K-Rod arrested for assault in clubhouse

[Illini Iceman]

I think if the Mets pursued it enough they'd win in court, but they probably wouldn't want the hassle so, as you said, some sort of buyout is probably likely.

Why would they win in court? The Mets' options are spelled out by the CBA and the contract Rodriguez signed. I doubt either contains a stupidity clause that allows the Mets to void.

 

They may threaten it, but it's just posturing.

 

I just don't see how K-Rod could still stand to gain however much money he has coming this year (and whatever part of next year he misses, if any) due to his own stupidity. If it was a baseball-related injury, too bad. The Mets are out of luck. But they shouldn't be forced to pay substantial amounts of money to a player who is physically unable to perform due to his own off-field actions.

Well if the Mets want to write a stupidity clause into their player contracts, then more power to them (provided it doesn't conflict with the CBA and players will agree to it).

 

Absent that, though, they're SOL.

 

Like I said, what the Mets can and can't do depends on what's written into the contract, not what you or I consider fair or common sense or whatever.

 

They should be able to void the contract of the Mets GM that was stupid enough to sign him to this deal to begin with.

[NCCubFan]

The Mets placed him on the disqualified list and don't plan to pay him until he's able to pitch again. They also plan to convert his contract from guaranteed to non-guaranteed. The players' union plans to file a grievance.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5471769

[Tracer Bullet]

It's really not that uncommon for contracts to include clauses for off-field injuries. Thanks a lot, Jeff Kent.

 

aren't they typically more specific to "dangerous activities" like doing a wheelie on your motorcycle? I'd be shocked if you could really fit punching someone into any of the out clauses in a MLB contract.

 

Getting into a fight is absolutely a "dangerous activity". Even if he hadn't hurt his hand punching the other guy, if he gets into a fight injuries could be inflicted upon him by the other person.

 

I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous.

[erik316wttn]

It's really not that uncommon for contracts to include clauses for off-field injuries. Thanks a lot, Jeff Kent.

 

aren't they typically more specific to "dangerous activities" like doing a wheelie on your motorcycle? I'd be shocked if you could really fit punching someone into any of the out clauses in a MLB contract.

 

Getting into a fight is absolutely a "dangerous activity". Even if he hadn't hurt his hand punching the other guy, if he gets into a fight injuries could be inflicted upon him by the other person.

 

I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous.

 

I was just responding in the way I interpreted your post. I thought you were not including fighting as a dangerous activity. It may not be specifically outlined in his contract, like you said. I get that. It's just a shame, is all I'm saying.

 

This may be arguing semantics, but you said out clauses were limited to "dangerous activities" and then you said it didn't matter if fighting was dangerous. If it was dangerous it would matter, because then it would fall under the "dangerous activities" clause or whatever. But, that's really neither here nor there. Like I said, semantics.

 

I just hate legal stuff where something "isn't specifically outlined" and therefore someone can get away with it. That's why you have "WARNING: DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" labels on hairdryers.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's really not that uncommon for contracts to include clauses for off-field injuries. Thanks a lot, Jeff Kent.

 

aren't they typically more specific to "dangerous activities" like doing a wheelie on your motorcycle? I'd be shocked if you could really fit punching someone into any of the out clauses in a MLB contract.

 

Getting into a fight is absolutely a "dangerous activity". Even if he hadn't hurt his hand punching the other guy, if he gets into a fight injuries could be inflicted upon him by the other person.

 

I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous.

 

I was just responding in the way I interpreted your post. I thought you were not including fighting as a dangerous activity. It may not be specifically outlined in his contract, like you said. I get that. It's just a shame, is all I'm saying.

 

This may be arguing semantics, but you said out clauses were limited to "dangerous activities" and then you said it didn't matter if fighting was dangerous. If it was dangerous it would matter, because then it would fall under the "dangerous activities" clause or whatever. But, that's really neither here nor there. Like I said, semantics.

 

I just hate legal stuff where something "isn't specifically outlined" and therefore someone can get away with it. That's why you have "WARNING: DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" labels on hairdryers.

 

No, this isn't that. It's absolutely nothing like that. Stupid warnings are there to try to protect companies from being sued by people who do stupid things (the old lady who burned her cootchie on hot McD's coffee situations). We need those things in part b/c people truly are stupid, but in large part b/c we live in a very litigious society with overly zealous attorneys and high costs to litigate, even if you "win."

