|
Post by einebierbitte on Feb 26, 2013 11:22:50 GMT -4
So sue the guy that you have the issue with. I don't completely understand why we tolerate frivolous law suits against counties, states, etc. all because of the stupid decisions that one made and then regretted. It was a mutual consentual act at one time wasn't it? So why blame and sue the county becaucse the parties couldn't keep it civil. Just don't understand...
it rates right up there with suing the Tobacco company because you chose to smoke and got lung cancer; or you ate at McDonalds and got fat; or you spilled "hot" coffee on you because you are a moron ....
Just pisses me off!
|
|
|
Post by tomc on Feb 26, 2013 12:38:15 GMT -4
That "hot coffee" was 180 degrees and capable of full tissue destruction in 2-7 seconds. Just a bit more than "hot coffee". Just sayin...
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned. ----- excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Feb 26, 2013 14:22:48 GMT -4
Any way you look at it... Frivioulous Law Suit. Coffee is hot.. Deal with it.... Unless you specifically order iced coffee...
Right behind the frivilous lawsuits. are the Silly lawyers that perpatuate all of it...
Just my opinion..... that's all....
|
|
dd50
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by dd50 on Feb 26, 2013 14:28:04 GMT -4
And if there in neglect, negligence, criminal activity, departmental policy violations, ect.... Then there is a civil liability and your subject to a civil lawsuit!
I totally agree with you that everyday there are total B.S. frivolous lawsuits filed and the courts are stupid enough to entertain them, however the cards are not in the County's hand on this topic!
You can be the safest driver, never have a ticket, never have an accident, be the most upstanding member of society and you make one wrong move and cause an accident, I am sure your going to be sued!
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Feb 26, 2013 17:41:15 GMT -4
Yea, but I thought there was at least 50 ways to leave you lover without involving an attorney and the U.S. Justice Department.. Just slip out the back Jack, Make a new plan Stan, etc..
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Feb 26, 2013 18:00:54 GMT -4
Yea, but I thought there was at least 50 ways to leave you lover without involving an attorney and the U.S. Justice Department.. Just slip out the back Jack, Make a new plan Stan, etc.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by justintime on Feb 27, 2013 3:11:53 GMT -4
I guess when it comes down to it, the allegation is that a Federal Civil Rights Law was broken. I guess when one decides to break the law, they better make sure they know the seriousness if the offense. Anyone who thinks that violating ones Civil Rights is frivolous is only trying to fool them self. This is serious stuff. I wouldn't want it happening to myself or anyone else in my family. I too would use all resources to ensure the person responsible is held accountable.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Feb 27, 2013 7:28:40 GMT -4
I too would use all resources to ensure the person responsible is held accountable. Hasn't that heappened though? Sorry if the Feds didn't get their bite on it, but if he's convicted, decertified, & fired, How much more is there?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 27, 2013 19:28:16 GMT -4
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. Seems she was 100% responsible for the spill. She put the cup between her legs and pulled the top off a hot cup of coffee. Had she not pulled the top off, she wouldn't have spilled it. McDonalds was only guilty of giving her a hot cup of coffee.
|
|
|
Post by freefallin on Feb 28, 2013 0:03:41 GMT -4
so if I read this thread all the way through this is what I get: "Deputy McDonald put his finger in Murphy's coffee and it spilled on her lap and the Feds were called justin time." Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Feb 28, 2013 9:49:09 GMT -4
You missed the part where the Deputy tried to take her lid off..
|
|
|
Post by arnieschwartz on Feb 28, 2013 14:17:15 GMT -4
This is what the US Justice Department alleges (from page 6 of Exhibit II their complaint filed a few weeks ago). Sorry for the typos.
