(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

A sign that screams Sue Me

F

farmerjohn

Well-known Member
In traveling today to the inlaws I have been passing for 20 years an old brick building that has been falling down as I have been watching it's decay. Today I see that it was finally demolished leaving a pile of rubble with a yellow ribbon around it and a big sign that says "Free Bricks, Enter at your own risk" and I have to think that with today's culture of sue-happy mentality that's probably asking for trouble, don't you think?
 
(quoted from post at 20:55:17 12/25/16) In traveling today to the inlaws I have been passing for 20 years an old brick building that has been falling down as I have been watching it's decay. Today I see that it was finally demolished leaving a pile of rubble with a yellow ribbon around it and a big sign that says "Free Bricks, Enter at your own risk" and I have to think that with today's culture of sue-happy mentality that's probably asking for trouble, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Better would have been "Stay out, don't steal the bricks". They'd be gone quicker.

The one I like is on dump trucks "Stay back 500 ft, Not responsible for broken windshields". And they cut right in front of you. The law in Oklahoma is that the load must be secured and it is illegal to drop your load onto the highway. Better to just not have the sign.
 
My insurance agent said that a sign advertising "Bad Dog" was an invitation for a lawsuit.

My agent is scared of dogs. . .
 
That sign is meant for object tire throw from the road. Anything falls off they have to pay. The signs is to make you think they wont pay if they loose something.
 
(quoted from post at 21:27:57 12/25/16)
(quoted from post at 20:55:17 12/25/16) In traveling today to the inlaws I have been passing for 20 years an old brick building that has been falling down as I have been watching it's decay. Today I see that it was finally demolished leaving a pile of rubble with a yellow ribbon around it and a big sign that says "Free Bricks, Enter at your own risk" and I have to think that with today's culture of sue-happy mentality that's probably asking for trouble, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Better would have been "Stay out, don't steal the bricks". They'd be gone quicker.

The one I like is on dump trucks "Stay back 500 ft, Not responsible for broken windshields". And they cut right in front of you. The law in Oklahoma is that the load must be secured and it is illegal to drop your load onto the highway. Better to just not have the sign.
Click to expand...


I have never seen the "not responsible" part. It must be peculiar to your local area.
 
Along the highway where I bought my house there was a barn which looked like it had been hit by a tornado and tore off about a fourth of one end. Someone could have cut it clean and put an end on it and had a usable structure but over the last 30 years little by little it's fallen in until it's gone now.
 
Regarding the dump trucks, you'll notice they probably don't have mud flaps. They're required to have them, but they don't because the flaps will get ripped off when the dummy-o driving backs into gravel piles in the pit or doesn't move forward as he dumps the load elsewhere. Dump trucks are indeed held responsible when throwing road debris into your windshield, but good luck getting one to own up. Most insurance companies will "fix" a windshield for free, or have a very low deductible to replace it nowadays.
 
(quoted from post at 22:53:31 12/25/16) My insurance agent said that a sign advertising "Bad Dog" was an invitation for a lawsuit.

My agent is scared of dogs. . .
Click to expand...

Actually when I worked as an adjuster we hated to see signs that claimed an insured wasn't responsible for something or warning of a dangerous animal.

On the responsibility if something did wind up in a law suit the injured party's lawyer could and would use that to convince a judge/jury that the defendant knew something was potentially dangerous and was trying to duck that responsibility.

The big thing with the warning of a bad dog again is because of what can happen in a court room. The dogs owner now comes across as someone who doesn't care about endangered the community by keeping a known dangerous animal. Gotta keep in mind that juries are mad up from folks from the community who may not like the idea that the dogs owner knowing endangered said community. It doesn't matter that the dog was secured and the victim was mauled breaking into someone's home. The juries often ignore what the injured party was doing and get hooked on the idea that they or their families might have been in danger.

Rick
 
Yeah, you only see it on dump trucks, not tractor-trailer rigs or box vans. Most of them have tailgates which won't close tight and dribble the load as they travel. Road debris is the same regardless of vehicle with the same size tires.

Don't we just love how lawyers "sending a message" has made our society better?

I think one solution would be to limit awards to a reasonable value and then anything over that which seems to be appropriate to penalize an offender goes to the government. If McDonald's owed $5,000,000 for somebody burning themselves with coffee they thought would not be hot, give them $50,000, their lawyer takes his 1/3 of that, and $4,950,000 to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam would never get anything.
 
