Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pisskop]

My first thought was 'how organic is organic' and thus 'how big and many are the bones'?  How many maggots per apple?

[Frumple]

Is anyone else bothered by this?

Anyone with sense, yes. The ruling's a giant pile of horseshit -- among other things, if I'm not misremembering, the case targets more than just the restaurant, so it's absolving the manufacturers of the chicken of negligence (and/or false advertisement) as well.

Hopefully it'll get appealed and someone'll less blinkered will knock some sense into the court that decided it, blech.

My first thought was 'how organic is organic' and thus 'how big and many are the bones'?  How many maggots per apple?

For what it's worth, the "how big" was "big enough to tear the customer's throat from the inside and put them in the ER". It was way past the point of reasonable for something claiming to be boneless, heh.

[hector13]

They also required two surgeries after the internal wound got infected.

From this article:

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters said, “A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers.”

Dissenting Justices argued that a jury should have been allowed to determine whether the restaurant and suppliers were negligent, and called Deters' reasoning “utter jabberwocky.”

“When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people,” wrote Justice Michael P. Donnelly in dissent.

Evidently Justice Donnelly decided to take the high road and not call his colleague a dumb ass for suggesting when something is advertised as not containing something, people should assume that it contains that something.

[anewaname]

Finding occasional bits of bone or cartilage has always been a problem with "boneless" products and the bone was 5 cm, so the guy was a fool not a victim.

"My rights to attempt to swallow those chicken wings whole cannot be denied, they are boneless!"

[McTraveller]

Interesting. To borrow from other industries, I think you'd have to use a measure of "unreasonable risk" related to bones of various sizes.  What's acceptable in something "boneless"?

Incidentally, when you buy something in the store packaged as boneless, it does have a disclaimer of "some bones may still be present."  Basically it's physically impossible to get all the bones out, unless you have lab-grown meat.  Even chicken nuggets have bone particles in them...

My take would be, if you sample all the "boneless wings" produced by the manufacturer and sold by the restaurant, how many of them had bone fragments of a given size?  If 1 in 10 had bones 5cm (2 inches! Why are you swallowing that whole!? Do you not chew your food at all?), that seems like unreasonable risk.  1 in 100000? Well now it's getting into that weird "it seems like a small number, is that really risky or not?" territory. 1 in 10 million? That's probably a reasonable risk.

Incidentally I think much of this is evidence that we're in a culture that is only looking for blame, rather than considering contribution.

[Frumple]

I mean, we're in a culture with a staggeringly screwed up healthcare system. When a business's practices put you in the hospital, you're probably going to go to court just to try to offset the medical costs, never mind literally everything else. Not like there's any space between looking to blame and considering contribution, anyway.

Does kinda' make me wonder if we don't just need a worker's comp equivalent for food prep, though. Someone gets fucked up eating your food, you pay for it, no questions, no avoidance.

If that starts to be a problem, well, maybe put some extra effort into folks not getting fucked up eating your food :V

[McTraveller]

I'm not opposed to lawsuit awards if there is evidence of negligence. Which is why it should be measured in terms of acceptable risk.  A single incident in thousands of opportunities, in my mind (and most industries'), is not evidence of negligence.

Humanity is really bad about inferring risk based on personal experience; it really does require rigorous analysis.

I do agree with problematic healthcare costs - but that's something that needs to be fixed regardless of product liability laws.  If you just make food companies pay the bill, healthcare costs will remain high.

[Frumple]

If you just make food companies pay the bill, healthcare costs will remain high.

Maybe (turning a major industry against high healthcare costs might just have some good knockon effects, ha), but less of those costs will be foisted on people less able to pay for them than businesses, heh. If you looking to reduce litigation, removing a major incentive to pursue it isn't a bad step in the process!

Plus less folks would get stiffed with major medical bills for having the temerity to trust that a restaurant is going to serve them what the business says they're serving them.

[Mathel]

It feels wrong to me. He bought a "boneless" meal and got wounded by a bone in that meal. As such, whoever sold him that meal should be held liable for that wound. Not in a criminal negligence way, but in a faulty product way.
Sure, this guy was stupidly swallowing 5cm+ chunks of meat, but he was under the impression that they would contain nothing rigid.


As for my WTF, when I was going back from work today, two flies tried to copulate on my t-shirt while I was using it. I had to knock them off.

[pisskop]

Still skimming for jobs using various keywords provided by blogs

Are you a charismatic talker with a passion for music, weed, and business? If so, we want you to join our team as a Cold Calling Cowboy! We’re looking for enthusiastic individuals who can engage with potential clients and share the good vibes of our reggae and cannabis culture.

Im very impressed by the capacity of recruiters and marketers to completely vagazzle up a job title.

[Great Order]

A tiny, sand grain sized bit of one of my teeth decided to fall out.