16. Between 2005 and 2009, when Ms. Murphy-Taylor was assigned to the CID of the Sheriffs Office, she was subjected to numerous acts of unwanted, offensive conduct of a sexual nature by multiple supervisors including, but not limited to, multiple sexual assaults by Dennis Hofmann; sexually explicit comments about Ms. Murphy-Taylor and other female officers by Lieutenant Dale Patrick and Corporal Stephen Stouffer; derogatory comments about Ms. Murphy-Taylor based on her gender and women in general by Captain Benton; and unwanted touching by Lieutenant Patrick. 17. Upon Ms. Murphy-Taylor's initial assignment as a detective with the CID in June 2005, Captain Curtis Benton made several remarks to her that were derogatory to women. In one instance, Captain Benton remarked to Ms. Murphy-Taylor in regard to the first search warrant that she served, that "this was the first search warrant a female has ever written and probably will be the last." 18. On or around September 2005, Ms. Murphy-Taylor complained to the Human Resources Department of Queen Anne's County about the offensive comments about women that Captain Benton made to her. Ms. Murphy-Taylor was told by representatives of the Human Resources Department that nothing could be done about the offensive comments because a Sheriffs Office Captain is an appointed position. 19. Beginning around November 2006 until August 2009, Dennis Hofmann attempted to touch Ms. Murphy-Taylor's breasts in the CID offices and in Sheriffs vehicles on numerous occasions. The conduct described was without Plaintiffs consent. 20. On or around June 2007, Dennis Hofmann sexually assaulted Ms. Murphy-Taylor in a hotel room while they were attending an off-site training course as part of their jobs at the Sheriffs Office. 21. On or around August 2007, Ms. Murphy-Taylor complained to the Sheriff both about the sexual assault at the off-site training course as well as the continuous sexual assaults against her by Dennis Hofmann. 22. Sheriff Hofmann did not investigate Plaintiffs August 2007 sexual assault complaint against Dennis Hofmann or take any corrective action to prevent further sexual harassment of Ms. Murphy-Taylor by Dennis Hofmann. Dennis Hofmann continued to sexually harass Ms. Murphy-Taylor after her August 2007 complaint and was subsequently promoted by the Sheriff notwithstanding Ms. Murphy-Taylor's complaints about Dennis Hofmann's offensive and unwanted conduct. 23.On or about August 25 , 2009, Dem1is Hofmann continued to work closely with Ms. Murphy-Taylor despite her previous complaints about his sexual assaults upon her. On that date, Dennis Hofmann committed a sexual assault upon the Plaintiffs person while both were in an official Sheriffs Office vehicle, and on official business. Specifically, on that date as Dennis Hoffman and Ms. Murphy-Taylor were driving home from county court, Hofmann forced his hand down the front of Ms. Murphy-Taylor's pants and touched her girl thingyl area. He also forcibly put his hand inside Ms. Murphy-Taylor's blouse and touched her breasts. Ms. Murphy-Taylor told him to stop and tried to push his hand away, but he overpowered her and continued to touch her. 24. On or about November 2,2009, Detective Stouffer made sexually explicit comments about Ms. Murphy-Taylor and another female detective. Specifically, Detective Stouffer stated that he knew Ms. Murphy-Taylor and the other female detective had "licked each other's p_____s last night" when the two female officers had stayed at a hotel while attending an off-site training. The other female detective, to whom the comments were made, told Ms. Murphy-Taylor about these comments 25. On or about November 10, 2009, Lieutenant Patrick made derogatory comments about women in regard to Ms. Murphy-Taylor. and another female detective in the presence of other officers including Dennis Hofmann. Specifically, Lieutenant Patrick stated that he needed to figure out which of the female detectives "was the biggest tramp" in order to receive free items from an off-site training that Ms. Murphy-Taylor and the other female detective had attended. 26. On or about November 18,2009, Lieutenant Patrick and Detective Stouffer made sexually explicit comments about Ms. Murphy-Taylor and another female detective. Specifically, Lieutenant Patrick and Detective Stouffer said that they knew that Ms. Murphy-Taylor and the other female detective had sex at the off-site they training they had attended. The other female detective, to whom the comments were made, told Ms. Murphy-Taylor about these comments. 