Palo Alto pays $24,000 for sidewalk fumble

The city owes me a couple million if this is the case. I don't like how the corner around my house cuts sharp. I once fell off my bicycle.

Stories like these "assuming its just an injured thumb" are dumb, and what make our city, county, state, and country fail. I can guarantee that 24,000 dollar settlement came with a much higher price tag with all the effort that went into it.

I also fell and submitted forms to the City Attorney's office,in person, which wrote that they were rejecting my claim..I went through pain and therape for a few months over my injured knee because I fell over a huge chunk of sidewalk protruding up on El Camino. I had insurance for the injury, thankfully. $24,000 could have off set my pain....No wonder the Attorney's office quit returning my calls.
How much do you think that not being able to get up and get onto the potty seat correctly and having to fall onto the floor afterwards (with your leg stretched out in pain), prop yourself up on the sink to stand is worth? For almost three months? And then recurring pain and trips to therape????????? It was like a bad, bad movie. Only I was in it and couldn't turn it off. It's been over a year, so I assume now that I can not take the City to court.

We have trees, therefore we have roots which cause problems. Yes, the City should repair the sidewalks and yes perhaps trees without fast growing roots would be better than the type of trees we have.

But, if I trip I blame myself for not looking where I am going. If I cross the street, I look for traffic coming which may not stop for me before I step off the kerb.

When do people take responsibility for their own safety?

You think that is a problem.

At RWC attorney is trying to sue Stanford for money, claiming they exploit donors and trade in blood for money.
His public statements could scare away 1000s of donors when Haiti has a blood donor deficit that could lead to millions of deaths for lack of blood donations.

The attorney claimesWeb Link that Stanford trades blood for profit apparently.
Clearly has not even Googled to see that Stanford Blood Bank, and the other Stanford agencies he appears to want to get money from, are non profit entities.

The State Bar will investigate hopefully.

3 million Haitians are at risk of near death.
CNN reports that there are a million orphans.
To save lives people need to donate blood to help our citizens and others.

It is is a very sad state for the legal profession when some of our members from USF seem to attempt to profit in these times

I don't drink water and in turn have consumed large amounts of soda that last couple of years, thus resulting in weight gain and diabetes. I blame the city for having poor tasting water, I think I might sue... I'm not responsible for my own actions, this the America, someone should have to take care of me, but I'm against medical care for my peers, I don't want to have to pay for them I might not have gas for my hummer. Why won't people take me serious?

Dear 'outside arbitrator'

Do you mind covering the cost of Egg Wars?

You would do the community more good....

I tripped on a raised sidewalk too. It was pushed up by a tree. It hurt like hell. There were no doctor bills though, however I'd like to see the trees of Palo Alto cut and removed to avoid any further risks of these serious accidents. The city of PA should cut down all trees near sidewalks. Cutting all the trees down on California Ave was a nice first step.

:-)

Hit the ground hard says: "I fell over a huge chunk of sidewalk protruding up on El Camino." No wonder the City didn't respond El Camino is a State highway, you should have sued the State!!

Informed input please.

"mandatory nonbinding arbitration"

and then

"...if one side is happy and the other is not, the dissatisfied party can still choose to go to trial. Both sides seemed content with the award, he said...."

mandatory and nonbinding?

To quote Mr. Spock..."that is not logical Captain".

You always have to wonder what is involved behind the scenes. Remember that old tale of the hot coffee at McDonalds scalding someone and the resultant lawsuit...

From a Critical Care MD

"This story is retold when you go for jury duty here in San Diego. A friend of mine (an exMcDonald's corporate lawyer) told me McDonalds kept the coffee hot so as to prevent people from drinking it quickly and getting free refills.

The Stella Awards are named after Stella Liebeck, the woman who sued
McDonalds after being burned by spilled coffee. The awards, and the
hyp,e are used as examples to belittle the civil justice system, as well as Stella.

As to the real Stella story


There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonald's coffee was not only hot, it was scalding - capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.

Here is the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap. The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
prior claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

At closing, the Plaintiff's attorney suggested that Stella's conduct may have contributed to her injuries, and he asked the jury to take this into consideration when determining Compensatory damages. He then went on and suggested that, in order to get the attention of McDonald's, and just to get them to turn down the temperature of their coffee, that the jury not award Stella a lot of money by way of Punitive Damages, just give her two days of McDonald's sales on coffee,

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill.

The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which
equals about two days of McDonalds coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit. The
trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or
three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds'conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case. The parties
Eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned. Many courts have adopted policies against secret settlements, which is a positive development for consumers and the public."

Don't get fooled again!

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The golden days for personal injury lawyers are over for good.

Pick up your feet for pete's sake. Why does someone else always have to be responsible(financially reponsible that is) for life's challenges. When are we going to take personal responsibility for our own actions. "It's not my fault"---sounds like my 6 year old.

The "meltdown" of John Edwards had nothing to do with his attorney status, etc. He got caught in an affair. Nothing more or less.

Making more pronouncements from on high doesn't create any new reality.

Pick up your feet, hold the scalding coffee correctly, run away before the loose dog bites you, make sure the surgeon knows which leg to amputate, don't dress provocatively or you're to blame for being raped, duck before the bullet hits you in the forehead.......yes everyone take some personal responsibility.

I loved your comments, A Noun Ea Mus, thanks

Let me wrap my head around a world in which picking up one's feet is exactly like getting raped.

You are ridiculous, A Noun Ea Mus.

To Sharon Of Midtown.
I'm not quite sure how you relate giving blood to the Haitian relief to a Redwood City atty's Lawsuit. It just seems a bit Blog sensational. It appears your anger may be a bit misplaced. If you were a blood donor and you gave blood and through no fault of your own you contract an infection because of something the blood taker did, at the very least, you would expect them to take care of your medical bills right? So you then have to go through all the medical procedures to get better and then Stanford (the blood draw site) says forget you...."your on your own". I think you'd be a bit annoyed. I think maybe your anger should be directed at Stanford. Now throw in the little known fact (goggle it...don't take my word for it) that Stanford SELLS the blood they receive and profit from it....I think you'd be a little more then annoyed. Why should Stanford get the money from the blood that is donated to them by companionate citizens when other places such as "Blood Banks" do not make a profit. Again, I think your mis-directed animosity at an attorney who is trying to shed light on a little known subject should be directed at STANFORD who allegedly injured someone who gave blood, lied to him and then basically kicked him to the curb and provided him no help (medical or other) and then to top it off made money on his blood. If that is truly what happened...I'd hope you'd agree that is despicable. I think your anger is mis-directed. And again the HAITIAN situation is BAD to say the least but the connection you draw is very weak. So to anyone who reads this...if you want to give blood to the Haitian relief DO SO. Just be educated in who you give your bllod to.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Note that Mr Bui has the right to file suit against Stanford. Note also that Mr Bui's attorney has not claimed that Stanford sells blood for profit. The quote from him in the link she provided is:
"Carcione said the sum his client will ask for has not been determined and could be affected by how much Stanford earns from selling donated blood."
Stanford does have to cover it's costs--it does not make a profit. Sharon omits that fact. Sharon claims the bar association should investigate Mr Bui's attorney, yet she provides no facts to suggest that he is doing anything wrong.
She then mixes in the catastrophe in Haiti and then smears Mr Bui's attorney again.
Really, is her posting appropriate for this thread?