Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex
People always mention the McDonald's case 
Funny thing is that the McDonald's case was legitimate. I've read about it, extensively. The fact that she sued her mother and the car manufacturer aside McDonald's had been put on notice, multiple times and in multiple jurisdictions, that they were serving their coffee too hot. They persisted. She sued. She won.
So the woman at the train station should have been "more aware of her surroundings"? I don't know about you but I'm generally not expecting body parts to get lobbed at me, while I'm waiting for a train. You can't blame the victim, of someone else's stupidity. She bore no responsibility, in the matter, but did receive injury. |
Thank you.
I really don't like it when people throw the McDonald's case out there. That was a legitimate claim that the media has gone crazy with. I'm sure McDonald's had
nothing to do with that spin doctor...
So, according to the ruling with opinion;
"...When Zokhrabov motioned for partial summary judgment as to proximate
causation, Park cross-motioned for summary judgment on the ground that her son owed no actionable duty to Zokhrabov, and the court ruled in Park’s favor. Zokhrabov appeals. She contends the trial court recognized the governing principles of law, but failed to apply them correctly..."
blah... blah... blah...
"¶ 22 We, therefore, find that the trial judge erred in holding that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care. We reverse the entry of summary judgment as to duty and remand Zokhrabov's case for further proceedings. We express no opinion regarding the additional elements of her negligence action, including breach, proximate causation, and damages, which
are issues usually decided by a jury. Belton v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County, 407 Ill. App. 3d 409, 414, 943 N.E.2d 221, 226 (2011).
¶ 23 Reversed and remanded.on..."
It was originally tossed and now reversed in appeals and final judgement is pending?
Oh, and she was hit in the back by a body that was flying fast enough to go over 100 feet onto that platform. In the back, by a back...