27. On or around November 18,2009, Ms. Murphy-Taylor met with Captain James Williams and the Queen Anne's County Administrator at which meeting Ms. Murphy-Taylor complained that she had been sexually harassed numerous times while on her job. 28. On or around November 20, 2009, Ms. Murphy-Taylor filed a written complaint of sexual harassment with Captain Williams in regard to the harassment she had faced on her job. 29. On or around December 2009, Detective Stouffer was promoted to corporal. 30. On or around February 2,2010, Ms. Murphy-Taylor filed another written complaint of sexual harassment with Captain Williams in regard to the harassment she had faced on her job. 31. During the investigation of Ms. Murphy-Taylor's sexual harassment complaints referred to in paragraphs 18, 21 , 27 - 28, and 30, the Sheriff and Sheriffs Office management continued to have Ms. Murphy-Taylor supervised by the individuals who sexually harassed her. 32. The Sheriff and Sheriffs Office management substantiated Ms. Murphy-Taylor's sexual harassment complaints against Dennis Hofmann, Lieutenant Patrick and Corporal Stouffer; nevertheless, they allowed the harassers to remain in supervisory positions. 33. On April 8, 2010, Ms. Murphy-Taylor complained to Major Williams about continued contact with Dennis Hofmann during the investigation of her sexual harassment complaints against him despite the fact that she had requested no contact with him. Her "no contact" request was denied and Ms. Murphy-Taylor continued to work with Dennis Hofmann while her complaints of sexual harassment against him were investigated by her employers. After Plaintiffs sexual harassment complaints against Dennis Hofmann were substantiated, her employers continued to allow him to work closely with the Plaintiff and ignored her request that she have no further contact with him. No effective action was taken to prevent contact between Ms. Murphy-Taylor and Dennis Hofmann or to otherwise redress the sexual harassment to which she had been subjected. 34. After complaining about the sexual harassment she faced at the Sheriffs Office, Ms. Murphy-Taylor was subjected to numerous acts of reprisal by the Sheriff and management officials with the Sheriff s Office between December 2009 and July 2010 including, but not limited, to the following: a. being forced to work with the supervisors against whom she had filed complaints of sexual harassment while those complaints were being investigated; b. being forced to work with the supervisors against whom she had filed complaints of sexual harassment after her sexual harassment complaints against those supervisors were substantiated; c. being singled out to receive an undesirable assignment during severe weather; d. facing disparate treatment in working conditions such as having a "no personal items or business at work" policy enforced against her that was not enforced against other officers in the CID; e. receiving on July 20, 2010, a lower performance evaluation when compared with evaluations that she received prior to her 2009 and 2010 sexual harassment complaints; f. receiving unjustified feedback criticizing her investigative report writing; and g. being subjected to rumors by the Sheriff and senior management in the Sheriffs Office that she only filed the written sexual harassment complaints against Dennis Hofmann because she was a "jilted lover" and Dennis Hofmann had broken off a consensual affair. The rumors about the affair were spread by the Sheriff and Sheriff s Office management even after they had substantiated Ms. Murphy-Taylor's sexual harassment complaints against Dennis Hofmann in June 2010 through an internal investigation. 35. On July 22,2010, Ms. Murphy-Taylor went on medical leave from the Sheriffs Office because of the extreme emotional stress that she faced at the Sheriffs Office. Ms. Murphy-Taylor was never able to return to her job because of the failure of the Sheriff and senior management in the Sheriffs Office to provide her with a work environment in which she would have no contact with Dennis Hofmann. Ms. Murphy-Taylor was subjected to ongoing retaliatory harassment, such as the rumors that she filed her sexual harassment complaints because she and Dennis Hofmann had broken of a consensual affair, from the Sheriff and his senior management further preventing her from returning to work. 36. On May 12,2011, Dennis Hofmann pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree based on the facts set forth in paragraph 23, and was sentenced to probation for tlu'ee years. 37. One day later, on May 13,2011 , the Sheriff Hofmann terminated Ms. Murphy-Taylor. 