companies fault, automatically.

You should hope you don't end up in one of your own logical fallacies. Have a nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[midnightfrolic]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[triwolf]

So if this guy wins I guess I'll have to go back and calculate out all the time I spent playing video games and then go find someone to sue!

Yeah Konami will have to beware of me because of all the time I spent replaying Contra on hard mode, and Capcom will have to watch out since I played all of their MegaMan games from the original Nintendo.

If I had spent all the time I had gamed doing something like bodybuilding then I'd look like Arnold did back in the day !

It is funny, but say it to your intelligent friends behind closed doors. Don't give them any ideas, someone may run with it.

 

[NoXiN]

if this thing goes through, all them porn sites are in a heap of trouble...

 

[Hagrid]

If you want to agree to disagree, quit talking about. Until then, I'm going to keep rebutting your opinions.

At the beginning of the trial, jury
foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be
there to settle a coffee spill."
At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic
facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup
of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and
while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing
third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit,
filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective"
because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns.
Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and
of her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking
the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and
daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror
Jack Elliott.
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen
such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the
past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee
burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising
from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

They should of received nothing for being stupid. Warning spilling hot coffee on yourself can cause burns!
This is why they have to put labels on things. A saw can cut your fingers, don't put them in front of it......
I wish we could weed these people out and not live our lives like the movie Idiocracy.......

 

[collegeboy69us]

This country needs a "loser pays" system.

You can sue for anything in the world -- but if it's frivolous you will be paying the court, and all the lawyer fees associated with the other side as well. Idiots like this would think twice if bringing shitty lawsuits like this to court when they know there's a VERY good chance they could be a few hundreds thousand in debt if they lose.

The fact precedents have been set to allow this sort of shit is beyond me... our overloaded court system has to deal with the most retarded people who simply want to make a buck.

 

[triwolf]

This country needs a "loser pays" system.

You can sue for anything in the world -- but if it's frivolous you will be paying the court, and all the lawyer fees associated with the other side as well. Idiots like this would think twice if bringing shitty lawsuits like this to court when they know there's a VERY good chance they could be a few hundreds thousand in debt if they lose.

The fact precedents have been set to allow this sort of shit is beyond me... our overloaded court system has to deal with the most retarded people who simply want to make a buck.

Tell everyone you know. There are some evil stupid people in this world. We need to clean the system up. Try to wake people up, don't put up with stuff you know is wrong, you do not have to follow unjust laws. Get everyone you know that thinks like us to start standing up, or it will only get worse.

 

[pothb]

This country needs a "loser pays" system.

As much as I'd like to agree as it will deter some. You have to understand that even with valid lawsuit, they can be lost due to money inefficiency, crappy lawyers, stupid jury, or a dumb judge... not to mention countless other things that I can't think of at this moment.

It would be a system that will probably do more damage than good. There aren't many that will go against a corp because they wouldn't be able to handle the money problems, or even harassment, and would lose even though their lawsuit is perfectly valid.

 

[triwolf]

As much as I'd like to agree as it will deter some. You have to understand that even with valid lawsuit, they can be lost due to money inefficiency, crappy lawyers, stupid jury, or a dumb judge... not to mention countless other things that I can't think of at this moment.

It would be a system that will probably do more damage than good. There aren't many that will go against a corp because they wouldn't be able to handle the money problems, or even harassment, and would lose even though their lawsuit is perfectly valid.

Maybe the cost would come after they have a chance to appeal if they have a bad lawyer, etc. Only then would they have to pay if they lost twice.

I do agree it would be tough to change, the system is sometimes there mostly to server the system. Most laws favor corps now, you are lucky to win a nickel against them. I'm sympathetic and want justice for the people that get harmed by a corporation, I just want to make sure the corporation actually did a wrong, and not the person only trying to get a payday from their own mistake.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Hey man, don't push your outdated bigoted socialophobic normatives on us. The DSM-5 lists Internet Gaming Disorder as a very real concern. Why it's right up there with Caffeine Use Disorder. This man deserves real treatment, and he should not be burdened by the cost of having to shoulder such a disorder. If you won't look out for the victims of this world, then someone else will. Not me, I'm really busy being a social justice warrior (and also I need my money, cause I worked for it), but someone else will take care of these poor souls.

