Didn't like 3 people in Canada sue Tim Hortons because their coffee was too hot?Sturmdolch said:In Canada, you watch TV.
In Soviet Russia, TV watch you.
In America, you sue TV!
Haha, but the whole idea of a Generalised Principle for tort was in itself revolutionary to negligence law. Fair enough it was very open to interpretation and vague, but i'd rather blame the following case law for the stretching of negligence.Daystar Clarion said:Sometimes I wish Donahue swallowed the snail and just got the fuck over it.ChaoticLegion said:lmao xD Currently studying Tort law and I know precisely what you mean. I also agree with you, American law is the most claimant friendly law there is and their bounds of negligence consistently encourage the ever present blame culture found in american society.Daystar Clarion said:I swear, Americas legal system is so fucked up beyond belief. I studied law for 4 years at university and seen my share of ridiculous UK laws, but America takes the fucking cake.
I'm pretty sure in America if a former Army Soldier turned in a gun he found in a bush he wouldn't get thrown in prison.Daystar Clarion said:I swear, Americas legal system is so fucked up beyond belief. I studied law for 4 years at university and seen my share of ridiculous UK laws, but America takes the fucking cake.
I still pretty sure that a 4 year old being sued still takes the cake.firedfns13 said:I'm pretty sure in America if a former Army Soldier turned in a gun he found in a bush he wouldn't get thrown in prison.Daystar Clarion said:I swear, Americas legal system is so fucked up beyond belief. I studied law for 4 years at university and seen my share of ridiculous UK laws, but America takes the fucking cake.
If escapist had a like feature... Tell it like it is!Sturmdolch said:In Canada, you watch TV.
In Soviet Russia, TV watch you.
In America, you sue TV!
I dunno, I saw a kid with a pretty sweet tricycle the other day...crimson sickle2 said:Why would anyone want to sue a 4-year-old, they don't have anything worth taking anyway?
That's nice, but it's still (by his own admission) speculation, and in the meanwhile this sets a rather dangerous precedent. So I'm not sure that's the best defense here.maddawg IAJI said:I agree with these statements, but from what I heard from another user, is that they're only suing the child to prevent a loophole.dastardly said:If I had to guess, I'd say this ruling was a result of having to work around age-old technicalities in state law.