 

This a contract b/t two parties which is probably damn near identical to the CBA negotiated by the owners and the player's union. I put "dangerous activities" in quotes b/c I think the language used in the triggers for the out clause in contracts is that or something very close to that. And I think the actions that are agreed between the parties to be sufficiently dangerous to trigger the team's right to void or revise the contract in some way are pretty clearly spelled out and don't include all things that might be considered dangerous by you, me, or even "reasonable" people. It's not semantics.

[Sammy Sofa]

Does nobody actually know the details of the McDonald's coffee suit? The woman received 3rd degree burns and initially wanted help paying her medical bills (suing McDonald's for $20k). Everyone talks about it like she was mildly burned and then started screaming for a bajillion dollars.

[Tracer Bullet]

Does nobody actually know the details of the McDonald's coffee suit? The woman received 3rd degree burns and initially wanted help paying her medical bills (suing McDonald's for $20k). Everyone talks about it like she was mildly burned and then started screaming for a bajillion dollars.

 

I read it in law school, so I actually do remember some of the facts. And I just looked it up again. I never suggested she wasn't burned badly, but the suit was ridiculous. Lots of companies served coffee at high temperatures and it's sort of ridiculous to think that spilling coffee isn't going to burn you. As I recall, this wasn't her first McD's coffee, so she sort of knew what she was getting but put the really hot coffee between her old and presumably not terribly stable knees anyway. The people at McDs who refused her initial request probably got fired b/c even though I think it was the right legal decision, it was a bad business decision (even if they would have "won" the suit, the cost would be more than $20k and the bad publicity only adds to the cost).

 

But really the point I was making was the labels issue. Does putting "Warning: Hot" on the outside of a cup of coffee really tell you anything that a reasonable person wouldn't already know? Except for the freaks that order hot coffee served at a particular temperature at Starbucks, when you order coffee (other than iced), you know you're getting a hot beverage. Yet, the printed warning helps insulate the company from lawsuits. That putting a warning about such an obvious risk on a package or product is not only helpful to a company, but often required means our society is ridiculous bordering on stupid.

[davearm2]

Frankly I think McDonalds should just completely cover their coffeecups with ridiculous warning labels:

 

WARNING: Do not pour this on your child

WARNING: Do not pour this on your cat

WARNING: Do not pour this in your gastank

WARNING: If spilled, the floor could become slippery

WARNING: Contents not suitable for washing dishes

 

etc. etc.

[erik316wttn]

 

I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous.

 

I was just responding in the way I interpreted your post. I thought you were not including fighting as a dangerous activity. It may not be specifically outlined in his contract, like you said. I get that. It's just a shame, is all I'm saying.

 

This may be arguing semantics, but you said out clauses were limited to "dangerous activities" and then you said it didn't matter if fighting was dangerous. If it was dangerous it would matter, because then it would fall under the "dangerous activities" clause or whatever. But, that's really neither here nor there. Like I said, semantics.

 

I just hate legal stuff where something "isn't specifically outlined" and therefore someone can get away with it. That's why you have "WARNING: DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" labels on hairdryers.

 

No, this isn't that. It's absolutely nothing like that. Stupid warnings are there to try to protect companies from being sued by people who do stupid things (the old lady who burned her cootchie on hot McD's coffee situations).

 

Sounds similar to me.

 

Stupid warning labels: There to prevent companies from paying people who do stupid things

 

"Out" clauses in contracts: There to prevent companies from continuing to pay people who do stupid things

 

All I'm saying is that it's a shame that the Mets will have to continue to pay K-Rod because of his stupidity. If there was justice they wouldn't have to.

[Sammy Sofa]

Does nobody actually know the details of the McDonald's coffee suit? The woman received 3rd degree burns and initially wanted help paying her medical bills (suing McDonald's for $20k). Everyone talks about it like she was mildly burned and then started screaming for a bajillion dollars.

 

I read it in law school, so I actually do remember some of the facts. And I just looked it up again. I never suggested she wasn't burned badly, but the suit was ridiculous. Lots of companies served coffee at high temperatures and it's sort of ridiculous to think that spilling coffee isn't going to burn you. As I recall, this wasn't her first McD's coffee, so she sort of knew what she was getting but put the really hot coffee between her old and presumably not terribly stable knees anyway. The people at McDs who refused her initial request probably got fired b/c even though I think it was the right legal decision, it was a bad business decision (even if they would have "won" the suit, the cost would be more than $20k and the bad publicity only adds to the cost).

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just naive but it seems like there's a difference between serving coffee that's satisfyingly hot for most customers and so hot that if spilled on someone it requires skin grafts. I just think it's ridiculous that it's become the poster child for frivolous lawsuits where people are suing for millions of dollars when she sued a company for $20k to cover around $11k in medical costs.

[champaignchris]

Does nobody actually know the details of the McDonald's coffee suit? The woman received 3rd degree burns and initially wanted help paying her medical bills (suing McDonald's for $20k). Everyone talks about it like she was mildly burned and then started screaming for a bajillion dollars.

 

Yup.

[Sammy Sofa]

Does nobody actually know the details of the McDonald's coffee suit? The woman received 3rd degree burns and initially wanted help paying her medical bills (suing McDonald's for $20k). Everyone talks about it like she was mildly burned and then started screaming for a bajillion dollars.

 

Yup.

 

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 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 consultants 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.

 

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics 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 Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

 

Ah-booooooooooooo, McD's. Go, old lady.

[Tracer Bullet]

Does nobody actually know the details of the McDonald's coffee suit? The woman received 3rd degree burns and initially wanted help paying her medical bills (suing McDonald's for $20k). Everyone talks about it like she was mildly burned and then started screaming for a bajillion dollars.

 

I read it in law school, so I actually do remember some of the facts. And I just looked it up again. I never suggested she wasn't burned badly, but the suit was ridiculous. Lots of companies served coffee at high temperatures and it's sort of ridiculous to think that spilling coffee isn't going to burn you. As I recall, this wasn't her first McD's coffee, so she sort of knew what she was getting but put the really hot coffee between her old and presumably not terribly stable knees anyway. The people at McDs who refused her initial request probably got fired b/c even though I think it was the right legal decision, it was a bad business decision (even if they would have "won" the suit, the cost would be more than $20k and the bad publicity only adds to the cost).

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just naive but it seems like there's a difference between serving coffee that's satisfyingly hot for most customers and so hot that if spilled on someone it requires skin grafts. I just think it's ridiculous that it's become the poster child for frivolous lawsuits where people are suing for millions of dollars when she sued a company for $20k to cover around $11k in medical costs.

 

Saying she sued for $20,000 is a little misleading, given that she sought punitive damages and the jury insanely awarded over $2.5m.

 

As for the temp of the coffee - the fact that McDs coffee at the time was, I think, the highest selling coffee and that several other leaders served coffee at or near those temperatures suggests it's not an unreasonable temp for customers. But again, my point was that the result is putting "hot" on the outside of the cup.

[javy knows my name]

IIRC, McDonald's had been legally warned about their excessively hot coffee prior to that incident and did nothing about it. It was the main reason why the case was heard at all, I think.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm not sure what you mean, but they had received several complaints and even settled other claims based on the temperature of the coffee. But that happens with tons of products that remain unchanged after the claims.

[sneakypower]

To be fair to Denny, it was dark when he asked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strike_(Seinfeld)

"The Strike" is the 166th episode of the NBC sitcom Seinfeld. This was the tenth episode of the 9th and final season. It aired on December 18, 1997. This episode is notable for popularizing the concept of a "two-face": someone who looks attractive sometimes and looks bad at other times, depending on exterior conditions, such as lighting. It also explained why Kramer never held a job throughout the show. Most notably, however, this episode also popularized the holiday of Festivus.

move over, nccubfan

[shnsajax]

So Krod was held in criminal contempt today for sending text messages to hid girlfriend after he had been ordered to have zero communication with her. Nice job dumbass!

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5603551

[erik316wttn]

He's a real winner!

[CUBZ99]

IIRC, McDonald's had been legally warned about their excessively hot coffee prior to that incident and did nothing about it. It was the main reason why the case was heard at all, I think.

 

It was worse than that. McDonald's own scientist wrote a memo stating that it wasn't safe and that any spill could/would result in severe burns. They went the extra step and studied how much they would have to pay out in lawsuits and compared the amount to how much they would save brewing their coffee at insanely hot temps.

 

Not surprisingly, the amount of puni's that the jury awarded was exact to the dollar, the amount that McDonald's themselves figured they would save. They played with fire (in this case hot coffee) and got burnt. Contrary to all of the garbage that gets thrown around in the media and by people that are uniformed, the jury just didn't pull a million dollar figure out of the air.

[TruffleShuffle]

we had a long thread about the mcdonald's coffee lawsuit: http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=15&t=40894

[Tracer Bullet]

we had a long thread about the mcdonald's coffee lawsuit: http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/topic?f=15&t=40894

 

I don't know how I missed the old thread.

 

I do remember that part of the story from law school was that consumer surveys showed that customers preferred McD's coffee b/c it was so hot. Maybe b/c it would stay hot until they got to where they were driving? anyway, it's an interesting case.