This guy in the article we are discussing is a joke, but whats your point with that wall of sarcasm that essentially says nothing? That mental health issues do not exist? People like you quickly hating on the DSM as if it was written by the man in question.
Separate the point you are trying to make with the reality of this case. His bullshit lawsuit doesn't make other issues seemingly less real or less of a problem. Don't know if you fully thought this one out.

 

[Climber]

No, nana-nana boo boo, I will not stop posting even if we agree to disagree. I'm not a lawyer, yet I expect people to comprehend the basics of responsibility. So we should sue and hold someone responsible for making a shoe if I step on your foot and do damage while wearing that shoe?

People get burned all the time. It's horrible and it is not McDonalds or any other companies fault, automatically.

You should hope you don't end up in one of your own logical fallacies. Have a nice read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Well it is apparent you don't even understand what the McDonald's lawsuit was about. Perhaps you should read up on it if you are going to continue to quote it.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

It totally thought this was a CUG post!

Hey, I was doing fun vacation-y stuff this weekend. Even a forum troll needs to take a break once in a while. I'm just glad there are people around that can fill in for me when I'm running over my parents' mailbox or something.

 

[nilepez]

They should of received nothing for being stupid. Warning spilling hot coffee on yourself can cause burns!
This is why they have to put labels on things. A saw can cut your fingers, don't put them in front of it......
I wish we could weed these people out and not live our lives like the movie Idiocracy.......

The key is 3rd degree burns that required skin grafts. I've seen/known many who spilled coffee on themselves. I don't know a single person who's had a 3rd degree burn. I was with you on this case, until I read the details. The jury thought it was a joke, until they heard and saw the details of the injuries.

 

[THOMO]

I'll just leave this here

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/compulsive-gamers-display-unusual-brain-wiring

 

[total0wnage]

Lol to this whole topic, im not suprised by the situation im sure others have done this with other games.

 

[triwolf]

Well it is apparent you don't even understand what the McDonald's lawsuit was about. Perhaps you should read up on it if you are going to continue to quote it.

Care to explain how it is apparent?

I do understand it, and no company should be responsible for stupid customers. We don't agree, apparently. See what I did there?

 

[Hagrid]

The key is 3rd degree burns that required skin grafts. I've seen/known many who spilled coffee on themselves. I don't know a single person who's had a 3rd degree burn. I was with you on this case, until I read the details. The jury thought it was a joke, until they heard and saw the details of the injuries.

But also in my post is also states that the coffee did not spill by itself. A saw does not cut off fingers by itself.
Guns kill people or do people use the guns to kill people?

= Stupid people.

 

[pothb]

^ Pretty much my stance on the mcdonald case. It would be one thing if the coffee was so hot, it burned through the cup, but she was trying to open it in her car seat with it between her legs. (if my memory is correct anyway) I'm also more than in favor of them having to label that it is hot, since it was really hot that it poses a danger. But if she wasn't trying to put in cream or milk or what not, it wouldn't have happened, and doing so in a car seat seems to be a bit stupid, no?

Maybe the cost would come after they have a chance to appeal if they have a bad lawyer, etc. Only then would they have to pay if they lost twice.

I do agree it would be tough to change, the system is sometimes there mostly to server the system. Most laws favor corps now, you are lucky to win a nickel against them. I'm sympathetic and want justice for the people that get harmed by a corporation, I just want to make sure the corporation actually did a wrong, and not the person only trying to get a payday from their own mistake.

And I agree with your sentiment. I just don't know how to fix it so that it's better. All the possible ideas (granted, I can't say I've thought too much on it) is probably worst or have just about as many loopholes in it.