Man Sues Bethesda Over 'Fallout 4' Addiction

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
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?

Apparently you don't because you think the lawsuit was over her stupid action. The lawsuit went through because McDonald's had been covering up burn accidents for over a decade. She just wanted her medical bills covered ($20k), McDonald's told her to shove it but was found out that McDonalds knew of their temperature being too high for over a decade and had been found grossly negligent in their actions as over 700 previous burn victims had been paid off or scared into dropping any legal action against McDonalds.

In the end the lawsuit was not about her and was found to be a legitimate lawsuit not because she was stupid but because McDonalds breeched it's legal duty of care.

The McDonald's case is a widely studied tort case study. The judge didn't throw out the case because it was a fact case and therefore a trial by jury. The Jury didn't find the case to be frivolous because the coffee was hot enough to cause first degree burns requiring skin grafts and 2 years of medical treatment. McDonalds had been covering these cases up for over a decade and because of that they were found grossly negligent by a jury.

When taken in the context that 'oh some old lady burned herself with hot coffee and sued' it seems highly frivolous. However, the lawsuit went further than that after the facts came to light. McDonalds has changed its cups, used more protection, and put an easier to read warning on their cups as a result of the lawsuit. Others continue to try and sue McDonalds over hot coffee "accidents" however, none have been successful since this case.

So you are correct in that no company should be responsible for stupid customers; however, every customer has a right to hold a company responsible for stupid (reckless and irresponsible} actions.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,147
Apparently you don't because you think the lawsuit was over her stupid action. The lawsuit went through because McDonald's had been covering up burn accidents for over a decade. She just wanted her medical bills covered ($20k), McDonald's told her to shove it but was found out that McDonalds knew of their temperature being too high for over a decade and had been found grossly negligent in their actions as over 700 previous burn victims had been paid off or scared into dropping any legal action against McDonalds.

In the end the lawsuit was not about her and was found to be a legitimate lawsuit not because she was stupid but because McDonalds breeched it's legal duty of care.

The McDonald's case is a widely studied tort case study. The judge didn't throw out the case because it was a fact case and therefore a trial by jury. The Jury didn't find the case to be frivolous because the coffee was hot enough to cause first degree burns requiring skin grafts and 2 years of medical treatment. McDonalds had been covering these cases up for over a decade and because of that they were found grossly negligent by a jury.

When taken in the context that 'oh some old lady burned herself with hot coffee and sued' it seems highly frivolous. However, the lawsuit went further than that after the facts came to light. McDonalds has changed its cups, used more protection, and put an easier to read warning on their cups as a result of the lawsuit. Others continue to try and sue McDonalds over hot coffee "accidents" however, none have been successful since this case.

So you are correct in that no company should be responsible for stupid customers; however, every customer has a right to hold a company responsible for stupid (reckless and irresponsible} actions.
Coffee that is too hot? The saw blade is too sharp? The car goes too fast? The gun fires lethal projectiles? So on......
They should not have to change anything. Same goes for other companies of the mentioned saw blades, bullets, guns, cars, etc. How about people use common sense? HAHAHA. Not these days.
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
I know right. Why should we expect companies to use common sense. Place the onus fully on the customer. Just so your aware all the examples you use have safety guards in place to cover them from lawsuits. Shocking I know.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
Relying on common sense works great until someone who is normally sensible and reasonable has a brief lapse that results in the death of some innocent bystander. In the "fast car" situation for instance, someone who normally drives safely decides that they're gonna have some dumb race because some other person is looking at them funny and they're gonna totally show them who spent more money on a car by going faster when the traffic light turns green. Then that person runs over someone by accident and kills them in their moment of stupidity.

Or there's the gun ownership thing where a supposedly law abiding citizen decides that since his wife is in the process of leaving him and taking their kid along right then and there after she caught him cheating with some slut at his office, that he's gonna stop that from happening and flips out, shooting them both in a fit of predictable and totally typical ball-sack-hormone-rage.

