Imagine

by John Doe 116 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  beksbks

  I know toots, I've got your number. Notice I usually show up on your threads
• 

  BizzyBee

  Would it make a difference if it were a head-hair rather than a pubic-hair? And how could you know?

  Every case must be tried separately. If laws were black and white, lawyers and judges would soon be out of work. (Well, not really. They could always become food-servers and cooks.)

  BTW, I totally agree with changeling.
• 

  John Doe

  Should it matter if the plaintiff had just given head eariler in the day?
• 

  BizzyBee

  Should it matter if the plaintiff had just given head eariler in the day?

  Prolly. All facts must be considered.
• 

  Gregor

  OK true story. I had a taco salad at a restaurant overlooking the marina in Stockton Calif. The tables were butted up to big picture windows. Flies were buzzing and bouncing off the glass on the inside. On the window ledge were the remains of three flies who had gone on to the big garbage can in the sky. When I had finished my salad I picked up a fly cadaver, dropped it on a piece of lettuce and motioned the server over. Without a word I pointed out the fly. She said " Oh, I'm so sorry. Would you like another salad?" I said no thank you. A moment later the manager came over and said both our meals were comped. I had never asked for any compensation but I thanked him and we left.

  Justified? ethical?
• 

  John Doe

  Gregor--neither justified nor ethical. If the flies were bothering you, you had the option to leave and not eat there. Eating and then fabricating a false scenario to con the restaurant out of food is wrong any way you look at it.
• 

  Gregor

  Yeah, that's kind of the way I felt about it. Never did it again. But it does raise the question, do flies have pubic hair?

  The fly situation could have generated a citation from the health dept. but a hair in the food is considered a random occurance. Not to be a prude, but who was preparing food in the nude?
• 

  cognizant dissident

  JD, when suing for damage, physical or psychological, the question must always be asked in what way was the person damaged and how and for how much money should they be compensated?

  For instance, you say the customer who got pube in food was very sensitive as had been made to eat pubic hairs when molested. If I was lawyer arguing case against woman, I would argue that the pube in food did not psycholoically damage woman at all. She was already psychologically damaged when she went to restaurant by man who molested her and she should be suing him not the restaurant. It is not reasonable to expect that with humans preparing food, and being that all humans regularly shed hair and skin, that this will never occur. It is not reasonable to hold restaurant responsible for psychological damage caused by child molestor to extra sensitive person.

  In what way was she actually physically damaged or psychologically damaged by pubic hair in food? She already had psychological aversion to pubic hair when she entered restaurant!

  Her only damage is loss of meal. She should receive money back, of course, and perhaps punitive damages of additional free meal (I would request free meal at alternative restuarant of my choice! ) If she actually became ill due to bacteria or virus from pubic hair and this could be proved to be cause, then obviously damages would have to be assessed for that. (As former nurse, I will tell you, you could never medically prove this!)

  This also applies to Changeling's story of scrape on leg. She actually has case for injury and pain and suffering but it would be commensurate with actual damage to life and degree of pain of suffering for scrape. Not worth the time and effort for what she would get. She mentioned suing because the wood could have fell on little child and they could have been seriously hurt. This is irrelevant IMO. The wood did not fall on little child and little child was not seriously hurt or killed. Even it had fallen on little child and hurt them, how did this hurt Changeling and damage her in any way?! Child would have right to sue for money not her! You should not be allowed to sue company for something that might have happened! Other wise I would be a rich woman already!

  Cog
• 

  John Doe

  Punitive damages are not about the victim. Punitive damages are assessed in proportion to the finances of the defendant. They are for the specific purpose of punishing the defendant and causing them to alter their behavior. Punitive damages of a free meal would in no way affect the behavior of the defendant, and would therefore never be awarded.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  I see your point about punitive damages, but then I would say restaurants punitive damages should be very low as it is reasonable to expect occasional stray hairs and skin in food prepared by humans. Punitive damages to restaurant should be: forced to review sanitiation procedures with staff and extra health inspection reviews.

  You did not answer my point about phychological harm not being caused by pubic hair in food but was already pre-existing and caused by child molestor not restaurant.

  Cog