Neighbor has sign (Beware Of Dog) Has not had a dog in the 20 years I have lived next to him.
 
(quoted from post at 06:42:48 12/26/16) Yeah, you only see it on dump trucks, not tractor-trailer rigs or box vans. Most of them have tailgates which won't close tight and dribble the load as they travel. Road debris is the same regardless of vehicle with the same size tires.

Don't we just love how lawyers "sending a message" has made our society better?

I think one solution would be to limit awards to a reasonable value and then anything over that which seems to be appropriate to penalize an offender goes to the government. If McDonald's owed $5,000,000 for somebody burning themselves with coffee they thought would not be hot, give them $50,000, their lawyer takes his 1/3 of that, and $4,950,000 to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam would never get anything.
Click to expand...

Andy, you might want to look up the facts of that case versus parroting what you've "heard". The woman had third degree burns on her lap and $60,000 in medical fees. She was only asking for the medical fees. She badly didn't want to go to court, but McDonalds wouldn't pay, so she did. The jury decided to give her the millions, which equalled like 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales. This gets paraded out all the time as the case and point on frivolous lawsuits. You might want to find another example, because this one isn't what it seems. Maybe Donnie's constant lawsuits to close an airport next to his Florida home would be a better example.
 
We had [ still have ] a blind intersection, with two buildings built right on their corners. Public works guys had put up a sign that warned the public because you couldn't see around the corner, you couldn't see oncoming traffic; "Dangerous Intersection." City attorney said take down the sign, because it tells the public the City knows of the danger, and has done nothing about it, and City is therefore liable. I say attorney was stupid.
 
A better, indeed the only, solution to frivolous lawsuits would be for the US to eliminate contingency fees for attorneys as the rest of the world did decades or centuries ago.

Of course with the nnalert in the pocket of the plaintiff's bar such will not happen.

Dean
 
A better, indeed the only, solution to frivolous lawsuits would be for the US to eliminate contingency fees for attorneys as the rest of the world did decades or centuries ago.

Of course with the nnalert in the pocket of the plaintiff's bar such will not happen.

Dean
 
(quoted from post at 07:24:15 12/26/16) We had [ still have ] a blind intersection, with two buildings built right on their corners. Public works guys had put up a sign that warned the public because you couldn't see around the corner, you couldn't see oncoming traffic; "Dangerous Intersection." City attorney said take down the sign, because it tells the public the City knows of the danger, and has done nothing about it, and City is therefore liable. I say attorney was stupid.
Click to expand...

The city attorney is right. In that case they have option of closing the intersection or buying the building and removing them. Both are viable options. Making a 3rd option of that sign could go against them when a bus full of kids gets hit could go very bad for the city.

Rick
 
Similar to the "beware of dogs" legal danger: I see signs at yard/garage sales all the time saying "not responsible for accidents." It wouldn't take a lawyer graduating at the top of the class to convince a sympathetic jury that the homeowner obviously knew an accident was waiting to happen or he/she wouldn't have had to post such a warning. People think they can point to the sign and say, "Well, we warned you," but that defense simply ain't gonna work.
 
How about the little notice on the front of a bidder's number card. "Not responsible for accidents".I can just see a little kid falling off a piece of farm/construction equipment at an auction.Parent sueing for 'attractive nuisance',and winning.
 
While it might be cold hearted; I feel no sign is ever needed.

If I do something wrong like drop something off my trailer and it hits your car then I am liable.
If my biting dog chases you down while walking down the street and bites you then I am liable.

But if you come on my property and my dog bites you; your kid falls off a tractor at a auction; or any other such thing then suck it up as it was your fault.

This society of always looking for something for nothing and it is always somebody else's fault is crazy.

As Far as the rock from a truck goes.
If it comes off the road; I run over it and throw it at you I am not liable by the laws we have.
If it came off my vehicle; rock off my equipment trailer; soda can out the back of my pickup then I am liable.
A sign on the back of my truck does not change these laws.
 
Here in AZ they have the not responsible on the back of the dump trucks yet the don't cover the loads and here you cant go through the year with out a broken windshield. Back east I never had a broken windshield.
The county will grade the edge of the roads and gravel will be all over the side of the road or they'll oil and gravel the road with pea gravel and not sweep of the extra, as the oncoming traffic will pepper your car and there not responsible.
 
