Lawsuit - immigrants families sue trailer co

[SnowRidge]

<font color="blue"> (C) The US Border Patrol/US Customs, how did this vehicle get through the checkpoints, and the X-Ray machines they have setup to view every tractor-trailer.) </font>

Where there is money to be made by criminal means, criminals will find a way to do it.

Don't blame the Border Patrol or Customs. Customs, back when they were a part of Treasury, was near the top of federal agencies I had reason to dislike. But this problem lies on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Our border protection functions are and have been broken down for years. There is not enough money, nor enough agents, and back in the INS days, the top agency spots were dumping grounds for some of the worst political hacks the White House could dredge up.

We have given illegal aliens amnesties twice. In both cases, it just made the problem worse. The San Diego Border Patrol Sector is physically the smallest of the lot. Twelve, thirteen years ago, it had six Greyhound sized buses running full time just to repatriate the illegals that were caught there. That will give you some idea how bad the problem was then. It is now worse, I am sure.

Until this country decides to clamp down on illegal immigration hard, there is no chance of stopping it. To do that we have to make it impossible for illegals to work, seize any assets they bring into the country, and deny citizenship to anyone born here whose parents were here illegally.

Harsh? Yes, but I do not see anything else working.

 

[slowrev]

Yes the Macdonalds hot coffee is a hyped up item.

I don't think great dane should be liable unless it can be shown that they knew what the trailer was to be sued for an illegal purpose.

I do have to agree about the incident happening while in the process of commiting a crime too.

However, migrant workers are second class citizens in the USA. IN FL You have to have seat belts unless you are hauling farm workers. Also no riding in the back of a pickup unless it is farm workers. This is saying that their lives are not worth as much as the rest of ours.

Ben

 

[BB_TX]

Actually, according to the links, it was a styrofoam cup which she turned over in her lap as she was trying to put sugar in it. And I still think a 2.7 million award is excessive.

 

[slowrev]

Bill,
Apparently you did not read the second link about the hot coffee award.
Ben

 

[SnowRidge]

<font color="blue"> ( Also no riding in the back of a pickup unless it is farm workers.) </font>

I go down there frequently, as I still have a place there. Unless they have changed the law since I left, and I am unaware of it (always possible), there is no law against riding in the back of a pickup truck -- except in Lee County (Fort Myers) where your dog may not ride in the back.

I still see all kinds of people riding in the back of pickups when I'm there. Migrant farm workers are usually transported in buses.

Out of curiosity, I just emailed a cop friend of mine down there. He should know.

 

[PhilNH5]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Really bad example. She had a legitimate complaint. )</font>

I don't buy this. She ordered HOT coffee - not a coolotta or some other such iced coffee confection. And then in an automobile - she put the coffee between her legs and spilled it. The car was not in motion but that is not relevant. She put a HOT coffee cup between her legs to stabilize it so she could add cream/sugar. At this point she spilled the coffee on herself. I am not a lawyer so I am confused as to how exactly this is McDonalds fault.

Let's think about this. Again she ordered HOT coffee. Now to keep expenses down McDonalds does not serve this in an insulated stainless steel mug. They put it into a disposable cup with a little plastic lid. We all know this. We expect this. yet this woman put said coffee cup between her legs and then attempted to remove the safety device designed to keep the contents confined ie the lid. Again I am failing to see McDonald's evil intent or failure to protect.

I also agree with McDonalds original stance. Since they were not responsible they should not pay. Not even the the expenses/lost wages the plaintiff originally asked for.

The outcome of all this lunacy - I now get hot tea (don't drink coffee) in a cup that warns "Caution contents hot"

Phil

 

[slowrev]

Snow, riding in the back of a pickup truck violates the seat belt law, so is illegal.
Guess I did write that in a confusing manner. sorry.

Ben

 

[SnowRidge]

OK, that makes sense.

 

[DocHeb]

Your two referenced links, while providing "sound legal analysis", can hardly be considered unbiased, however. Both are sites run by trial lawyers and their research associates.

As anyone who has dealt with the legal system knows, "sound legal" basis has nothing to do with common sense or reality. It's all in who provides the greater show in the courtroom.

 

[bczoom]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Snow, riding in the back of a pickup truck violates the seat belt law, so is illegal. )</font>

Ben,

I haven't found/heard anything about it being illegal to ride in the back of a pickup. The law (as I have heard) in FL says that all operators and passengers under the age of 18 must be restrained.

Here is a link to the FHP page that has the new laws that were enacted last month.

Brian