decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
How is this different? | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How is this different?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT
The sue anyone for anything regardless that you may be at some fault mentality
of USA has already reached across the pond, with the next result we are now
getting ads from companies like "Lawyers for You" (who are not legally
qualified as such in the UK: a lawyer is someone who practices law, the
qualified practitioners of law in the UK are Solicitors and Barristers - these
firms have very few of these, possibly one 1 properly trained and qualified
Solicitor who has a mega wage and the rest of the lawyers only get a pittance)
who make misleading statements in advertisements that the action is at no cost
to you; this is not strictly true: they operate on a contingent basis (no win no
fee) and get their fees from the losing party which in accident claims is likely
to be an insurer who to make provision for these claims is going to put up the
insurance premiums of EVERYONE which is then going to cost EVERYONE, possibly
even the person who made the claim, if they use the same insurer as the
defendant, which means it HAS cost them!

When that woman sued McDonald's for getting scolded on he thighs because she
held the coffee cup between them and the lid popped off (and won); it was
totally McDonald's fault for making the coffee too hot. The real fault
McDonald's had was NOT to put a warning on the cup "Do NOT hold this cup
between your thighs as the lid may pop off" as then it was clear that she
should not have done the act and it was all her own fault. But then again, are
they really expected to think that someone will hold the coup between their
thighs with such pressure that the top will pop off? Clearly common sense would
indicate such an action is dangerous and stupid and yet the [US] courts uphold
that view - that there is no such thing as common sense and nobody is liable for
their own actions if they are not told to not do something which could likely be
dangerous.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )