That said, these ambulance-chasing bastards should be sued for mis-represtation of a "child endangerment" or "lack of common sense" plaintiff, who failed to exercise due diligence and protection of their child in a hostile environment.
Lawyers become Judges, and Judges entertain the pursuit of DEEP POCKETS (litigation lotto) by these bastards, who only sue the State because the TAXPAYER ends up being fleeced. Without Tort Reform for obvious lack of common sense dismissals, we would not be in the financial messes that we have today, nor would every tool have 14 saftety warning stickers on them, nor would you have cold coffee served at McDonald's....where the consumer pays to cover settled "litigation", which would more correctly be called EXTORTION for stupidity.
With Jury Consultants packing the Jury Box with those who think that some day it will be THEIR turn to cash in, or "the insurance company can afford it", we have a waste of time and money in the Billions of dollars going on.
Too many people today think it is the government's (local/state/fed) responsibility or obligation to protect them from their own stupidity. The constitution guarantees you the right to pursue happiness, not find. And, inherit in that pursuit, is the implicit idea that you can make your own decision, and enjoy the fruits or consequences of those decisions.
Too many people want all the upside of their decisions, and none of the downside. They made a choice to go into the forest. That choice had some risk. They want someone else to compensate them for their decision. That's the problem.
“If there wasn’t an attack the night before, we wouldn’t be here arguing it,” said Ives’s biological father Kevan Francis.
The family claims that there were two chances for the state to warn them of the bear danger. The first was when they went through the gate to get to the campground. The second chance was a little more eerie.
“The family passed a Division of Wildlife Resources truck, [that] apparently was the one looking for the bear. They waved at them,”
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/260604/
Normally, a case where a random bear attack resulted in a suit should be dismissed. But here the State knew something the family didn't; there was a greater than normal danger, and in fact the rangers saw the people and could have warned them, and didn't. That makes it different.
Coincidentally, the McDonalds case you refer to contained similar elements. Sure, everyone knows coffee is hot. But only McDonalds knew that after brewing, they super heated the coffee to near-boiling. More importantly, only McDonalds knew that their super hot coffee had resulted in over 70 severe burns already.
If it makes you feel any better, this wasn't a case of someone simply getting hot coffee in their lap. The old lady literally had part of her girly bits burned off. Her pantyhose also melted into her legs, requiring numerous skin grafts. And in the end, they ended up settling for about what her medical bills were.
So there may or not be enough evidence to conclude that the state had a duty and failed to perform. that is to be decided in a court of law.
And I don't know what McDonalds you get your coffee at, but when I get it there I have to let it sit a long time before I can drink it.