Should my friend sue this man?

[Deleted]

Take those words with a pinch of salt tbh. If it did happen, highly doubt it did, you don't sue him you report it to the police.

[Raelbo]

In California for example, your mere presence on land which is open to the public is not illegal — you must also have “the intention of interfering, obstructing or injuring” people or business activity to be illegally trespassing (CA penal code 602j). If you’re on land not open to the public (other than a dwelling), It’s not illegal unless you refuse or fail to leave “when requested to do so” (CA penal code 602n).

That's actually proof I'm right and you're both wrong. Nice job not reading what you just copied pasted.

It comes down to whether a shop is classified as "land open to the public" or "land not open to the public (other than a dwelling)".

I am not an expert on American law, but looking at the wording on it, I would have thought that the shop would classify as the latter. A shop is still private property, but it is not considered a dwelling. This allows for people to walk into a shop legally without being invited, but they are still obliged to leave when asked to by the owner or someone acting on behalf of the owner (eg a manager).

"land open to the public" is just that: Public property. eg roads, beaches, parks, public facilities etc.

Many shops have a sign stating "right of admission reserved". They are allowed to ask you to leave. If you don't, it becomes tresspassing.

I am not sure what the debate here is, but I think, Semaphore, you need to elaborate a bit more and explain your position, because your short responses are not helping to resolve this.

[Deleted]

Only thing your friend could have done was inform cops at the time. And even then the cops most likely wouldn't be able to do anything.

[Deleted]

Because its America, the land of everyone sues everyone for anything thats why hes asking if he should sue the "store owner"

This pretty much sums it. OP: sue, no. Report to an offence, maybe.

[shise]

There's nothing your friend can do. No legal recourse, he just doesn't need to go there again.

Report him and make the cops use the camera footage.

[Dasffion]

You are correct, he's just bored and trying to keep it going. Here's proof so just in case by some odd chance he actually believes what he's saying this will end all debate.
In California for example, your mere presence on land which is open to the public is not illegal — you must also have “the intention of interfering, obstructing or injuring” people or business activity to be illegally trespassing (CA penal code 602j). If you’re on land not open to the public (other than a dwelling), It’s not illegal unless you refuse or fail to leave “when requested to do so” (CA penal code 602n).

When copying and pasting from another website you should probably site your source: http://www.photosecrets.com/photogra...ty-trespassing

I'm not sure where they got that from though because 602j is stated as

(j) Building fires upon any lands owned by another where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not greater than one mile along the exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands, without first having obtained written permission from the owner of the lands or the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.

on the DMV website, since it's a government site I'd assume that it would have the correct codes.

What I think really applies here after reading all of Penal Code 602 is 602(t)

(t) (1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision.

They have to be told by a Police Officer to leave. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/app...o/penco602.htm

[Obsession]

Attempting to get legal advice from mmo-c has never and will never be a good idea. In court the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, odds are there was more than your friend is leading on to if it happened. In a store where it is private property, the shop owner was probably within his rights. If your friend has any proof he would have called the police but this would be a he-said she-said case.

For people claiming america is the land of fraudulent lawsuits, please link me one. Also, this should be the end of the thread as there isn't much more to discuss.

[Dasffion]

For people claiming america is the land of fraudulent lawsuits, please link me one. Also, this should be the end of the thread as there isn't much more to discuss.

Who said it's the land of fraudulent lawsuits? I don't think anyone said that. It is however the land of frivolous lawsuits. It's not the same thing. Here's 15 for you though. http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/biza...s/gallery.html

The McDonalds Coffee one still gets me. Coffee = Hot herpaderp

[Obsession]

Who said it's the land of fraudulent lawsuits? I don't think anyone said that. It is however the land of frivolous lawsuits. It's not the same thing. Here's 15 for you though. http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/biza...s/gallery.html

The McDonalds Coffee one still gets me. Coffee = Hot herpaderp

Oh boy, the uninformed is strong in you.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/arti...m?ID=785#_edn4

Here are the two primary points:

During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.[5]In addition, many of these claims were settled, amounting to more than $500,000.[6]

As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years.[8]Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald’s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.[9]McDonald’s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.

Look up "Stella Liebeck burn photos" now that you have actually heard something other than "woman spills coffee on herself and gets millions." I didn't care enough to look through every single other one that was in that because when it claimed this one was frivolous it no longer was a credible source.

[Dasffion]

Oh boy, the uninformed is strong in you.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/arti...m?ID=785#_edn4

Here are the two primary points:




Look up "Stella Liebeck burn photos" now that you have actually heard something other than "woman spills coffee on herself and gets millions." I didn't care enough to look through every single other one that was in that because when it claimed this one was frivolous it no longer became a credible source.

