Jump to content

Odd Email??


Recommended Posts

OMG, LOL. How can a jewel even fit on a thong? Too funny.

OK.. I think the winner of the law suits is.......

The woman who is currently suing Victoria Secrets for permanent eye damage from a thong!!! :laugh2:

While Trying it on, a metal jewel popped up and hit her in the eye and she says she has permanent damage to her cornea...!!!!! :eek:

(Full story in OT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon the continued hijack...

Queenie, as a matter of fact, I DO know the entire accurate story, which is available from the link I included above (did you read it?) and also includes a LOT of information that you omitted above.

A very funny site, and one I've always enjoyed. I would hope, though, that one wouldn't consider it to be relevant for legal precedent. Short of the actual court documents, links are entertaining and nothing more. In fact, this is from the site's main page:

Yes, we mean to be entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just re-read this one, it is fabricated, but still makes me LMAO

The "winner" every year: In November, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon the continued hijack...

Queenie, as a matter of fact, I DO know the entire accurate story, which is available from the link I included above (did you read it?) and also includes a LOT of information that you omitted above. .....................................

The entire accurate story?

For that, my dear Stella, you would need to read the actual trial transcript.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take a WHOLE lot of self-control, but I would hit delete asap. Everything in me would want to address this idiot & call them out, but I think that's called 'taking the bait.'

Although, if I were to respond:

Dear Phantom Burner --

Nothing in your correspondence indicates we have ever met, nor that you have ever purchased one of my candles. This begs me to question: Why on earth are you writing to me? What problem am I expected to solve? What is a refrig cooler ... & how does it lead to a garbage can fire? Actually, what the hell is a garbage can fire? Why are you cleaning up outside? How do you know my candles smell great, yet you don't know how I contain them? What is your motive? What is the name of your Insurance Agent? And, oh yeah ... who the hell are you?

In America we don't buy the extra vowels, so I can't really help with your love of odours. I've never sent any of my candles across the pond, so I know your issue isn't with me. You say you'll never light another candle ... so, again, I find myself quite confused by our conversation.

You ask me to share my secrets for a candle that's "ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT QUESTION, SAFE." Let's face it, Granny, as long as there is one single person on this earth who shares your DNA, this probably isn't possible. Since you possess the minimal skills of effective communication, I have to make the sweeping assumption that you also have little ability to comprehend the written word. Please note, that would include our intriguing correspondence AND the instructions for proper burning techniques included with all reputable candles priced over one dollar. If you don't have enough common sense to burn a candle properly or take responsibility for your own actions, then you really need 24-hour supervision to prevent you from lighting the pretty flame. I hate to be the harsh bearer of reality, but since you sought me out ... you're an idiot. Unfortunately, there's nothing anyone can do to make the world a safer place when people like you exist without the basic skills of functional intelligence.

P.S. -- Good luck with that new insurance policy.

OMG, this is tooo funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a hijack here. Do you know the rest of the story about Mrs. Liebeck? Probably not. Well, it would seem that McDonald's had been warned repeatedly to reduce the scalding hot temperature of their coffee. Somewhere around 700 claims had been filed for similar incidents, and many were settled by McDonalds. Their own documents showed that McDonald's was aware of the burn hazard when foods are served at temperatures in excess of 140 degrees but failed to warn its customers. So when Mrs. Liebeck was burned by their extremely, and I do mean extremely--as in 185-190 degrees--hot coffee, the court said ENOUGH and the suit went forward, she won, and the rest is history. I do not consider this a laughing matter AT ALL.

Considering that they are able to serve 24 million cups of coffee to 24 million other people that do not scald themselves daily versus the 1 idiot every year that does should speak volumes. According to this there is another side to the story. Either way it goes the woman was still a moron for sitting a cup of hot coffee in between her thighs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire accurate story?

For that, my dear Stella, you would need to read the actual trial transcript.

I don't mean to seem disagreeable, but a transcript is just that: a written record of a legal proceeding. This story, as with many other lawsuits, had a LOT more to it than what was simply recorded in the transcript... :wink2: Many aspects were not brought out during the actual litigation proceedings, so they would not have appeared in the transcript. I did not mean to imply that I know every exact fact about the trial and the media sh*tstorm that surrounded and followed it... I don't think anyone could make that claim!!*faint* Nor is everything that went on with this story exactly of a factual nature - some of it had to do with a particular jury's bias regarding corporate entities, such as MickyD's, and little old ladies, not to mention pretrial publicity and endless discussion in the media (without all the pertinent facts of the case), which may well have influenced the outcome.

Allegedly, the jury was influenced by learning that Ms. Liebeck had initially offered to settle with McDonald's for the amount of her hospital bills, but McDonald's refused. The previous 700 incidents of severe coffee burns weighed heavily, as well as the graphic photographs of the 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her thighs, buttocks and labia, which required at least two sessions (depending on which account is accurate) of skin grafts and 2 years for her to recover enough to even contact McDonald's. I also suspect that the jurors themselves may have had some first-hand experience with trying to get the lid off a styrofoam cup of scalding hot coffee to add sugar, and sympathized with how easy it is to get burned in this manner. That's why, even though they held her 20% responsible for the accident, they granted punitive damages of 2.7 million (which the judge later reduced) because they were outraged at McDonald's not having turned down the heat on their coffee from the previous cases AND refusing to simply settle for the woman's hospital bills out of court initially. I think the jury went way overboard because they were pissed at MickeyD's, but I am personally happy that she DID receive a satisfactory, if undisclosed, settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...