• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Man burned by fajitas while praying can't sue Applebee's

deacvision7

deacvision7

Mod Emeritus
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
93,250
Reaction score
5,449
Location
W-S
It just cannot get more 'Murica than this

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...urned-by-fajitas-cant-sue-applebees/24403053/

According to the ruling, Jimenez ordered fajitas that were placed in front of him in a "sizzling skillet." When he bowed his head "close to the table," the ruling says, Jimenez heard "a loud sizzling noise, followed by 'a pop noise' and then felt a burning sensation in his left eye and on his face."

His lawsuit said a waitress did not warn Jimenez that the dish was hot.
Click to expand...
 
That's interesting on two fronts. First, I figured they had to say the plate is hot because I can't remember the last time I was handed a hot plate and wasn't warned that it was hot.

Second, I wonder if he would have had a case if he had been praying with his eyes closed and the hot food was placed under his face.
 
PhDeac said:
That's interesting on two fronts. First, I figured they had to say the plate is hot because I can't remember the last time I was handed a hot plate and wasn't warned that it was hot.

Second, I wonder if he would have had a case if he had been praying with his eyes closed and the hot food was placed under his face.
Click to expand...

1. If it's a regular plate I'm sure they do. The Court said they weren't required to warn because the condition was "open and obvious" AKA you'd have to be an idiot to not know since the plate was sizzling.

2. Yes.
 
A rare case of common sense prevailing.

You have to really try to burn yourself over a skillet of fajitas. Even that sizzling stuff doesn't really pop up. The dumbass probably planted his mug on the skillet.
 
wfumike02 said:
1. If it's a regular plate I'm sure they do. The Court said they weren't required to warn because the condition was "open and obvious" AKA you'd have to be an idiot to not know since the plate was sizzling.

2. Yes.
Click to expand...

Aka, Applebees had a better lawyer than that guy.

Seriously though, I'm glad that's a thing, but at the same time, how is that a thing? I guess that's what law is all about.
 
I was involved in a case once where a lady pulled into a gas station, got blinded by the sun, and crashed into the gas pumps. She tried to sue the gas station for positioning the pumps in front of the sun at that time of year. We won on an "open and obvious" condition of "it is well known that there is a sun in the sky that often shines brightly."
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I was involved in a case once where a lady pulled into a gas station, got blinded by the sun, and crashed into the gas pumps. She tried to sue the gas station for positioning the pumps in front of the sun at that time of year. We won on an "open and obvious" condition of "it is well known that there is a sun in the sky that often shines brightly."
Click to expand...

How does one find a lawyer to try to sue a gas station in this case? Is this just some kind of fresh lawyer right out of school trying to make a name for himself? I mean does any lawyer think that is a case worth taking or did she represent herself? Seems like there are a lot of these types of case but I guess you have to have a lawyer to say "yes, I agree with you on this. This is a winnable case".
 
there are a lot of law schools printing diplomas for morans.
 
Jackie_Chiles_in_The_Maestro_Seinfeld.JPG
 
GoDeacsGo said:
How does one find a lawyer to try to sue a gas station in this case? Is this just some kind of fresh lawyer right out of school trying to make a name for himself? I mean does any lawyer think that is a case worth taking or did she represent herself? Seems like there are a lot of these types of case but I guess you have to have a lawyer to say "yes, I agree with you on this. This is a winnable case".
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the lady was pretty hurt, as I think the impact was pretty hard and then maybe the pump and car caught on fire. So the lawyer probably thought that based on the exposure on the injuries they could pressure the insurance company into settling as not to risk a McDonald's coffee unpredictable jury verdict. But our client was like GTFO.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
If I remember correctly the lady was pretty hurt, as I think the impact was pretty hard and then maybe the pump and car caught on fire. So the lawyer probably thought that based on the exposure on the injuries they could pressure the insurance company into settling as not to risk a McDonald's coffee unpredictable jury verdict. But our client was like GTFO.
Click to expand...

Or the rent was due
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top