Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:
** Defied with "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV9ppvY8Nx4 The Shotgun Booby Trap (The Case Of)]]". The case seems pretty frivolous at first: it's a burglar suing the people he robbed. But it comes to light that Edward Briney, one of the homeowners, had mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun (aimed downward so as to shoot an intruder's legs, rather than cause a mortal injury) in the farmhouse and rigged it to fire when the north bedroom door was opened -- and all of this was done in an ''unoccupied'' house, so there wasn't even a potential justification of the homeowners being in danger as they lived elsewhere. A month later, on July 16, 1967, Marvin Katko entered the farmhouse with the intent of robbing the place. When Katko tripped the trigger mechanism, the shotgun fired into his legs at point-blank range. The gunshot wounds required hospitalization, and Katko sued the Brineys after his release from the hospital for his injuries. The case went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, who ruled in Katko's favor. The court said that while the Brineys would have had the right to defend themselves had they been there, using a shotgun booby trap to maim or kill an intruder was unreasonable force, and they had to pay for Katko's injuries.
to:
** Defied with "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV9ppvY8Nx4 The Shotgun Booby Trap (The Case Of)]]". The case seems pretty frivolous at first: it's a burglar suing the people he robbed. But it comes to light that Edward Briney, one of the homeowners, had mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun (aimed downward so as to shoot an intruder's legs, rather than cause a mortal injury) in the farmhouse and rigged it to fire when the north bedroom door was opened -- and all of this was done in an ''unoccupied'' house, so there wasn't even a potential justification of the homeowners it being in danger as they lived elsewhere.for the purpose of protecting people rather than property. A month later, on July 16, 1967, Marvin Katko entered the farmhouse with the intent of robbing the place. When Katko tripped the trigger mechanism, the shotgun fired into his legs at point-blank range. The gunshot wounds required hospitalization, and Katko sued the Brineys after his release from the hospital for his injuries. The case went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, who ruled in Katko's favor. The court said that while the Brineys would have had the right to defend themselves had they been there, using a shotgun booby trap to maim or kill an intruder was unreasonable force, and they had to pay for Katko's injuries.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* {{Crossover}}: He did a 2-part crossover "Lawyer & Doctor React to Series/GreysAnatomy Malpractice" with [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4stVVsKVRA Dr. Mike]] to dissect the episode "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word", examining the accuracy of the medical procedure ([[ArtisticLicenseMedicine or lack thereof]]) and the accuracy of the resulting malpractice lawsuit ([[ArtisticLicenseLaw or lack thereof]]). The pair later did another two-parter on the first episode of ''Series/LawAndOrder'' (which they agreed was somewhat more accurate).
to:
* {{Crossover}}: He did a 2-part crossover "Lawyer & Doctor React to Series/GreysAnatomy Malpractice" with [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4stVVsKVRA Dr. Mike]] to dissect the episode "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word", examining the accuracy of the medical procedure ([[ArtisticLicenseMedicine or lack thereof]]) and the accuracy of the resulting malpractice lawsuit ([[ArtisticLicenseLaw or lack thereof]]). The pair later did another two-parter on the first episode of ''Series/LawAndOrder'' (which they agreed was somewhat more accurate).imperfect but reasonably accurate on both legal and medical matters).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* {{Crossover}}: He did a 2-part crossover "Lawyer & Doctor React to Series/GreysAnatomy Malpractice" with [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4stVVsKVRA Dr. Mike]] to dissect the episode "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word", examining the accuracy of the medical procedure ([[ArtisticLicenseMedicine or lack thereof]]) and the accuracy of the resulting malpractice lawsuit ([[ArtisticLicenseLaw or lack thereof]]). The pair later did another two-parter on the first episode of ''Series/LawAndOrder''.
