Too old to cut the mustard anymore :)

[Ret MP]

On 10/5/2023 at 11:34 AM, BND said:

 I get the whole liability thing except people need to have personal responsibility also.

That's the problem, they don't.  Our courts a filled with people suing companies and individuals for things that they should have known.  Think/remember the case of suing McDonald's for someone spilling hot coffee on herself. 

 

Also, see post #29.

 

 

[BND]

40 minutes ago, Ret MP said:

That's the problem, they don't.  Our courts a filled with people suing companies and individuals for things that they should have known.  Think/remember the case of suing McDonald's for someone spilling hot coffee on herself. 

 

Also, see post #29.

 

 

That isn't what it seemed.  We met a lawyer from NYC who explained that case to use years ago.  It's not what people think it was.  It was more than just "hot coffee".  She really had a case.  It involved severe injuries.  It's not as cut and dried as some think.

[BND]

6 hours ago, Mapleleafforever said:

Interesting. So if I understand it correctly, you believe that arbitrary age with over 70 on excursions is not ok but arbitrary age with 18 in the Solarium is ok. Gotcha. 

 

For the record, I think both are completely ok. 

Yep.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  One is about "adult".  The other is about liabilty/injury. and ability.  Why do you think they have anything to do with each other?  Weird comparison.

Edited October 7, 2023 by BND

[Ret MP]

5 minutes ago, BND said:

That isn't what it seemed.  We met a lawyer from NYC who explained that case to use years ago.  It's not what people think it was.  It was more than just "hot coffee".  She really had a case.  It involved severe injuries.  It's not as cut and dried as some think.

Believe me, I know the ins and outs, and details of that case, it was just a premise or generalization of where we are today.

[BND]

Just now, Ret MP said:

Believe me, I know the ins and outs, and details of that case, it was just a premise or generalization of where we are today.

The lawyer we met knew the lawyers involved.  So much info that was not reported on the "news".  It really opened our eyes.  

[Eddie Wilson]

3 minutes ago, BND said:

That isn't what it seemed.  We met a lawyer from NYC who explained that case to use years ago.  It's not what people think it was.  It was more than just "hot coffee".  She really had a case.  It involved severe injuries.  It's not as cut and dried as some think.

 

I also heard from some legal expert at some meeting..... In short, apparently McDonalds was arrogant during trial, allegedly admitting they purposely brew to a very high temp, and allegedly knowing people could be burned if spilled on them.

 

My DW has never been a coffee drinker, but will get a hot tea, which they hand you a cup of hot water and a tea bag. She has spilled hot water on herself, thankfully just small amounts, many times as she removes the cap to place the tea bag into.  

[Ret MP]

Just now, BND said:

The lawyer we met knew the lawyers involved.  So much info that was not reported on the "news".  It really opened our eyes.  

Yes, the woman was about 85, if I remember correctly, the top wasn't secured properly, she was treated like s*&^ after the fact, and a whole host of things that weren't in the media's facilitation of it but not all the facts.

 

But, as I always said when I was an instructor for the U.S. Army's Traffic Investigation Course in Germany, an accident is a series of actions that lead to the accident/event.  Without one of the individual actions, the accident wouldn't happen.  Now, I'm not blaming the old lady, but if she had checked the lid and secured it, the coffee wouldn't have spilled.  And probably a whole host of other actions that could have been avoided.  I put the blame on both sides, but not necessarily 50/50.  Also, as a truck driver, the company could hold its drivers responsible for an accident even if not charged or found guilty.  They called it accident avoidability.  If you were doing this, or that, or the other thing, you could have avoided the accident.  

[Mapleleafforever]

9 hours ago, BND said:

Yep.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  One is about "adult".  The other is about liabilty/injury. and ability.  Why do you think they have anything to do with each other?  Weird comparison.

Both are defining what an "adult" is based on arbitrary age limits when you think about it. 

[Ret MP]

I've looked at just one of the excursions available on my next cruise.  I don't see the word "ADULT" on the page at all.  Also, they have a minimum age of 18 for drivers, many have their license at 16,  Is that discrimination?  The maximum age is 60.  Is that discrimination?  Or is it just trying to limit liability?  I think the latter.  I MAY feel like I can do almost anything, I'm 72 in a few weeks, but I have no real way to know if my muscular/skeletal system can handle the rigges of an ATV on unimproved roads. Once again, I am willing to let the businesses regulate and manage their liability the way they feel they need to as long as it doesn't involve the illegal variety of discrimination/prejudice.

 

What about theme parks that have height and weight requirements, is that illegal discrimination or risk management?  I think so.

