Man ordered by court to pay child support for 27-year-old child that isn't his

Dignified_Fighter · October 29, 2014, 10:49pm

Why not both? (Immediate regret, I’m sorry)

pherai · October 30, 2014, 12:46am

that woman deserved her settlement though!

Zatalcon · October 30, 2014, 3:01am

Is he black?

IglooBob · October 30, 2014, 5:42am

you should actually look into the facts of that case. I’ll just post them here.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald’s and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

Typical reaction: Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot? And McDonald’s didn’t pour the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself! Besides, she was driving the car and wasn’t paying attention.

Now for the facts:

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial:
McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical 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 Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s 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.
McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”

That’s because those jurors were able to hear all the facts — including those presented by McDonald’s — and see the extent of Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. Ask anyone who criticizes the case as a “frivolous lawsuit” that resulted in “jackpot justice” if they have done the same.

most of the time you hear about frivolous lawsuits like “woman burned by hot coffee and sues McDonalds” or “robber falls while breaking into school and sues the school and wins” odds are very good you aren’t hearing the whole story. the media reports only a part of the story, the story catches on and is retold, and by the time you hear it the facts that the case relies on are all forgotten and all you hear is “damn some idiot got burned by McDs coffee and sued and won. doesn’t that dumb bitch know coffee is hot??” if pays to be curious and go look up the details yourself.

NickRocks · October 30, 2014, 10:05am

id sue the state

OGSF · October 30, 2014, 2:24pm

This ties into that stupid street harrassment from New York that went viral. If women wanna to all that, “I’m woman, hear me roar” crap then grow some fucking balls, man the fuck up and get treated like a man. Supposedly women think that they’re equal to men and even tougher and superior to men… [/RANT]

crucades · October 30, 2014, 2:28pm

Id beat the kid, like technically this guy is being forced to pay for 27 years of right to spank tokens, id use em up before suing fuck out of the state.

Sairou_Kyoshu · October 30, 2014, 4:52pm

Yeah, I’m not surprised. My dad had something similar happen to him. He was married to a woman that he knew for about 15-20 years. She decided she wanted nothing to do with him, because he found out that she was stealing 'scrips and selling crack at the hospital she worked at. So she took him to court and even though my dad had no felonies on his record (while she did), and he made far less money than she did, he got reamed and ended up having to pay child support for a kid that wasn’t his. I’m willing to bet this shit happens more than we think.

Dramatix · October 30, 2014, 5:17pm

What’s the point of paying child support now when the “child” clearly old enough to support themselves?

What also pisses me off about shit like that is when the mothers considered men who are the father of their children deadbeats, yet won’t let them see the kids even when the father wants to be a part of their lives, and fuck around with a real bum nigga whose not even a great male figure for the children.

To me, I don’t think you should come out of pocket for a child that didn’t come from your sperm just because you were involved with the woman. Better search for the baby daddy and hound him for money.

Missing_Person · October 30, 2014, 5:38pm

The only time that’s remotely applicable is if the kid is legally yours by way of adoption. But considering that doesn’t appear to be the case here, it’s a moot point

Will_Diesel · October 31, 2014, 5:38am

The stupidity and depravity from Detroit is spreading I see.

Serpent · October 31, 2014, 7:03am

How can you be a child at 27?

Nothing that happens in the US ever makes sense to me anymore.

ElderGOD · October 31, 2014, 7:25am

30 is the new 20.

Damn, imagine paying some chick child support from being like 25 up until 55 years old.

No wonder dudes are committing murder.

Neesa · October 31, 2014, 7:30am

So the mom says he shouldn’t pay for a child that isn’t his, but the state does and her child is way past the age of receiving child support…

What the actual fuck.

mowr · October 31, 2014, 10:21am

/Sigh

What don’t you people understand. THE PATRIARCHY HURTS MEN TOO. IN THEIR WALLETS SPECIFICALLY.

Lord_Raptor · October 31, 2014, 10:32am

State wants that money so their forcing this, it’s reallllllllllllllly stupid but this is sadly common.

StockyJam · October 31, 2014, 12:09pm

gtfo of 'Murica!
you’re making too much sense!

SF2GuileX · October 31, 2014, 12:38pm

So the woman puts down the wrong name, the state sends notices to the wrong address and this guy has to pick up the tab?

crotchpuncha · October 31, 2014, 12:39pm

Can’t believe you’re still rockin that av Guile lol.

Serpent · November 1, 2014, 1:59am

America is a weird place. I can’t imagine women have been put on a pedestal like this anywhere else in human history.