Dpingr1
Established
I love the depiction of the hipster street photographer in the second cartoon. Still relevant, too.
Well sort of -- but more than a few years ago (1992), but Stella Liebeck's burns were severe requiring skin grafts.
Never underestimate the nefariousness of an American lawyer, and the stupidity of the jury. In Pennsylvania a teaching hospital lost a medical liability case. The plaintiff was a self proclaimed "psychic" who claimed that she lost her ability to predict the future after the hospital did a CT scan of her head while investigating her headaches.
For her loss of future revenue, she won several million dollars in damages.
That is a most perplexing case and verdict. It would be interesting to read the case proceedings, see the evidence presented, the medical reason for the CT scan, etc.... Wow.
I am sure that warning has to do with looking through your wide angle viewfinder while walking around to find the perfect composition.
Objects are closer than they appear!
PS ask me how I know this.
In the US you don't have to win the lawsuit. Lawyers can file lawsuits and the plaintiff has to spend a fortune to hire lawyers to fight it. At some point the plaintiff just pays to settle the lawsuit. More like blackmail. The disclaimers are like some medieval talisman to ward off evil spirits. They do about as much good also.
But then you have people that believe all kinds of nonsense. For example everything, and I mean everything, is known to cause cancer in the state of California. So don't ever go to California or you'll get cancer for sure.
Yep - and the photos out there online make most squirm. That's one of the cases I teach my students. Despite her wounds and treatment all she was (basically) asking for was her medical costs. It would have been much cheaper to pay them but that would have meant admitting liability.