It's right next to a bit of the adjacent tooth that got chipped about a year ago, so I wonder if that compromised that tiny bit but not enough to fall out immediately, and it's just given up the ghost.

EDIT: Found out via meme about Rockbitch. That they would chuck out a condom then have group sex with whoever caught it at their shows is one of the saner things about their sexual behaviour says something.

I mean, more power to them, it's their bodies, but its not expected. Shit, maybe I'll add something like that to my Cyberpunk game as background, except add a sellout twist of it being a move to draw a bigger crowd.

[Truean]

[Please do not Quote. Not legal advice]

Yup, more lies with "Boneless doesn't really mean boneless...." (When that would cost the rich people money and they don't care if you literally choke to death or get hurt).

Yes, this was state supreme court.... Basically packed with conservatives. The dissenting voice was the liberal....
That's what you get from conservatives these days when they take power. Used to be they said "textual-ism" or "originalism" mattered.
There is an ulterior motive and an effort to confuse you into thinking the case doesn't matter,  "It is only this easy thing. It isn't that horrible thing, why do people keep saying that?"
- Because it's the truth and that's what they're most afraid of.
-Here, they don't care about you choking and dying because somebody couldn't be bothered to debone chicken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loiQET3SGJg

Yes, deboning is a thing. That guy in the video is showing how, but there are machines and factories that do it even quicker. So yes, boneless chicken is totally a thing.

They may still say "plain wording" but this is a lie often in practice. Boneless means boneless, but not here, because the "plain language" only applies when it is what the conservatives want.
When it is not what they want (here not to debone chicken properly) then they say "Come oooon." And then they just impose whatever they want.
40 or 50 year old precedents.... "Clearly," to be thrown out if the results aren't wanted by conservatives.

That chicken place could have easily covered the medical bills.... Didn't care. Didn't try. The rich don't care if you die. I've literally heard them say "sucks to be you."

And as for the "common sense" BS they pushed. That guy ate his boneless chicken wings every day as a regular customer with no issue for years until.....

They also pushed "tort reform" to make it harder to practically affordably sue in these situations, and used to be you did it on contingency and got 3 x specials which paid for it.
Now, good luck, because it has been made intentionally hard to get representation or to provide representation. The rich made it exponentially harder to represent the average person (You).
They also appeal to people's egos to think they can DIY it. That's stupid, point blank truth. I was never an auto mechanic and know not to try it, but feel free to crash the car/case.
I just love it when stupid/dishonest people say "It's simple/easy" or "It's obvious/Of course," because then how do you deal with this and all the stuff like it "easily" or "simply." You don't. It isn't.
One question: If it's so easy to represent yourself, then why don't the rich do it? Why don't the rich not have lawyers? Because they know it's a crock to disarm and leave you defenseless....

So basically for all they care you can choke on a chicken bone while eating boneless chicken and die for all they care, or end up with a $20,000 emergency room hospital bill if you wanna live.

This is the end result. Bottom line, you the average person get screwed, but it didn't used to be this way and it doesn't have to be this way now.

Also, they fired a lady who worked at a school because her transgender daughter played girl's volleyball.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/31/us/transgender-athlete-volleyball-broward-county-florida/index.html

I said for years they were trying to get rid of transgender people.... I was told it wasn't so big a deal.... They're baaack, but they never went anywhere, they just hid until it was safe to be a bigot again.... So they went from parent's rights to fire the parent with the trans kid real quick....  It's volleyball.... What are they afraid of? Doesn't matter I guess.

I'm just gonna leave this here.... Wow. He questions if she is black..... She went to an historically black college....  I have no words
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-questions-kamala-harriss-race-and-calls-out-interviewer-as-rude-at-nabj-convention-212512988.html

I will say that is not how you cross examine someone though, which is what needs to be done in this situation.

[Please do not Quote. Not legal advice]

[Mathel]

About that woman with a transgender daughter:

1. Sports are one area where one's biological gender can matter. Since the daugter was physically male, she would have an unfair advantage. For example, height is important in volleyball. Average US male is 175.3 cm tall, while the average US woman is only 161.3 cm tall. (Both taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country ) That is on average 14 cm worth of advantage.
2. That woman who was suspended wasn't just working at a school, she was the volleyball coach. So she is not being punished for having a transgender daughter but for allowing a male to play in a female-only team. (Because said male is her daughter.)

[nenjin]

The sports angle of genders is a touchy one. I personally support the idea that transgender women have a statistical and biological advantage over biological females, and that needs to be addressed. There isn't to date a lot of examples of transgender men succeeding in male sports after they transition. However we have plenty of examples of transgender women dominating the competition and setting new records in women's sports after they transition.

But as I said, it's a very touchy subject and I'm kind of loathe to get into it.

[pisskop]

Society is in an awkward place right now.  We want to celebrate diversity and freedom of identity but admitting that there are differences that have impact and potentially legally limiting people means opening the door to slippery slope bs.