Domestic Engineer wrote:

---

How about never diving head first into unknown waters.

---

That's what I was taught, too.

I feel sorry for him. But, he did this to himself. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Well, I agree that the guy should never have dived into the water.

However, this was at a bar, where they are serving, for profit, a product that lowers inhibitions and clouds clear thinking. So, they have to expect their patrons to occasionally do stupid things, and there should have, at the very least, been "No diving" signs on the deck.

Because there is liability on both sides, I think 10 million was too high.

---

 Except, it's really sad, but even if their were signs I could see him winning, because he was drunk or didn't see the signs, and obviously, if the company put up signs then they are practically admitting they knew it was dangerous and so must be at fault.

Honeys_Mom wrote:

---

Businesses have to be so incredibly careful to guard themselves against people's stupid decisions.  I feel bad for this family BUT he shouldn't have dived - what was he thinking?  It wasn't the establishment's fault at all, imho.  Should bars be required to pad their walls and floors with cushions?  Gosh, they served the drinks so they HAD to expect their patrons to fall down...

---

 That would actually go to how much they served him.  Because, yes, bars are liable if they serve their patrons too much alcohol and something bad happens.  Bars are not allowed to serve visibly intoxicated people more alcohol.  But they do, all the time.  

And if you are going to put your bar somewhere that invites idiocy, and then serve too much alcohol, you have to be overly cautious. 

NAOW wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Well, I agree that the guy should never have dived into the water.

However, this was at a bar, where they are serving, for profit, a product that lowers inhibitions and clouds clear thinking. So, they have to expect their patrons to occasionally do stupid things, and there should have, at the very least, been "No diving" signs on the deck.

Because there is liability on both sides, I think 10 million was too high.

---

 Except, it's really sad, but even if their were signs I could see him winning, because he was drunk or didn't see the signs, and obviously, if the company put up signs then they are practically admitting they knew it was dangerous and so must be at fault.

---

 Yes, when ex-DH and I bought our house we had 4 dogs, one huge one so we  wanted to put up a beware of dog sign. But our insurance agent advised against it because it would make us more liable if someone got hurt. Practically admitting we had "dangerous" dogs

Mary Zombie wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I don't think this is the responsibility of the bar in any way. Yes, it would probably be smart to post signs. However, we have all been taught that you just don't dive into a body of water when you don't know how deep it is. That is completely on him. And, it is tragic that this happened to him and tragic things happen. But, I don't agree they are financially responsible for this is any way. However, i guess courts can decide it however they wish.

---

 I agree.  this is ridiculous.  Everyone knows to not dive into that water.  I've been there and boats go in there the water is not clean. And did he see anyone else doing that? Probably not. 

i hope the bar appeals

---

 They can't.  It was a SETTLEMENT, not a judgment.  They agreed to pay it.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I wonder why they would settle versus taking it to a judge?

---

 Because, the man was entitled to a jury trial.  And a paraplegic on a ventilator in front of a jury vs. a well insured successful bar is risky gamble.   

Just FYI - the McDonald's coffee woman won because the coffee was boiling and caused 3rd degree burns on her lap. The coffee spilled when she attempted to pull off the lid to add cream and sugar. She was not driving and they stopped the car for her to do this. Initially, she just asked for her medical bills to be covered, and McDonald's, in a moment of idiocy, refused, offering a paltry $800 when her medical bills were actually $20,000.

In the evidence at trial, it came to to light that McDonald's purposely overheated their coffee to boiling and over to keep it hotter longer and had received 700 previous complaints about their coffee being too hot and causing burns.

The actual award was pretty low - $160,000, which the jury reduced from $200,000 b/c they found the woman to be 20% at fault. But because of McDonald's refusal to address previous complaints, knowingly serving boiling hot coffee, and their callousness to the woman's injuries, the jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced this to $480,000 and both sides filed appeals. They later settled the case for an undisclosed amount rather than continue with litigation.

McDonald's was actually at fault, which the jury concluded in less than 4 hours.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I agree that they gave her almost boiling hot coffee (it was 185-195, boiling is actually 212, which was what she ordered and paid for. I am aware that she wasn't driving, but she opened the coffee in a place that was obviously unsafe for her to do so, because she obviously spilled it over herself.

I would have voted "no" on that one too. Personal responsibility applies.

---

 Then you don't know the law.  Product liability and safety regulations apply.  McDonald's was aware their coffee had caused burns 700 times previously and did nothing to change its policy.

burns07 wrote:

---

this isn't a restaurant serving coffee--he caused this of his own volition/action--he's responsible--bet he'd trade the $10m now for the ability to move again vs the " life " that's ahead of him

---

 No.  It's a bar serving alcohol.   Restaurants and bars open to the public have a duty to be safe, and to do everything they can to avoid foreseeable actions that can cause injury.  So - the question for you, is it foreseeable that a drunken idiot will dive into beautiful water that is right there?

burns07 wrote:

---

So - the question for you, is it foreseeable that a drunken idiot will dive into beautiful water that is right there?
__________________________________________________________________________________

actually the question(s) would be: mr. barowner, out of the all the years that you've been open and the tens of thousands of customers that have been through your place, has this ever happened before? mr diver, did you slip and fall into water? was this some sort of accident? no? oh, you weren't pushed, you didn't slip or fall you DELIBERATELY dived into the water? ahh, so you caused this entire calamity as a result of YOUR deliberate and negligent actions?

lord, a 1L could beat this in front of a jury

---

 Obviously, the highly paid insurance lawyers that do this kind of thing all the time didn't agree with you - which is why they settled.