38. Ms. Murphy-Taylor was not warned before she was terminated that failure to return to work would result in termination. Also, at the time of her termination, Ms. Murphy-Taylor was not offered any options in lieu of termination such as going on leave without pay status. 39. Before a workers' compensation hearing for Ms. Murphy-Taylor on August 3, 2011 , the Sheriff offered Ms. Murphy-Taylor an opportunity to return to work at the Sheriff's office; however this offer entailed returning to a work environment in a demoted position to a division where Dennis Hofmann was a supervisor, and with no guarantee of separation from him even after he had pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her. 40. After Dennis Hofmann pleaded guilty in a criminal proceeding to assault in the second degree, Defendants retained him as a supervisor. 41. On or around November 2011, the Maryland Police Training Commission ("MPTC") conducted a hearing in response to Dennis Hofmann's guilty plea, to determine whether he had the moral character to remain a Maryland law enforcement officer. By a nearly unanimous vote of the panel (12 members voted to decertify and one abstained), Dennis Hoffman lost his police license in December 2011. Dennis Hofmann continued to work at the Sheriff's Office for a time even after he was decertified. 42. Several treating physicians and psychologists have stated that as a direct and proximate cause of the sexual harassment and retaliation Ms. Murphy-Taylor endured, she experienced severe emotional distress and impairment of life activities. 43. Ms. Murphy-Taylor also has suffered monetary loss.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 28, 2013 14:47:48 GMT -4
Seems like a whole lot more than crocodile tears or a women scorned!
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Feb 28, 2013 15:18:00 GMT -4
Looks like some careers are in jeopardy.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Feb 28, 2013 17:34:16 GMT -4
I'm convinced that this woman is not only a consummate liar, but has serious mental health issues, that is my opinion. As far as suffering monetary loss -- she and her husband still live in a million dollar home on the water in the county. Boats, jetskis, golf carts, SUVs etc. I don't know if she is working now or not, but her husband is on suspension from the PG county police force for pistol whipping an african american teenager, then lying about the event on a police report. Currently awaiting trial. The entire incident was caught on surveillance camera, the kid spent 5 months in jail for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by justintime on Mar 3, 2013 21:11:05 GMT -4
From reading the complaint I come away with: The Justice Department has deposed a lot and I mean A LOT of current and former Sheriff Department employees. I also predict that once this trial starts, their will be a lot more people waiting in line to cut a deal with the Justice Department to save their jobs by telling EVERYTHING that they know about the Sheriff's operations. We ain't seen noth'n yet! Also, do not think that the Justice Department would not affirm these allegations without documentation and without actually TALKING TO WITNESSES! If anyone comes away from reading post #61 and does not think we have a huge problem within the Sheriif's Department, you are in total deniel or are relative of the Sheriff!
|
|
|
Post by freefallin on Mar 3, 2013 23:16:35 GMT -4
Ok dude, what's your beef, what's your real story? You are obviously intricately involved in this case or are still mad about the last election. I mean really, you are the only one that that is screaming about this and actually paid for a 35 page report about the case to make your point against the Sheriff. I think the Feds got involved in this nonsense in the first place is because of the complaints from you and your party, now the result is that it's doubly rediculous to have another government agency looking into this that we all have to pay for with our tax dollars. This also goes to arnie shwartz chiming in (Svein Storm troll)
|
|
|
Post by justintime on Mar 4, 2013 9:17:09 GMT -4
Free falling. My problem is post #61. As for elections and the other stuff you are talking about, all I can say is you are totally off base. Have someone close to you go through something like this and you will know where my passion comes from. Don't be such a chauvinist. Be a realist.
|
|
dd50
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by dd50 on Apr 21, 2013 20:54:33 GMT -4
Anymore updates on this topic?
|
|
|
Post by shoreterp on Apr 23, 2013 14:48:16 GMT -4
|
|