Everything Kevin and KSigkid = what I would say.

And the tort reform groups are far smarter and far more strategic about getting their message out. By the time one of these stories makes it to the media, the public discussion has already been framed around an essentially stacked deck.

Trial lawyers interest groups could be a little more proactive by promoting stories of insurance company abuses (and perceived abuses). We just can't because we're too busy making money.

Haha - then there's those of us who work in litigation for insurance companies. You could call us fairly conflicted individuals, haha.

was there any warning or sign stating that it was open?

From the story that texas princess posted, it sounds like the workers had stepped away to get the warning cones when the girl fell. Talk about timing.

yeah. It looks like both parties share the responsibility for this. Though one has to wonder if she would have even noticed the cones. I mean she didn't see a foot wide hole in the floor.

The teen was dumb. You don't walk without looking where you're going (you don't drive without looking where you're going).

Lesson learned on the part of the teen. Maybe the workers will be taught to keep one person on the lookout for idiots while the rest get the cones. The end.

Yeah, and then the lookout worker who yelled at her to watch where she was going would probably have been sued for "harassment."

So, we're back to the teen just being dumb. LOL.

I wonder, what if the teen was looking forward and not texting, but still didn't notice? Would that make a legal difference beyond being clumsy and not observant?

The kid has a duty to exercise the amount of reasonable care attributable to a child of her age, intelligence and maturity. I don't think she gets there. But legally speaking, being clumsy versus being not observant are just two different examples of not showing reasonable care.

The biggest issue is that aside from maybe a change of clothes and her cell phone, she has no damages that I can tell. Her case is definitely not helped by her parents proclaiming so early on that they're going to file a lawsuit.

You'd better bet that as counsel for the defense, I'd have a hell of a fun time with those statements. I might even build my case around those statements.

GC legal buffs are the best.

* - not a lawyer.

I just read up on it and agreed the woman should have sued for damages, and the other facts the case brought out regarding McDonalds knowing their coffee was being served way too hot was interesting.

But at the same time (and I am by no means a fan of McDonalds) wouldnt it be common sense not to put a cup of hot coffee between your knees/legs for any reason? Most cups arent strong enough to not bend and spill with the pressure of the legs/knees to hold it in place. Why didnt the son hold the coffee for her so she could put the cream and sugar in it? Didnt he park the car to allow her to do that? Did she not feel the hotness of the coffee through the cup? I get coffee all the time from Starbucks that is too hot to drink. How do I know that? I feel the heat through the cup when they hand it to me. I put it in my cup holder for a little bit to cool some before drinking it because I dont want to burn my mouth.

Yet. ;)

I do think the city has some blame in this. What if it had been a blind woman who fell in the open hole? Or an elderly person with no peripheral vision? They can't just leave an open hole in the street/sidewalk and expect that everyone will/can see it and avoid it. One person should have stayed by the hole while the other went to go get cones.