• 4reals...McDonald's shouldn't have been responsible for that goofy woman's medical bills. SHE was the one who drove off with hot coffee between her legs. She was the one who caused her injuries. The lawyers eyeballs clicked when they realized how much they stood to gain. Juries are notoriously generous with corporation's money.

    November 8, 2010 at 7:45 a.m.
  • I agree with the VICAD that this "Federal lawsuit against truck maker is frivolous." The sad part here is that the VICAD knows this and yet continues to make this a news story in their paper. Another article they can add to their "Fatal Funnel."

    Enough is enough already. When is the last time the VICAD did a stor on 911 that was even a bigger and much more tragic loss that had long lasting effects even up to today.

    November 8, 2010 at 7:33 a.m.
  • I can understand that some people need someone to pay for losing a loved one, but based on the merits of this case, I too think that it is a frivolous one.
    Wayward: The McDonalds case wasn't anything more than a customer out to recoup medical expenses. McD's was unwilling and it went to trial. The result was the multi-million dollar payout. Obviously you are shooting from the hip. Educate yourself before you spew your hate.

    November 8, 2010 at 6:12 a.m.
  • I keep waiting for the posting from a lawyer. I want desperately to hear how this "noble profession" judges this lawsuit and how it stacks up alongsided other famous lawsuits such as the McDonald's coffee suit which resulted in millions of dollars to the lawyers and about twelve dollars and eighty-three cents to the goofy woman who spilled hot coffee in her lap while driving.

    How about the lawsuit brought by family members of victims of the Columbine shooting spree who sued video game makers?

    One of the best (and right up there with this suit) is the guy who sued a hospital because their security was so lax that he wasn't prevented from raping a patient. He felt badly afterward.

    LAWYERS filed all these cases. Noble profession, indeed.

    November 7, 2010 at 7:27 p.m.
  • This lawsuit is well beyond frivolous. It is a despicable example of ambulance chasers abusing the judicial system.

    November 7, 2010 at 4:13 p.m.
  • Frivilous is a really nice word for this fiasco.

    It is stuff like this that is allowed in US Courts that cost business exhorbitant amounts of money to defend.

    What would the countries these folks came from do?

    It is regretable these people lost their lives.
    It would have been cheaper and safer to go the legal route - wouldn't it?

    November 6, 2010 at 1:50 p.m.
  • As a former 18-wheel truck driver, I completely agree with the argument that this lawsuit is frivolous. The truck-trailer owners' and drivers' secondary responsibility (after public safety) is the security of the shippers' cargo in the trailer. Transporting human cargo was never part of my job -- other than one load of refrigerated cadavers for a medical research facility.

    For 8 years, most every shipper I dealt with insisted that my trailer be locked and sealed from the outside -- clearly visible to the shipper, receiver, and all Department of Transportation and International Customs Agents in between. Reconfiguring hundreds of thousands of trailers currently in use and retooling the present manufacturing processes to incorporate an inside opening mechanism would be a logistical nightmare and would compromise the integrity currently expected of trailers.

    November 6, 2010 at 8:19 a.m.
  • this is simply attorneys fishing for dollars.

    figure in the 'go between' man here too, the person between the families and the lawyers.

    lot of $$$ for grabs out there for lawyers.

    November 5, 2010 at 11:30 p.m.