 

[Engineroom Snipe]

10 hours ago, Ret MP said:

I've looked at just one of the excursions available on my next cruise.  I don't see the word "ADULT" on the page at all.  Also, they have a minimum age of 18 for drivers, many have their license at 16,  Is that discrimination?  The maximum age is 60.  Is that discrimination?  Or is it just trying to limit liability?  I think the latter.  I MAY feel like I can do almost anything, I'm 72 in a few weeks, but I have no real way to know if my muscular/skeletal system can handle the rigges of an ATV on unimproved roads. Once again, I am willing to let the businesses regulate and manage their liability the way they feel they need to as long as it doesn't involve the illegal variety of discrimination/prejudice.

 

What about theme parks that have height and weight requirements, is that illegal discrimination or risk management?  I think so.

 

I would think that any business would like to get as many paying customers as possible regardless of age. I am sure that the business would not like to limit their possible profits by creating a minimum and maximum age of their customers.

 

The business has its reason for doing so. I cannot threaten them with taking away my business from them because they would not have me anyway!

 

😁

 

[brillohead]

On 10/6/2023 at 9:44 PM, Ret MP said:

Our courts a filled with people suing companies and individuals for things that they should have known. 

 

Like the parents trying to sue Royal Caribbean because their stepfather held their baby out an open window (that even a blind person could tell was open) and dropped the poor child!!!

[BND]

On 10/6/2023 at 10:40 PM, Eddie Wilson said:

 

I also heard from some legal expert at some meeting..... In short, apparently McDonalds was arrogant during trial, allegedly admitting they purposely brew to a very high temp, and allegedly knowing people could be burned if spilled on them.

 

 

And, the temp was the main issue.  She had severe burns and required  burn treatment such as grafts.  Most people have no clue about all of it as the media made it about her "negligence".  The coffee was way too hot regardless of what else occurred.

[Ret MP]

5 hours ago, brillohead said:

 

Like the parents trying to sue Royal Caribbean because their stepfather held their baby out an open window (that even a blind person could tell was open) and dropped the poor child!!!

Very very very good example.  Tragic, for sure, but not RCCL's fault.  I forgot all about the one.

[Ret MP]

2 hours ago, BND said:

And, the temp was the main issue.  She had severe burns and required  burn treatment such as grafts.  Most people have no clue about all of it as the media made it about her "negligence".  The coffee was way too hot regardless of what else occurred.

True!  But, the general public only knows that a person spilled McDonald's coffee, burned herself, and sued McDonald's for HER mistake. And they thought the lawsuit was ridiculous, at face value.  I personally feel that the lady, as I stated above, has some responsibility.    

[Ret MP]

On 10/7/2023 at 7:04 PM, Engineroom Snipe said:

I would think that any business would like to get as many paying customers as possible regardless of age. I am sure that the business would not like to limit their possible profits by creating a minimum and maximum age of their customers.

 

The business has its reason for doing so. I cannot threaten them with taking away my business from them because they would not have me anyway!

 

😁

 

 

Yep, it goes something like this:

 

Employee:  I'm sorry sir/ma'am, you are over 60 years old and the cut-off safe age is 60.

The person over 60:  Well, I'll never visit your business again.

 

Like the person over 60 is going to get younger and when they reach 59, again, they won't do business with that business.  

 

[time4u2go]

3 hours ago, BND said:

And, the temp was the main issue.  She had severe burns and required  burn treatment such as grafts.  Most people have no clue about all of it as the media made it about her "negligence".  The coffee was way too hot regardless of what else occurred.

Agreed.  There's a lot more to that story than many people realize.

[ColdCruise]

On 10/1/2023 at 7:11 AM, superduper123 said:

Can't speak specifically for age restrictions, but I will assume they will verify, and deny participation if you don't meet the requirements.

Our horseback riding excursion in St Martin had weight limits, and yes, everyone had to step on a scale prior to boarding the bus.

As a horse owner (& rider), I certainly understand weight limits for horse riding excursions. There are general formulas for what a horse  should carry based on the individual horses’ height, weight and build. This is generally around 15-20% of the horses weight, with small adjustments up/down for stature and skill/fitness of the rider. Horses can only safely (THEIR safety) carry so much weight, to include tack AND rider. After all, they are lugging around often unfit people with little to no experience on their backs. Based on horses I have seen in a lot of ports, they are not huge stocky horses, so probably top out at carrying somewhere around 200 lbs max.

 

The average riding horse weight in the US is generally estimated around 1000-1200lbs ( as a starting calculation for feed quantity, carrying capacity) so 15% of 1200 is only 180 lbs. - now think of how many people do or don’t meet that weight. Of course I know a few very experienced riders who weigh more than that, but they are usually riding bigger, heavier-built, well muscled horses that they own and train.

 

I don’t think I’d respect a trail riding operator who didn’t set weight limits for his horses- that would be an indicator for perhaps other safety issues.

 

BTW, I am not putting down larger people - I exceed my own desired/ideal weight by more than a couple pounds. Several years ago I started riding at a new stable  (to add variety to my riding) and was matched with a very very large draft cross till they ascertained I was fit &  skilled enough to control myself on the horse and then was able to rotate among their various horse. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by ColdCruise