In either scenario, the situation would have been different had the guy in question not had access to either a gun or a fast car. So sure, common sense is great until someone loses control and does something not common sense-y and then people die who didn't have to which is why we have to make laws to ensure we keep the most dangerous things out of the hands of people who have moments of irresponsible stupidity where they don't think before they act. It's been like that forever as people haven't changed and common sense is a thing that isn't available in lower amounts per person now than at any point before since people haven't really changed much in recent history. The difference is that, thanks to the technology you guys all know and love, it's now possible to see people more easily for what they are, monitor them and record the dumb things they think, and maybe take positive actions to prevent the largely unintelligent, impulsive, stupid group of squabbling slimeballs from hurting themselves or someone else. Of course they'll get upset about it and wave signs or something, maybe scream some catchy one-liner that someone else made up for them to say in order to give the protesting a voice and protect their business interests in selling dangerous things to stupid people, but the bottom line is that they'll eventually just have to shut up and deal with it just like this Fallout 4 ruined my life idiot will have to shut up after a court tells him to go away with his pointless lawsuit.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,147
Relying on common sense works great until someone who is normally sensible and reasonable has a brief lapse that results in the death of some innocent bystander. In the "fast car" situation for instance, someone who normally drives safely decides that they're gonna have some dumb race because some other person is looking at them funny and they're gonna totally show them who spent more money on a car by going faster when the traffic light turns green. Then that person runs over someone by accident and kills them in their moment of stupidity.

Or there's the gun ownership thing where a supposedly law abiding citizen decides that since his wife is in the process of leaving him and taking their kid along right then and there after she caught him cheating with some slut at his office, that he's gonna stop that from happening and flips out, shooting them both in a fit of predictable and totally typical ball-sack-hormone-rage.

In either scenario, the situation would have been different had the guy in question not had access to either a gun or a fast car. So sure, common sense is great until someone loses control and does something not common sense-y and then people die who didn't have to which is why we have to make laws to ensure we keep the most dangerous things out of the hands of people who have moments of irresponsible stupidity where they don't think before they act. It's been like that forever as people haven't changed and common sense is a thing that isn't available in lower amounts per person now than at any point before since people haven't really changed much in recent history. The difference is that, thanks to the technology you guys all know and love, it's now possible to see people more easily for what they are, monitor them and record the dumb things they think, and maybe take positive actions to prevent the largely unintelligent, impulsive, stupid group of squabbling slimeballs from hurting themselves or someone else. Of course they'll get upset about it and wave signs or something, maybe scream some catchy one-liner that someone else made up for them to say in order to give the protesting a voice and protect their business interests in selling dangerous things to stupid people, but the bottom line is that they'll eventually just have to shut up and deal with it just like this Fallout 4 ruined my life idiot will have to shut up after a court tells him to go away with his pointless lawsuit.
There are laws about killing people, killing with guns, etc. Laws about driving to fast, drunk driving, etc. Yet it still happens. WHY?
100% user error on common sense. People should be responsible for their own actions. But these days you can probably get sued for saying Merry Christmas rather then Happy Holidays.......
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
There are laws about killing people, killing with guns, etc. Laws about driving to fast, drunk driving, etc. Yet it still happens. WHY?
100% user error on common sense. People should be responsible for their own actions. But these days you can probably get sued for saying Merry Christmas rather then Happy Holidays.......

Yup, I totally agree that it's the responsibility of the individual to make good choices AND that despite current laws, there are still lots of problems. That only proves my point though, that people can't be trusted to make good decisions (I mean really, there are people who are going out of their way to try to make illegal drugs legal all because they can't manage to make it through a day without some narcotics fix to get them high...that just shows how selfish and awful people really are and that's only one of many, many problems). Because of that, the only effective way to solve those problems is to let governments monitor their citizens a lot more closely and take away the things they use to hurt themselves and others such as guns, sports cars, drugs, and whatever else. The best way to fix this is to restrict further, monitor more closely, and punish far more harshly.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,409
Fallout 4 gives me some pretty good eyestrain

it makes me question who I am as a person. When I shot that sleeping older gentleman soldier to steal his gun only to find out it sucked and turned it into parts, I wonder what have I become?

My companion liked my decision though so maybe it is the company I hang with in the game...
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Coffee that is too hot? The saw blade is too sharp? The car goes too fast? The gun fires lethal projectiles? So on......
They should not have to change anything.

Be careful with that line of argument and question where these tales come from. In the real world frivolous lawsuits really aren't that big of a problem, when you dig into those sort of stories you almost invariably find that details have been left out or twisted to make the plaintiff sound like an idiot.

As I understand it the coffee thing was because the coffee was being served at a very high temperature (nearly 200F) in paper cups and the older woman in question was one of many injured customers. She was in the hospital for a week with third degree burns to 16% of her body, needed skin grafts, and ended up with over $10,000 in medical bills. McDonalds offered her $800.

As for this lawsuit over Fallout... sounds like marketing. Especially with the 'should have waited for the holidays' line.
 
Top