four loko legal help - Page 4

On November 24 2010 12:44 te3l wrote:


Don't say that, because of her there are now warning labels on mc donald coffee cups. Truly a hero of our generation *sarcasm*

On November 24 2010 15:24 susySquark wrote:
Reminds me of the lady who sued MacDonalds because she burned herself with their coffee.

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800.

she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed.

On November 24 2010 15:02 Stoned wrote:


doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out you can not use the legal system to get you money when you are not abiding by the legal system in the first place

but im just a person on the internet that feels the need to give out pretend opinions on legal actions and such when i have no idea what im talking about

but i can relate to "common sense" and i think this might fall under the category of "common sense"

On November 24 2010 16:18 ZlaSHeR wrote:
You didn't drink responsibly. That was YOUR fault not 4 lokos.

On November 24 2010 08:29 VonLego wrote:
You're the embodiment of everything that is wrong with our country and bring shame to TL.

You win zero points, and my God have mercy on your soul.

On November 24 2010 10:33 Risen wrote:
Edit: I'd also like to add that people like you who do dumb shit and then sue are the reason the justice system is bogged down with trivial trash, and also the reason the law profession has been dragged through the mud. I don't even really know you all that well and I dislike you. Go look for a handout elsewhere, don't try to take someone else's hard earned money.

On November 24 2010 16:18 ZlaSHeR wrote:
No offense but thats just annoying, I hate this american attitude of sue every chance you have.

You didn't drink responsibly. That was YOUR fault not 4 lokos.

I hope nothing hpapens of this, or you sue and lose.

On November 24 2010 16:08 Manifesto7 wrote:




Yeah! Fuck her and the frivilous lawsuit that was preceded by more than 700 other burn victims. She was obviously trying to abuse the system and get rich quick. I mean, being 79 years old and all.



I mean really, how bad can a cup of coffee be?



I love it when people pull out this example, because it is actually a pretty worthwhile lawsuit, rather than a frivolous one.

On November 25 2010 01:46 meeple wrote:


A worthwhile lawsuit only in that the damage was extensive... and the payout was good. You shouldn't need to be told that a hot drink is hot. The woman suffered at the hands of her own stupidity, and I have a feeling all the warnings about the temperature of the drink in the world wouldn't have prevented what happened.

On November 25 2010 01:59 BroOd wrote:

Again, you mustn't have looked into the case. The problem was never the warnings about the coffee being hot. Everyone knows coffee is hot. The argument was that the coffee was required to be served by McDonald's up to 50° higher than it needed to be, and that in the event of an accident or spill the customer would not have enough time (2 seconds) to remove the coffee from their skin before getting deep-tissue burns.

On November 24 2010 08:53 emythrel wrote:
in the UK this drink wouldn't even be considered dangerous lol.

Vodka Redbull anyone? 35% alcohol 100% sugar and caffine

On November 25 2010 08:44 decafchicken wrote:


I doubt you can buy 12 vodka redbulls for 5$ though.

On November 24 2010 08:43 Danzepol wrote:



yes exactly. the root canals are only the begining. I basically lost a year of my life doing nothing but being a vegetable really. And of course that sounds ludicrous, but I do have multiple psychiatrists backing on that point.

On November 25 2010 01:39 JackMcCoy wrote:
As a former District Attorney for New York County, my first and foremost advice to you, sir, is to stop seeking legal advice from the public. In many cases, the responses you receive may compel you to make your already unfortunate situation worse.

While I can’t offer you any advice on your specific case, I can comment on a hypothetical. Please note that this is in no way an offer of representation and, again, we’re just speaking hypothetically.

If one were to become injured as a result of a combination of intoxication and, as we can see evidence of here in your post, stunning natural mental incapacity, there may be grounds for a suit to be filed. One would have to establish a pattern of willful negligence on the part of the defendants in their obvious disregard for the basic tenets of judicious care and ignorance of foresight with regard to how their actions would negatively affect the offspring.

One would have to argue that the overwhelming ineptitude of the guardians that would result in the child’s tragic lack of common sense or social awareness could have been prevented by standard care, and that the child is not fundamentally flawed by mental deficiency. Should the guardians be able to offer proof of the child’s mental retardation, they would not be expected by a reasonable court to be held responsible for the child’s simple-mindedness.

Personally, I think suing your parents for your own lack judgment or basic common sense is risky, but if you think you can prove that it was their mishandling of your childhood which led you to be this dysfunctional, I wish you the best of luck. If I’ve misunderstood the specifics of this hypothetical, I apologize; I was only commenting on what I could piece together from the fragmented original post.