One of the best laws ever

[clawhammer]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...rrescue17.html

[QOUTE]
SCOTTSDALE - The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will invoke the state's "stupid motorist law" for the first time, after a Cave Creek man drove around traffic barricades and tried to cross a flooded street last week in his Hummer.

The driver, Paul Zalewski, 47, reportedly ignored warnings not to enter Creek Canyon Road in Cave Creek on Friday.

But "Hummers are made to float," sheriff's spokesman Lt. Paul Chagolla said. "Other people told him not to go in there, and he did it anyway," endangering himself and six passengers, including three children.
advertisement


Zalewski was cited for reckless driving. If he is found guilty of the charge in Cave Creek Municipal Court, he will be prosecuted under the state's stupid motorist law, which was passed in 1995 and requires drivers to reimburse the state for the cost of rescues.

Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Travis Anglin said the cost of the 55-minute rescue could exceed $800, based on hourly rates for fuel and maintenance of the rescue helicopter, two employees inside the aircraft, insurance and any damage sustained during rescue.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is considering charging another Cave Creek resident, Jacqueline Goodspeed, 65, for entering a flooded area near 58th Street and Desert Hills Drive despite warnings from officers.

Neither Zalewski or Goodspeed have yet been charged, but Arpaio said Wednesday that he intends to "pursue the law" if they are found guilty of reckless driving.

"We basically have people who were told not to go around barricades, and they went anyway. It's rather stupid," he said.

But that doesn't mean stranded motorists shouldn't call for help.

"It's not worth dying over the possibility of getting a ticket," Arpaio said. "We want people to use common sense." With more strong storms expected to hit this weekend, more than 600 sheriff's volunteers are on standby.

After wet weather dumped two inches of rain over the Valley over the past week, the sheriff's posses had a record-breaking number of rescues: 21 people, including 7 children, and three dogs.

Wednesday the Sheriff's Office assisted the Phoenix Fire Department in the rescue of a man from a flooded truck near 91st Avenue and Baseline Road, near the Salt River basin.

"It's a very serious situation," Arpaio said. "We're predicting more flooding in the washes and rivers, but we're proactive. We're ready to go."

Water rescues involve painstaking precision by both pilots and rescuers; helicopters fly directly over stranded vehicles and airlift victims to safety one at a time. One skid rests and balances on the vehicle, allowing rescuers to scoop up victims, while the other skid hovers above the water.

Wet, precarious surfaces and the risk of electrical shock make the task a dangerous one for rescuers, Anglin said. And "every single time it rains, somebody does this.

"And it's always the same washes. If an H2 and a tractor-trailer and a front-loader can't make it through these washes, your car isn't going to."
[/QOUTE]

[FormulaLT1]

I know quite a few AF members who should stay out of Maricopa County if they don't want to go to jail(JK).

[Andydg]

I love that law.

[crayzayjay]

What a moron

[ghostguy6]

Originally Posted by clawhammer

If an H2 and a tractor-trailer and a front-loader can't make it through these washes, your car isn't going to."
[/QOUTE]

I bet the H1 with a snorkel kit could have done it H2's are for overpaid soccer moms

[dugie6551]

This law should applied to others besides stupid drivers. How about stupid people who file stupid lawsuits.

1. The lady who sued McDonalds for getting burned by a "HOT" cup of coffee; it's hot coffee idiot!!!
2. Burglar who sues the homeowner because he got hurt breaking in to the owners house.

etc, etc, etc .....

[Spyke^]

Ummm, those were some pretty sensitive parts to be scalding... McDonalds were well aware of the dangers of selling coffe at those temperatures.

It's not like she meant to do it.


Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;


Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;


Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;


The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;


McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;


From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;


Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;


At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;


Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;


McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;


McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”


McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;


Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.”

[dugie6551]

/\ Blah, blah, blah .....


If I buy a cup of coffee, I know (as any NORMAL person does !!) that it is going to be hot. Therefore, I should take care when handling the cup. If I spill it, why should anybody else be responsible for my mistakes?

If I drive my car into a brick wall, should the owner/designer/builder of that wall be sued for placing that wall there after I drive into it? Don't think so !!!

If I "accidently" end up in a ditch while driving a vehicule. Should the automobile company be responsible for not building a vehicule that will automatically avoid ditches?

etc, etc, etc .....

[fredjacksonsan]

"Stupid People" laws should be enacted worldwide.

Maybe not; I guess you can't legislate COMMON SENSE

[Spyke^]

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch..

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make.

There's a difference between buying a cup of coffee that you know is going to be hot, you kinda expect to be scalded at least a little bit, and third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds. Now, that is HOT!!


Someone breaks into your house, trips and breaks his leg, no lawsuit. That's common sense.

Same as buddy driving around those barriers, he's a friggin' moron and should be charged for the time and expenses it took to get him out of there.

Some McDonalds employee dropping a cup of coffee into your lap that is so hot that it burns your skin off in two seconds even after being told to reduce the heat as it is “not fit for consumption” ...

If my kid were ever burned like those mentioned and I found out that they knew if was unsafe and still sold it anyways..suing would be the least of your worries..

That McDonalds should be charged with the "Stupid people" law.

[fredjacksonsan]

I agree completely that if someone is breaking into your house, they have no right to sue you. Same as a bank robber getting shot by a security guard -- you were in the process of committing a crime so you have no rights of recovery.

The McDonald's thing .... first off, there was an established history of burns. Any reasonable company would have reduced the temp of their coffee. Second, the old lady that got burned would have been the same old lady that pitched a fit if her coffee was too cold.

It's a pity that McD's was fined only about 15% of their daily coffee profits.

I hate McD's. Read "Fast Food Nation" and you'll hate them too.

[HogieGT-R]

first off...i have no sympathy for the dumb ass lady who burnt herself......you know coffee's hot, and it's called a cupholder bitch.. if you don't have one? there are places that sell ones that you install yourself. or how about this? DON'T BUY COFFEE AT A DRIVE THRU! GO INSIDE AND BUY IT! fucking idiots...she needs to be fined too...cuz she's stupid...oh well coffee causes 3rd degree burns? put an ice cube in it, OR LET IT STAY IN THE CUPHOLDER SO IT CAN COOL OFF! people piss me off....

[KustmAce]

Originally Posted by dugie6551

2. Burglar who sues the homeowner because he got hurt breaking in to the owners house.

Isnt that from Liar Liar?

[kornflakes28546]

there are a ton of those stupid lawsuits. people never stop amazing me with their dumbness. they should make common sense law, so idiots like that old lady and that robber can't sue.

[dugie6551]

Originally Posted by KustmAce

Isnt that from Liar Liar?

It may be. But, it was an actual case in the "lower" states.