Presume not on thy heart when mine’s coerced; Thou gav’st me thine, but then we got divorced

I have an inkling why she left him in the first place. “[she] handed me divorce papers as I was going into surgery trying to save another person’s life.” Yes, that’s what you do when they’re being a dick about it. Catch them when they can’t run away from getting served.

If one buys a trophy wife, he should expect a similar level of shallowness.

“Your Honor, I was not harassing my ex-husband. I couldn’t return the kidney, so I did the next best that and put all that it produced through his mail slot with a funnel.”

That MH wasn’t me, but oh how I wish it were.

Another wacky ambit claim coming out of the US legal system. The problem is that some of them are successful, hence the warning on McDonalds coffee cups about the blindly obvious fact that coffee is hot.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand that it is not legal in the States to sell organs. Therefore, no value can be put on the kidney in question.

Can the kidney be re implanted in the husband?

the report does not have enough information to form a real view, but indications are that the guy is a prat. Why was it necessary to serve him on a trolley, Probably because he was avoiding being served. Serve him right.

He is giving another organ. Does he want to control their life as well? I don’t believe he has any legal right to do so. So why is trying to do so with his wife?

Purple Onion: there is no indication that she is a trophy wife. They have been married for 18 years, so that would lead me to assume otherwise. Besides, what relevance does that have?

Maybe not nice, but he could perhaps refrain from being mind-bogglingly stupid. Honestly, what exactly does his he think a judge is going to say to this?

“Yes, that’s what you do when they’re being a dick about it. Catch them when they can’t run away from getting served.”

It’s also what you do when YOU are being a dick about it. Catch them at the moment when you can twist the knife hardest. SOP, really, to put the man off balance for the rest of the proceedings. Can we at least admit as a theoretical proposition that it’s possible the woman is the obnoxious one here? This gender stereotyping, (It’s a divorce, the man must be the cad.) gets a bit tired after a while.

I really doubt he expects to get $1.5 million. Perhaps this was his way of reminding the judge that she’s already gotten something extremely valuable from him, and it ought to be taken into account when she’s trying to separate him from everything else of value he might chance to have.

the warning on McDonalds coffee cups about the blindly obvious fact that coffee is hot

Ah, yes–the “McDonalds coffee” myth rears its ugly head again. Do you think it’s blindingly obvious that coffee is so hot that if you spill it on you it will cause third-degree burns requiring skin grafts? What would have happened to the poor woman if, instead of spilling it on herself, she gulped it down?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

#8: I was just thinking that surely the judgement ought to award him the kidney back, but with punitive costs for any blood (not part of the settlement, presumably) which he spilled.

Certainly the cleverest subject line of 2009. (I guess “Presume not on thy kidney” wouldn’t scan, but the contrast with the original (“Thou gavest me thine, not to give back again”) is perfect.

Mr T. 01.08.09 at 6:04 am

“Another wacky ambit claim coming out of the US legal system. The problem is that some of them are successful, hence the warning on McDonalds coffee cups about the blindly obvious fact that coffee is hot.”

You might want to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

the report does not have enough information to form a real view, but indications are that the guy is a prat. Why was it necessary to serve him on a trolley, Probably because he was avoiding being served

He’s a doctor: probably when he said he was served “as he was going into surgery” he meant “in order to perform an operation”.

24: I wasn’t trying to make a point: just correcting the poster at 9, who seemed to be under the impression that he was served “on a trolley”, ie that he was going into surgery as a patient rather than as a surgeon.

personally, i feel for the wife’s lover.

i mean, having it off when her husband is there in the room with you?

okay–only part of her husband. but in very close proximity!

dsquared, Kieran Healy; it doesn’t mention the important detail that donated kidney goes into the pelvis, not into the normal position of a non-donated kidney, roughly thoracic spinal segment level 12, which is a hellish position were one to operate.

31: I found that out in conversation with my sister, a transplant surgeon, and found it surprisingly unsettling. Having someone else’s kidney transplanted into your body is one thing — having it transplanted into a significantly different location in your body than where your old kidney was, on the other hand, is really disturbing, at least to me.

I think is original intent was to point out how badly wronged he was. Being cheated on and thrown aside by a wife of many years is pretty harsh stuff, and when you take into account that just a year or two prior to that, he had risked his life and probably shortened his life expectancy in order to give her a hunk of his body, its pretty vile. She should have been very kind to him and not asked for much in the divorce, considering all that she has already done.

I make a point of never performing surgery from inside someones’s pelvis . . .

Yeah, if you’re even partially inside someone’s pelvis, it’s probably more of a social occasion.

There’s at least a prima facie case the guys been done a serious criminal harm.

Where’s the criminal harm?

I gather certain partners have defaulted.
Allegedly the organs acting for them
Vanished when they decided to withdraw them.
Loopholes were found: something that must be halted.

Recourse to law would seem the only way
To get those organs duly confiscated.
Perhaps each partner then can be persuaded

To check again on what the contracts say.
If they won’t do so, someone’s sure to send
The bailiffs in — a most unhappy end.

His attorney dominic barbara used to be on the howard stern show all the time.

do you see why i sympathized with the lover? even closer proximity than iÂ’d thought!
“is that your husband there in your pelvis? oh; only part of him?”
the whole thing is unsettling.

Additonally, think of the possibilty of gender confusion issues arising. I mean it’s almost as if she has her ex-husband’s penis too.

Gee, you think? The point was that McDonald’s deliberately served their coffee at a temperature where a spill would very likely result in serious injury, despite a large number of reports of such injuries. It’s odd, because I was able to discern that. Also, not in the article, but something that I heard was that the attorney for McDonald’s described the hundreds of burns as ‘statistically insiginificant’. Not a good thing to say in front of a jury.

In the end, that case is an excellent example of right-wingers being able to spin things.

The point was that McDonald’s deliberately served their coffee at a temperature where a spill would very likely result in serious injury, despite a large number of reports of such injuries. It’s odd, because I was able to discern that.

True. And they’ve changed practices, we should observe. Does anyone else remember those days when McDonald’s coffee was so hot you couldn’t drink it for a good fifteen minutes, leaving it cap-open to cool? Maybe it was different by location, but whew, I remember that. My mother and I used to go for coffee (it was the only cheap-coffee-serving location within walking distance), and we’d have to leave the caps off for half our time there. I’d put ice in it. I also remember remarking to someone, upon news of the lawsuit, “hey, maybe they’ll stop serving their coffee at a temperature hot enough to melt aluminum.” They just nodded: it seemed like a perfectly sensible statement.

I’ve spilled coffee on my lap, fresh from the pot at home, without serious injury to anything but my khakis and ego. I’ve spilled coffee on my hand at Starbucks, and just wiped it off with a napkin, no severe harm done, just mild discomfort. McDonald’s coffee at the McDonald’s closest to my house (in high school) was unusually, ungodly hot, and I doubt that location was unique in this respect.

I suspect the degree of sarcastic vitriol that gets thrown around when the lawsuit comes up is actually due to our very loose working definition of “hot” (and I suspect the vitriol comes mostly from people who don’t drink coffee). Coffee is served hot. But molten lead is also hot. Coffee can be served reasonably or unreasonably hot, and in the latter case, frankly it’s only ethical to offer your customers some fair warning!