Jonathan Ganz wrote:

My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!

Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

Actually Jim, keeping the coffee at 185 degrees burns it and produces inferior
coffee. It was far too hot to be consumed, and thus Mac was negligent. This
could explain why they lost the case.

So why did you get the basic facts of the wrong, Jim? I guess you don't like to
get confused my them.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!

Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:
Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers? If
you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or, like
the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize
that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility
of tort actions against Mac.



Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While
Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The boat
was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have been
overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8
adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of people
saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously
overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared overloaded,
but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover.

While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there
at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news
articles. For example:

Published April 30, 2004

MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the
skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte
children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident.

The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard
official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont
District Court in Middlebury.

Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating
while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of
Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to
five years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated
the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE
ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that
the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26
-- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people aboard.

Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out
toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat
flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore.

Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and
interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was
"substantially intoxicated."

"He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling,"
Fish testified.



Quite a different story than the one you and Jeff have posted.

Jim




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


Not much of an attorney are you... possibly you should look at the
facts of the case before you comment on the woman and her coffee.


The facts were that she held a hot cup of coffee between her legs when
she was driving. - Do you think she should recover from MacDonald under
those circumstances because she claimed that MacDonalds coffee was too hot?

Similarly, the skipper on the Mac that capsized was drunk, and ignored a
number of MacGregor safety warnings and load limits. - Do you think his
family should revover damages in those circumstances?

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Similarly, you are an idiot.

In other words, you got kicked in the ass and don't have any rational
response. Right Jonathan?

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Capt. Mooron wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
| I wasn't claiming the boat was
| completely unsafe; I was pointing out that it isn't correct to tout the
boat's
| stability when its capable of rolling over at anchor in calm conditions.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa..... it's so-o-o-o-o TRUE! :-D

CM



Mooron, the incident Jeff is discussing involved a drunk skipper sailing


No he wasn't sailing, he was at anchor!


Where did you get that "information," Jeff? According to the local paper
quoting from the trial, he was gunning the motor, making sharp turns,
and trying to get back to shore. In addition, he had a blood alcohol
level of .217.

Jim



a MacGregor water ballas boat WITHOUT the water ballast, and with an
overloaded boat, with a number of guests sitting on the deck (which
MacGregor warns is highly dangerous if the water ballast tank isn't full.)


That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling over if
misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat.

Nope. He had grossly overloaed the boat, ignored all safty principles,
was very drunk, and was gunning the motor while trying to turn the boat.

Further, this has probably happened a number of times, its only that because
this time two children died that we know about it.

Where's your evidence supporting that particular assertion, Jeff? (Oh, I
forgot. - You don't need no stinking evidence or facts.)



The drunk skipper did everything wrong, caused the accident, and has now
hired a high-powered lawyer to sue MacGregor. - Sort of like the woman
who sued MacDonalds when she spilled MacDonald coffee in her crotch
while driving her car.


So why is it that when I first pointed out all the warnings you poo-poo'ed it as
just lawyer talk, something that all products have. The point is that the
warning were deadly serious.


What I said was that the wording of the warning seemed to have been
prepared by their attorneys because of concerns about further tort
suits. I never said that the warning shouldn't be heeded. - I certainly
take it seriously.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:
Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers?
If
you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be
sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or,
like
the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical
appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize
that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility
of tort actions against Mac.

You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings
were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of ****
from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch, your
client was sent to the chair!

You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings. SO are
you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.






Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While
Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The
boat
was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have
been
overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8
adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of
people
saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously
overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared
overloaded,
but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover.

While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there
at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news
articles. For example:

Published April 30, 2004

MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the
skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte
children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident.

The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard
official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont
District Court in Middlebury.

Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating
while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of
Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to
five years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated
the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE
ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that
the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26
-- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people aboard.

Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out
toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat
flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore.

Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and
interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was
"substantially intoxicated."

"He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling,"
Fish testified.


Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still at
anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of turning too
quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children below,
that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers" their
total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline
shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance.

Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8
adults on deck? Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep
claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below, even
though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even though the
boat had a double hull and foam flotation.

Jeff Morris wrote:

Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers? If
you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or, like
the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Jeff, could you please give me the date and time that particular note
was posted. I can't find it.

In any event, don't you think the notice (which first states that the
ballast should be full at all times, under both power and sail, and then
tells you to check the manual for instructions on how to motor or sail
WITHOUT the water ballast) does seem somewhat "lawyer-like"? Isn't that
statement just a teeny bit inconsistent, Jeff? If you're honest, that is.

Jim

In my opinion after dealing with an aging mother and now my aging inlaws the
grandson is an idiot for going to McDonalds so his 80 year old grandmother
would have to put hot coffee between her legs and fumble with it to add the
cream and sugar. I can just see the lady now having a difficult time trying to
do all that in a car.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Maybe you're an idiot, didn't read the case, and/or you're
not an attorney. You're certainly not a sailor.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Marc wrote:

Your'e no effing lawyer. First hit on google
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

the facts were that she wasn't driving and Mc D's ignored 100's of
burning complaints and continued insisting that its franchises hold
their coffee at 185 degrees, a temp sufficient to cause full thickness
burns.



When people order a coke, nost of them expect it to be cold. When they
order coffee, they normally expect it to be hot. (Hence the term, "hot
coffee.") Also, most people have enough common sense to know that they
shouldn't try to hold a cup of hot coffee between their legs,
particularly when sitting in a moving vehicle.

Jim

It's still a piece of crap boat.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the
Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If
you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally,
are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be
sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment.
Or, like
the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical
appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Jeff, could you please give me the date and time that particular note
was posted. I can't find it.

In any event, don't you think the notice (which first states that the
ballast should be full at all times, under both power and sail, and then
tells you to check the manual for instructions on how to motor or sail
WITHOUT the water ballast) does seem somewhat "lawyer-like"? Isn't that
statement just a teeny bit inconsistent, Jeff? If you're honest, that is.

Jim