Here's to a less litigious society...

By the way -- studying for my UK driving theory test -- very surprised and refreshed to see basic first aid is a section of the study materials. There's the sign of a less litigious country, and we're all the better for it.

My dad's a doctor. When I was little, we stopped at accidents. Some time around the Seventies, he quietly took the doctor plates off his car and swore he'd never stop again due to the liabilities. Fortunately, I don't think the situation ever came up.

Anyhow, hooray for the UK on this one.

The US actually has better laws to protect responders in that situation, the concept of a Good Samaritan law isn't really in practice here.

I only know this because I was trained as an EMT in the US and volunteer with a first aid organisation here.  They might try to sue you in the US, but as long as you do not go beyond your level of care then it is highly unlikely the case will be successful.  Here in the UK it is a bit of a crap shoot.  

Licensed doctors in the US are different of course, because they are expected to have a higher level of training.

There's the sign of a less litigious country, and we're all the better for it.

I don't agree--SUE THE BASTARDS! I know too many people who don't believe they are able to do anything against the wrongs they face. A sort of 'what can I do? I'm just the little guy' type of mentality.

I don't agree--SUE THE BASTARDS! I know too many people who don't believe they are able to do anything against the wrongs they face. A sort of 'what can I do? I'm just the little guy' type of mentality.

Sue the bastards who stop to help you when you have a car accident? <blinks>

Ah, I didn't know that, bookgrl. I wonder when those laws were put in place in the US. I would think you'd have a pretty nifty defense against a lawsuit in the UK if you did what you were told to do in the DVLA exam.

Sue the bastards who stop to help you when you have a car accident? <blinks>

Ah, I didn't know that, bookgrl. I wonder when those laws were put in place in the US. I would think you'd have a pretty nifty defense against a lawsuit in the UK if you did what you were told to do in the DVLA exam.

I was referring to your comment, "there's the sign of a less litigious country, and we're all the better for it."

I don't agree--SUE THE BASTARDS!

 

I was referring to your comment, "there's the sign of a less litigious country, and we're all the better for it."

Wouldn't we all be better off?? I certainly think so!

I'm certainly not referring to Ms McDonalds Coffee, but the little guy who is cheated. I wish for regular people to be more law-aware so they can protect themselves.

I think they realised it didn't work so well in the late 80s early 90s.  

But doctors are totally different and it depends on where you live as to how the protection works.  For instance I as an EMT couldn't perform a tracheotomy with a pen, like George Clooney (ahhhhh), because I know that I don't have that level of skill.  So if someone tried to sue me they might win.  But if I just did CPR they could try to sue me, but it most likely never get anywhere near a court.

I guess that all changes with a doctor because they have so much insurance.

I think it depends on the case.  It is easier for the common man to get compensation in the US, but not everyone uses it wisely.

I AM referring to the McDonalds coffee case.  She asked for just enough money for her bills they refused and they had been sued a number of times in the past over that very issue.  They knew, they didn't care, they could have easily done something about it, they chose not to, they lost.  Coffee shouldn't be so hot that it burns down to the bone.

I AM referring to the McDonalds coffee case.  She asked for just enough money for her bills they refused and they had been sued a number of times in the past over that very issue.  They knew, they didn't care, they could have easily done something about it, they chose not to, they lost.  Coffee shouldn't be so hot that it burns down to the bone.

I had heard once it was third-degree burns, but doubt the validity because of the properties of water.

I think it depends on the case.  It is easier for the common man to get compensation in the US, but not everyone uses it wisely.

Absolutely. Sure, there are a lot of embarrassing trademark cases, but I am thankful that (pardon, but I'll use an example from this forum) someone is able to speak to a large company and have them replace a product at their expense that was advertised as new but was obviously used. Again, I wish for people to be more law-aware so they can protect themselves.

On a lighter note, maybe if our *internet provider* was conscious about the possible threat of being sued, maybe the flat would have our modem by now.  

I had heard once it was third-degree burns, but doubt the validity because of the properties of water.

Absolutely. Sure, there are a lot of embarrassing trademark cases, but I am thankful that (pardon, but I'll use an example from this forum) someone is able to speak to a large company and have them replace a product at their expense that was advertised as new but was obviously used. Again, I wish for people to be more law-aware so they can protect themselves.

On a lighter note, maybe if our *internet provider* was conscious about the possible threat of being sued, maybe the flat would have our modem by now.  

What do the properties of water have to do with it? Super heated water can easily cause third degree burns, it's at around 190 degrees and could be as quick as 2 seconds to do that much damage.  

Really, the whole point of the McDonalds coffee case, and the reason the woman got so much money,  was that the coffee was found to be a super heated liquid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating

It wasn't a frivolous suit at all, people often take it in teh wrong context

What do the properties of water have to do with it?  

Isn't the whole point of the McDonalds coffee case, and the reason the woman got so much money,  that the coffee was a super heated liquid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating

She didn't spill hot coffee on her but a super heated liquid of around 190 degrees which would cause full thickness (3rd degree ) burns in as little as 2 seconds.

Cheesebiscuit, this is exactly why I can never do science as a vocation. Water as I have always known it evaporates at boiling point. But I suppose that means that the third-degree burn bit was true? Also that she hadn't spilled it? Reading the article, it says that if the water is disturbed (throwing a sugar cube in) it violently sprays water out. Thank you for clearing that up Cheesebiscuit!

Super heated water can easily cause third degree burns, it's at around 190 degrees and could be as quick as 2 seconds to do that much damage.  

Absolutely.  My manager at work accidentally poured a kettle of boiling water on herself and got 3rd degree burns all over her forearm.  It was really bad--a nurse had to change her bandages every day for a couple of weeks.

Absolutely.  My manager at work accidentally poured a kettle of boiling water on herself and got 3rd degree burns all over her forearm.  It was really bad--a nurse had to change her bandages every day for a couple of weeks.

Yup and a super heated liquid could have been up to 30 degrees hotter than boiling and when disturbed react explosively, so could very easily cause 3rd degree burns.

Yup and a super heated liquid could have been up to 30 degrees hotter than boiling, so very easily cause 3rd degree burns.

Super heated--now I understand what that means.  That is HOT.

Super heated--now I understand what that means.  That is HOT.

Yah, the whole point of the lawsuit is that coffee should be hot, but making it explosively and dangerously hot is negligent and Mcdonalds needed to stop doing it - it took a lawsuit and a lady receiving 3rd degree burns to her groin and legs to get them to stop.
Mcdonalds had been warned previously about coffee being too hot and did nothing.