I started diving off of starting blocks when I was eight years old. I am now 51, and train at the Y, almost always alone, as there is no Masters program in the county where I live, or in any of the immediately adjacent counties. (There are several age group programs.) I want to work on my starts, but none of the Y's where I swim will let me use the blocks - saying that a national Y policy prohibits anyone from using the blocks unless a team/club coach is on the deck.
I have never heard of anyone suing a YMCA because of an accident on a starting block.
Yes, perhaps a coach would be valuable to me in this regard, but I'm not looking for a coach - I need and want a cooperative facility. The age groups' program schedules are not conducive to my schedule, and besides, the age group coaches already have enough on their hands during those times with lanes full of kids working their programs. I also am not excited about having to dodge those kids to do the work I need to do.
Anyone find a way to conquer this litigation-fear-induced insanity yet? Thank you.
Seems that people are still reacting to the urban legend, rather than the facts.
www.centerjd.org/.../MB_mcdonalds.htmwww.okbar.org/.../mcdonaldsspeech.pdf
From the latter link, I'll post some quotes:
After getting their coffee, grandson Chris drove the car away from the drive-in window and stopped so Stella could add cream and sugar, but she had trouble getting off the lid. So she placed the styrofoam cup between her legs, thus freeing up both hands to remove that lid.
So she wasn't driving, and the car was stopped. She didn't get a chance to test the temperature, because she was still adding cream and sugar. She *did* place it between her legs, because this 80-year old woman had trouble taking the lid off with one hand. (Which I don't think makes her the complete idiot some of you are painting her as. :) )
Geek asked if the jury had fallen asleep about who was responsible for the spill:
For example, in a case in Pennsylvania, a woman also placed a cup of hot coffee between her legs and was burned when it spilled. The court—in dismissing the case—said in very legalistic language: “a purveyor of hot coffee cannot be held liable for burns sustained by a customer when an external force causes the beverage to spill.”
I said that the case was not about the spill, but about the temperature.
Simply put: Stella claimed the high temperature of the coffee presented an unreasonable risk of injury.
Let's put it this way: if the only difference between coffee A and coffee B is their temperature (similar cups and drive-through windows), and you have many cases of serious (3rd) degree burns for coffee A, and almost no cases for coffee B, then I'd say the too hot temperature is responsible for the 3rd degree burns. (If you accept that sometimes spills happen regardless of the temperature of the beverage or how careful you are.)
A survey of restaurants in Albuquerque found coffee was served below 160 degrees; and other fast food chains sold their coffee below 180 degrees. Everyone admits that it is physically impossible to drink coffee at 185 degrees. It’s just too hot!! And if it spills, disaster!!
So when people say she should have used common sense, I'd say her common sense told her to expect cooler coffee. :) (Emmett, I can't argue about the fact that the temperatures you listed *can* burn you. But please read one or both of those links, as the risks at 170 degrees are much smaller than 190 degrees.)
I'm not going to try to convince Geek or Connie that they are wrong, as they have made clear that their "line-in-the-sand" is different from mine. (Geek has stated his opinion that temperature doesn't matter, and Connie thinks you should expect 3rd degree burns.) But when people accuse this lady of being a money-grubber (when she offered to settle for $20,000, versus the mediator who suggested that McD settle for 200K, versus her spending a week in the hospital and months disabled), then I feel obligated to present more facts. There are enough cases that are (with no argument) frivilous, I think a new poster child should be elected.
Seems that people are still reacting to the urban legend, rather than the facts.
www.centerjd.org/.../MB_mcdonalds.htmwww.okbar.org/.../mcdonaldsspeech.pdf
From the latter link, I'll post some quotes:
After getting their coffee, grandson Chris drove the car away from the drive-in window and stopped so Stella could add cream and sugar, but she had trouble getting off the lid. So she placed the styrofoam cup between her legs, thus freeing up both hands to remove that lid.
So she wasn't driving, and the car was stopped. She didn't get a chance to test the temperature, because she was still adding cream and sugar. She *did* place it between her legs, because this 80-year old woman had trouble taking the lid off with one hand. (Which I don't think makes her the complete idiot some of you are painting her as. :) )
Geek asked if the jury had fallen asleep about who was responsible for the spill:
For example, in a case in Pennsylvania, a woman also placed a cup of hot coffee between her legs and was burned when it spilled. The court—in dismissing the case—said in very legalistic language: “a purveyor of hot coffee cannot be held liable for burns sustained by a customer when an external force causes the beverage to spill.”
I said that the case was not about the spill, but about the temperature.
Simply put: Stella claimed the high temperature of the coffee presented an unreasonable risk of injury.
Let's put it this way: if the only difference between coffee A and coffee B is their temperature (similar cups and drive-through windows), and you have many cases of serious (3rd) degree burns for coffee A, and almost no cases for coffee B, then I'd say the too hot temperature is responsible for the 3rd degree burns. (If you accept that sometimes spills happen regardless of the temperature of the beverage or how careful you are.)
A survey of restaurants in Albuquerque found coffee was served below 160 degrees; and other fast food chains sold their coffee below 180 degrees. Everyone admits that it is physically impossible to drink coffee at 185 degrees. It’s just too hot!! And if it spills, disaster!!
So when people say she should have used common sense, I'd say her common sense told her to expect cooler coffee. :) (Emmett, I can't argue about the fact that the temperatures you listed *can* burn you. But please read one or both of those links, as the risks at 170 degrees are much smaller than 190 degrees.)
I'm not going to try to convince Geek or Connie that they are wrong, as they have made clear that their "line-in-the-sand" is different from mine. (Geek has stated his opinion that temperature doesn't matter, and Connie thinks you should expect 3rd degree burns.) But when people accuse this lady of being a money-grubber (when she offered to settle for $20,000, versus the mediator who suggested that McD settle for 200K, versus her spending a week in the hospital and months disabled), then I feel obligated to present more facts. There are enough cases that are (with no argument) frivilous, I think a new poster child should be elected.
