If any of you are Realtors, you may have already seen this, (I copied it from ActiveRain.com)

----------------------------

An Ohio appellate court has considered whether a prospective buyer could recover compensation from a buyer’s representative for injuries suffered by the prospective buyer during her unaccompanied tour of a home under construction.

Patricia Al-Sorghali (“Prospective Buyer’) contacted real estate salesperson Terry Golden (“Salesperson”) of Modene & Associates (“Brokerage”) about her interest in an unfinished home. The Salesperson contacted the listing broker about the home’s availability, and she told the Prospective Buyer she was not certain whether there was an open house scheduled that day but that the Prospective Buyer could take a look at the home by entering through the unlocked garage.

Three weeks later, the Prospective Buyer was driving by the unfinished home and decided to take a look. She did not contact the Salesperson or the listing broker prior to the visit. When she arrived at the property, she spoke to William Rogers (“Rogers”) of Bayview Enterprises of Oregon, Ltd. (“Builder”) about whether she was at the correct address. Rogers told her she was at the correct address, and invited her to enter the house. He told her the entry stairs had not been built yet, and so the workmen were using an upside-down bucket to enter the home. Rogers helped her enter the home using the bucket, and then he went back to work on the home. The Prospective Buyer tried to exit the home using the bucket without Rogers’s assistance and she fell off the bucket, sustaining injuries.

The Prospective Buyer filed a lawsuit against the Brokerage, the Builder, and Rogers, alleging negligence and seeking compensation for her injuries. The Prospective Buyer claimed that the parties had failed to provide her with a safe exit from the home. The trial court found in favor of the defendants, ruling that an upside-down bucket constituted an “open and obvious” danger and so there was no duty to warn the Prospective Buyer about the danger posed by using a bucket as a stair. The Prospective Buyer appealed.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, affirmed the trial court. Ohio law does not require an owner or occupier of land to warn invitees to the property about dangers which are “open and obvious” because a reasonable person should be expected to discover the possibly dangerous situation and take appropriate action. The Prospective Buyer argued that she had no other route except using the bucket to exit the home and so the “open and obvious” doctrine did not apply.

The court rejected this argument, as the Prospective Buyer had testified that she could have stepped down to the ground but did not want to get her clothes dirty. She also testified that she had decided to use the bucket because she was in a hurry to leave and did not expect it to be difficult since she had used it to enter the house. She also testified that Rogers had warned her about the bucket before entering the home. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the Prospective Buyer’s claims.

Sorghali v. Modene & Assoc., No. L-06-1156, 2006 WL 2709267 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2006).
------------------------------------

For me, the moral of the story is "Don't let your buyers view a property unaccompanied!" However I think the court is correct. I wish the woman who sued McDonald's for serving Hot coffee without a warning had gone in front of the same court. :rolleyes:

That's a perfect snapshot of how the the American justice system is supposed to work...20 years ago. :rolleyes:

I'm surprised to see common sense win the day. I'd expect a million dollar settlement for the 'victim' & the passage of 'Patty's Law', also known as the 'No Bucket Left Unturned' bill.

Nice to see common sense win once in a while.
But the question I have is, if she had been told to go through the unlocked garage before, then why didn't she use the garage to exit? I know:
lack of common sense!

Stupid b****. I hope someone outbid her on the home too. and the home after that, and the home after that.

If you had known the real facts about the McDonald's case, you probably wouldn't have said that. Don't believe everything the media tells you.

True.

The courts in this country are far from perfect, and in fact sanction a lot of stupid shit, but people who constantly bring up "the McDonalds case" need to read up a bit about the case. The media very frequently distorts both criminal and civil rulings. Sometimes it's an intentional ploy to generate interest, but I'm sure sometimes it's totally innocent (ie, the dolt writing the story who studied long and hard to earn his communications degree *gasp* doesn't know shit about the law).

Ditto....

As of this year we have put a new clause in our contracts due to a lawsuit last year:

Buyer bought a house in the Colorado Mountains and soon after moving in she saw a Black Bear on her deck. She sued the broker for not informing her in writing (because he did tell her verbally not to leave trash out due to Bears) that there are wild animals in the area. Now here is the kicker SHE WON!?!?! Because there was no written proof!!

Thank god it was not our company or anyone I know but who in thier right mind buys a home in the Rocky Mountains assuming there are no wild animals around.

So now every contract we write (Vacant Land, Cabin, Home, Ranch) has this lame clause about wild animals common in the Rocky Mountain Region in Colorado are in and around the area the buyer is purchasing property.

Please post your real facts.
She spilled coffee on herself, it was her fault.

All you need is google and 5 minutes of your time. The cliff notes version: unnecessarily hot coffee (something like 50 degrees hotter than typical), literally hundreds of previous injuries (ie, actual knowledge that it was a problem), very significant 3rd degree burns (including the lady's pussy, to put it bluntly - 8 days in the hospital), company refusal to simply pay medical expenses which was all that was initially sought, and a jury finding that the plaintiff was only 20 or 25% at fault for the spill (presumably due to cup/lid design, etc).

Plus everybody bitches about the outlandish jury verdict, but forgets that it was severely curtailed by the judge and that the parties eventually settled for some undisclosed amount that was certainly far less than the initial award.

Simple stuff, just remember that the media's reporting of most cases is piss-poor.

Anyone who sticks a cup of anything between their legs that is scalding hot and attempts to peel the lid that is meant to hold on extremely tight is an idiot!!!!!!!! Fuck that lady in New Mexico, and all the stupid lawsuits she brought on

No way dude. She was pretty old to begin with, and with those third degree burns the lips would just peel right off.

Even I'm grossed out now.

Yeah she was 70 something... and one of two things.

1. So she should have known better with her age.
2. Her son (in the drivers seat) should have known she was to old to do it herself for some reason, and should have kept the god damn coffee away from her.

"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."

I guess Mickey D's should have settled.

Does anybody here understand how ludicrous 190 deg fahrenheit is? Poor lady. I think my coffee pot is lucky if it makes 130.

get the $(%($*&%*(&%b outta here, Alpine! Are you freaking kidding me? That's what happens when city dorks think mountain living's cute!

Hope noone bothered to pull her dumb ass out the the snow in her beemer either. That's the kind of person I hate to see move here. First they want street lights, then paved roads. Suddenly the outhouse insn't good enough anymore. Bet after this winter she's gone.
P.S. If you had a wildlife clause in my contract and I didn't see any could I also sue? HOLY CRAP!!

Ahh...the "Property Bear Disclosure Statement" Ha!!!

Our disclosures here in AZ include scorpions.

Unfortunately, at my new house last summer...all hell broke loose (with the Mrs, that is). We have two young kids, one crawling at the time, we found at least one Bark Scorpion per week (almost all of them around the bedrooms). ...and I don't mean barking like a dog - these are the deadly ones... I had to have the house sealed inside and out (and we haven't had any inside since.

A giant tarantula at my front door (that white foam is from the scorpion sealing):
http://www.scottsdale-properties.com/misc/DSCF1981.JPG

Click and scroll down:
http://www.scottsdale-properties.com/misc/DSCF1860.JPG

Self explanatory - I even had one of these crawl right by my face as I was under my Armada in the driveway. Fortunately the b*stard was carrying a cricket in it's face:

Scorpions I can understand but CO Mountains and Bears... DUh. That is like moving to a nice warm beach front property and assuming there are no Jellyfish and/or sharks in the water.

Yep Doug it happened.