Sad but...come on....really?

[5O4U2NV]

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/fashion-editor-walks-into-propeller-survives-parents-discuss-27507162.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fnews-26797925%252Ffashion-editor-walks-into-propeller-survives-parents-discuss-27507162.html

[5O4U2NV]

Sorry , link to video not story. May need to be moved

[Maliwgn]

Just watched the video. That pilot probably shoudnt have let her out until the prop stopped spinning.

[jp67stang]

Just watched the video. That pilot probably shoudnt have let her out until the prop stopped spinning.

She probably shouldn't of walked into the prop also.

[KickAssFlash]

Pilot lawsuit time.

[Fernanernie]

She probably shouldn't of walked into the prop also.

Just goes to show how smart fashion editors are

[Gipper]

Pilot lawsuit time.

Yeah sue the pilot..... It certainly couldn't have been her fault. I mean, why would she have any reason to believe that walking into a spinning prop would cause severe injury? It's obviously the pilot's fault for not warning her of the obvious.

[KickAssFlash]

Yeah sue the pilot..... It certainly couldn't have been her fault. I mean, why would she have any reason to believe that walking into a spinning prop would cause severe injury? It's obviously the pilot's fault for not warning her of the obvious.

That all depends. If the blade was moving fast enough that someone could not see the reach of the sweep, if the person walking around the plane was not experienced with planes, if the operator warned her that the plane was still on, etc. Context is everything and remember the magic formula: Duty, Breach, Cause, Pecuniary Damage.

[Brownman]

Its only on the news because she is hot or has money or both.

[Gipper]

That all depends. If the blade was moving fast enough that someone could not see the reach of the sweep, if the person walking around the plane was not experienced with planes, if the operator warned her that the plane was still on, etc. Context is everything and remember the magic formula: Duty, Breach, Cause, Pecuniary Damage.

Typical lawyer talk.

I highly doubt the prop was spinning fast enough for it to be invisible..... considering the plane was sitting stationary. (or close to it) And I guarantee if the prop was spinning at any speed, it was loud enough to be heard. This type of deal reminds me of the dumb ass who got burned by hot coffee at McDonald's. Needing to be told that hot coffee could cause burns, is just as stupid as needing to be warned that a spinning prop could cause injury. Why does it ALWAYS have to be someone else's fault? Can't it ever just be that someone had an honest accident? In this case, she fucked up.... she walked where she shouldn't have. It's a sad deal for sure but I don't see it as being the pilots fault. Shit happens you know....

[KrisR]

I could give her a hand.

[KickAssFlash]

Typical lawyer talk.

I highly doubt the prop was spinning fast enough for it to be invisible..... considering the plane was sitting stationary. (or close to it) And I guarantee if the prop was spinning at any speed, it was loud enough to be heard. This type of deal reminds me of the dumb ass who got burned by hot coffee at McDonald's. Needing to be told that hot coffee could cause burns, is just as stupid as needing to be warned that a spinning prop could cause injury. Why does it ALWAYS have to be someone else's fault? Can't it ever just be that someone had an honest accident? In this case, she fucked up.... she walked where she shouldn't have. It's a sad deal for sure but I don't see it as being the pilots fault. Shit happens you know....

Hey, I'm a personal responsibility guy as well. But you need to recognize there are cases where someone has an affirmative duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to other people. Trust me, your perspective will change when it's your relative that gets mutilated. That Liebeck v. McDonalds case is the perfect example. Sounds like B.S. obviously. Until you consider the facts of that case:

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

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.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.

[NOTNSS]

Her future modeling career is up in the air, even with plastic surgery she'll probably look really plane now

[Darkness]

Her future modeling career is up in the air, even with plastic surgery she'll probably look really plane now

Sad. But if an adult does not know to stay away from the front of a plane while it is running, they should be wearing a helmet and have constant supervision.

[Maliwgn]

If it was a simple prop plane, the prop wouldnt spin that long after he shut the engine down. Still could have been avoided if he waited to let her out until everything was shut down