to:
* {{Crossover}}: He did a 2-part crossover "Lawyer & Doctor React to Series/GreysAnatomy Malpractice" with [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4stVVsKVRA Dr. Mike]] to dissect the episode "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word", examining the accuracy of the medical procedure ([[ArtisticLicenseMedicine or lack thereof]]) and the accuracy of the resulting malpractice lawsuit ([[ArtisticLicenseLaw or lack thereof]]). The pair later did another two-parter on the first episode of ''Series/LawAndOrder''.''Series/LawAndOrder'' (which they agreed was somewhat more accurate).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 106 (click to see context) from:
* SharpDressedMan: Lawyers abide by a pretty strict dress code, so it's no surprise Devin never presents a video without a suit and tie and has discussed the importance of being properly dressed in court on occasion. Even his more dressed-down appearances have him in a crisp polo shirt and khakis at minimum. He has had a few clothing companies as sponsors.
to:
* SharpDressedMan: Lawyers abide by a pretty strict dress code, so it's no surprise Devin never presents a video without a suit and tie and has discussed the importance of being properly dressed in court on occasion. Even his more dressed-down appearances have him in a crisp well-fitted polo shirt and khakis at minimum. He has had a few clothing companies as sponsors.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 106 (click to see context) from:
* SharpDressedMan: Lawyers abide by a pretty strict dress code, so it's no surprise Devin never presents a video without a suit and tie and has discussed the importance of being properly dressed in court on occasion. His videos are sometimes sponsored by clothiers, even.
to:
* SharpDressedMan: Lawyers abide by a pretty strict dress code, so it's no surprise Devin never presents a video without a suit and tie and has discussed the importance of being properly dressed in court on occasion. His videos are sometimes sponsored by clothiers, even.Even his more dressed-down appearances have him in a crisp polo shirt and khakis at minimum. He has had a few clothing companies as sponsors.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
** Inverted in another video where he discusses "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg Lawsuits That Actually Weren't Ridiculous]]" -- lawsuits that are often cited as "frivolous," but actually had a solid legal basis. One of these is the famous "[=McDonald's=] hot coffee case," in which a woman accidentally dropped a cup of [=McDonald's=] coffee in her lap, suffering horrific third-degree burns. She sued [=McDonald's=] for making their coffee too hot, and it was eventually found that [=McDonald's=] served their coffee much hotter than their competition, to the point it wasn't fit for human consumption at the temperature it was ordinarily served at. So her lawsuit against [=McDonald's=] was perfectly valid.
to:
** Inverted in another video where he discusses "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg Lawsuits That Actually Weren't Ridiculous]]" -- lawsuits that are often cited as "frivolous," but actually had a solid legal basis. One of these is the famous "[=McDonald's=] hot coffee case," in which a woman accidentally dropped a cup of [=McDonald's=] coffee in her lap, suffering lap: she suffered horrific third-degree burns. She sued [=McDonald's=] for making their coffee too hot, burns (the severity of her injuries is often glossed over by those who try to paint the case as frivolous), she originally just wanted her medical bills paid, and it was eventually found that [=McDonald's=] served their coffee much hotter than their competition, to the point it wasn't fit for human consumption at the temperature it was ordinarily served at.at, and that ''they knew it was dangerous'' (having received numerous prior reports of people being burned by their coffee) but kept doing it anyway. So her lawsuit against [=McDonald's=] was perfectly valid.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
* DumbassHasAPoint: Discussed in the ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'' episode. Lionel Hutz asking the ''Itchy and Scratchy'' owners for a copy of ''Manhattan Mouse'' -- the basis of his argument -- sounds like him expecting help from his opponents, but has legal basis: if the latter do have a copy of the 1919 film, they are legally obligated to provide that evidence under the rules of civil discovery.
to:
* DumbassHasAPoint: Discussed in the ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'' episode.episode "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS7E18TheDayTheViolenceDied The Day The Violence Died]]". Lionel Hutz asking the ''Itchy and Scratchy'' owners for a copy of ''Manhattan Mouse'' -- the basis of his argument -- sounds like him expecting help from his opponents, but has legal basis: if the latter do have a copy of the 1919 film, they are legally obligated to provide that evidence under the rules of civil discovery.