What's your point? They're all idiots for putting hot coffee between their legs. The fact that there's been "more than 700" reports of it or that she had serious doesn't make it any less frivolous. Coffee is hot. Don't put hot things between your legs. This is common sense. I'm not uninformed, I'm unforgiving of stupidity.

[George]

Tell your friend to get over it.

[blackyfrost]

What's your point? They're all idiots for putting hot coffee between their legs. The fact that there's been "more than 700" reports of it or that she had serious doesn't make it any less frivolous. Coffee is hot. Don't put hot things between your legs. This is common sense. I'm not uninformed, I'm unforgiving of stupidity.

you really need to read the facts of the case, you're not informed enough to have an opinion, especially such a self-righteous one

-mcdonalds kept it hotter than they were supposed to on purpose. they wanted the coffee to cool off to the FDA's suggested temps when the person got to their office to drink it.

-the cups they used for the coffee were never meant to hold a liquid that hot. it melted the inside of the cup as you drank it. yes, if you drank mcdonald's coffee then, you drank a LOT of styrofoam too.

-mcdonald's sold this via the drive-thru. at that time, less than 18% of cars had cup holders. nearly all of them put it between their legs to hold it, since it's common practice

-mcdonald's ended up losing about 35% of the money they make in a 1 hour period on coffee sales. it's like getting fined $3 for selling someone something that nearly killed them. that doesn't even qualify as 'slap on the wrist'

-the average cup of coffee fro mcdonald's back then took 1.5-2 hrs to cool to a temperature the FDA considers safe to drink

the facts show mcdonald's intentionally did things that put their customers in danger. they intentionally ignored the ratings suggested by the FDA, SOLO (cup manufacturer), and common sense. you can't be negligent and not pay. their slander of her over the years after that should have been criminal too

[Obsession]

What's your point? They're all idiots for putting hot coffee between their legs. The fact that there's been "more than 700" reports of it or that she had serious doesn't make it any less frivolous. Coffee is hot. Don't put hot things between your legs. This is common sense. I'm not uninformed, I'm unforgiving of stupidity.

Got it, so although mcdonalds was willfully negligent and reckless despite over 700 different warnings in their handling of what they already knew was extremely dangerous. It wasn't frivolous, it wasn't fraudulent, and you are just as stubborn as McDonalds was for the first $500,000 dollars they paid out because their unnecessarily hot coffee. I can't help but think you didn't actually read anything that was presented to you.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Got it, so although mcdonalds was willfully negligent and reckless despite over 700 different warnings in their handling of what they already knew was extremely dangerous. It wasn't frivolous, it wasn't fraudulent, and you are just as stubborn as McDonalds was for the first $500,000 dollars they paid out because their unnecessarily hot coffee.

Both sides were foolish.

[Skippy88]

Is store independently owned or is it a franchise?
Can you search online and see if there have been other incidents?
Did your friend do anything to provoke the confrontation?

I know some people are lawsuit happy but I always view them as a last resort because they can get expensive and unless you have video of the incident it's not always a slam dunk you will win. I would try going over the manager's head and try to contact the owner or corporate to get it worked out. If your brave you could go back in and try to recreate the scene and have a hidden camera.

[Dasffion]

Got it, so although mcdonalds was willfully negligent and reckless despite over 700 different warnings in their handling of what they already knew was extremely dangerous. It wasn't frivolous, it wasn't fraudulent, and you are just as stubborn as McDonalds was for the first $500,000 dollars they paid out because their unnecessarily hot coffee.

Willfully negligent? COFFEE=HOT This is common knowledge. You shouldn't have to put it on the side of a cup. I'm willing to bet people still get burned by it. They just can't sue anymore because McDonalds covered their ass by putting a warning label on it. It's frivolous. If they would have thought for 2 seconds and said, hey, maybe I shouldn't put this scalding hot beverage in my lap while operating a moving vehicle, they wouldn't have had a problem. The people who got burned were willfully ignorant.

[Taurenburger]

He should report the man to the police.

[Deleted]

Got it, so although mcdonalds was willfully negligent and reckless despite over 700 different warnings in their handling of what they already knew was extremely dangerous. It wasn't frivolous, it wasn't fraudulent, and you are just as stubborn as McDonalds was for the first $500,000 dollars they paid out because their unnecessarily hot coffee. I can't help but think you didn't actually read anything that was presented to you.

Lol. It was a frivolous lawsuit made by someone who thought it was a good idea to put coffee (read hot beverage) between her legs.

Anyway no your friend should just stay the hell away from the arkham asylum part of town if you ask me. A lawsuit wouldn't get him anywhere.

[Kujako]

Lol. It was a frivolous lawsuit made by someone who thought it was a good idea to put coffee (read hot beverage) between her legs.

Good to see you bought the Mc Donald's story they spread once they had a gag order on the plaintiff as part of the settlement. Much easier then looking into the case yourself and learning the actual details.

[caractacus]

No... Your friend is telling lies (imo)