Guess it depends on the situation and how fierce you are on suing. A local restaurant had a sign up not responsible for coats and items etc. Aunt Martha's coat or some jewelry came up missing. She sued and won because "restaurant failed to safe guard the coats and hand bags etc!!!
 
A lot depends on your state and your state's case law and statutes. There are huge differences in different jurisdictions.
 
I read over a lot of what was published about the lady and the coffee lawsuit. From everything I can reason out, she spilled the coffee for whatever reason - maybe the top was not on tightly, maybe she was clumsy, and maybe there were any number of other factors involved. BUT, had I been on that jury, I most certainly would have denied her claim. Coffee is made with boiling hot water. Any intelligent adult knows that. Any intelligent adult also knows that it is still hot and needs to be handled CAREFULLY.
While I have sympathy for her pain and suffering, the ONLY reason that I can see for McDonald's to be liable is that they have the deepest pockets.
 
Reminds me of the commercials on tv. Nothing but drug companies, lawyers & insurance companies pushing their agendas.
 
If those are the good hard fired brick without the holes in them. I will be right over with my trailer. Really old buildings used that soft brick that is only a little stronger than a tootsie roll. I got three loads of hard brick from down the road when they took the old firehouse down. Wish I could have gotten more.
 
I had two rocks hit me from two different trucks with the same name on the door. They were hauling fill from A to B on a US highway. I had a customer with the same problem,I called the truck co and they denied even having a truck on the job. I told them not to worry about it that it would have been a lot cheaper to buy the windshields.One phone call to the Missouri HP and I asked them why the trucks did not have to tarp their loads anymore? For the next two weeks the portable scales and the MO DOT kept busy on that four mile stretch of road,but the crap falling off the trucks stopped.(I am sure that mine was not the only call they got) (I was just the guy with two cousins on the Patrol)
 
okay i run a bull with my cows 365 24 7 so should i post a sign beware of bull or no trespassing or not?
 
That burger shop had received notices from inspections that coffee temp was 165 degrees & dangerous. They did nothing to fix it for over 6 months. 3rd degree burns ain't fun.....
 
(quoted from post at 10:44:51 12/26/16) I read over a lot of what was published about the lady and the coffee lawsuit. From everything I can reason out, she spilled the coffee for whatever reason - maybe the top was not on tightly, maybe she was clumsy, and maybe there were any number of other factors involved. BUT, had I been on that jury, I most certainly would have denied her claim. Coffee is made with boiling hot water. Any intelligent adult knows that. Any intelligent adult also knows that it is still hot and needs to be handled CAREFULLY.
While I have sympathy for her pain and suffering, the ONLY reason that I can see for McDonald's to be liable is that they have the deepest pockets.
Click to expand...

My newer coffee pot.. comes with a menu to set brewing temp.. It HIGHLY RECOMMENDS that brewing temp be left at the factory setting for the best and "correct" coffee brew...

The factory temperature is...... 190 degrees... This is exactly what got mc D in trouble as they were sued for having brewed coffee at the wrong temperature... 190 degrees...

what would happen if they went back to peculators.. they brewed coffee at or near 220 degrees....

guess they will have to start serving ICE coffee. Most juries are too stupid to understand the law and just assume its ok to rob big companies.
 
(quoted from post at 12:30:20 12/26/16) okay i run a bull with my cows 365 24 7 so should i post a sign beware of bull or no trespassing or not?
Click to expand...

Not trespassing signs are a good idea even if state law doesn't require them. Should someone get injured while trespassing then try to sue you have proof that they were injured while in violation of the law. No, in most states that doesn't let you off the hook. But a jury is less likely to side with someone who was breaking the law. Big difference between a bad bull sign and a bad dog one. It's well know that bulls are bad. It's the very gentle ones that are the exception. And both dairy and beef operation may have bulls. Part of the accepted risks of farming. There are a lot of dogs that are not vicious. Keeping and advertising the fact you have a known vicious/dangerous dog can create a very different experience in a court room. The farmer and his lawyer can present massive evidence that bulls tend to be ornery difficult and dangerous animals but a necessary evil on a farm. A home or business owner can't justify having a dangerous dog even if the victim was cutting across the owner lawn. So a bad bull sign is a farmer warning potential trespassers of a danger inherent to a beef or dairy operation (yea I know most dairy don't have bulls anymore) and trying to keep the public safe. A bad dog sign if in fact there is a dog is an owner trying to scare people and proving that the owner is keeping a known dangerous animal while ignoring public safety.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top