Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Couldn;t Ask For a Better Example of the Abandonment of Personal Responsabillity

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;4004353]I remember that lawsuit. Did the woman actually win?

    Ridiculous.....[/QUOTE]

    i believe McDonalds lost $3mill in the original verdict but ended up settling for $500K...

  2. #22
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,965
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4004317][IMG]http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/demotivational-posters-dennys-maple-bacon-sundae.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Didnt they find a couple of those next to Elvis when he died on the sh*tter?


    Rings a bell.

    :dunno:

  3. #23
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Actually the orignal hot coffee lawsuit was not as frivolous as people may think.

    Highlights:

    The victim suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of medical treatment followed.

    She sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. They offered $800.

    McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

    McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.
    Last edited by FF2; 04-19-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=FF2;4004705]Actually the orignal hot coffee lawsuit was not as frivolous as people may think.

    Highlights:

    The victim suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of medical treatment followed.

    She sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. They offered $800.

    McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

    McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.[/QUOTE]

    Another libtard strawman... :rolleyes: Oh wait, you actually provided some facts. This is awkward.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=FF2;4004705]Actually the orignal hot coffee lawsuit was not as frivolous as people may think.

    Highlights:

    The victim suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of medical treatment followed.

    She sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. They offered $800.

    McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

    McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.[/QUOTE]

    so somehow this makes lawsuits of people spilling hot coffee on themselves not frivolous??? you do realize its often cheaper to settle then pay lawyers fees for settlements- so sadly companies/municipalities/cities settle....

    why not sue folgers or chock full of nuts??? can i sue mr coffee if i brew it at home then spill it on myself???

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4004749]Another libtard strawman... :rolleyes: Oh wait, you actually provided some facts. This is awkward.[/QUOTE]

    lol- what facts???

  7. #27
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004755]so somehow this makes lawsuits of people spilling hot coffee on themselves not frivolous??? you do realize its often cheaper to settle then pay lawyers fees for settlements- so sadly companies/municipalities/cities settle....

    why not sue folgers or chock full of nuts??? can i sue mr coffee if i brew it at home then spill it on myself???[/QUOTE]

    I was merely stating that the original case is not as black and white as it has a reputation for being. Alot of lawsuits can sound silly until actually you read all the facts.

    IMO there are many more cases which deserve the "frivolous" label.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=FF2;4004780]I was merely stating that the original case is not as black and white as it has a reputation for being. Alot of lawsuits can sound silly until actually you read all the facts.

    IMO there are many more cases which deserve the "frivolous" label.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants[/url]

    so a 79YO woman puts a cup of hot coffee between her legs then spills it on herself when she pulls the lid off which results in burns- and its mcdonalds fault....given the facts i could understand why LLI would think this is not a frivilous case....how awkward...:rolleyes:

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=quantum;4004390]Know what's really stupid?


    [SIZE="5"][B]YOU CAN BUY THE TOYS WITHOUT BUYING THE MEAL![/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

    But can you buy the meal without the toys? ;)

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=FF2;4004705]Actually the orignal hot coffee lawsuit was not as frivolous as people may think.

    Highlights:

    The victim suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of medical treatment followed.

    She sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. They offered $800.

    McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

    McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.[/QUOTE]

    I don't get how the fact that someone burned themselves on "Hot Coffee" when they took the lid off in their car and put the coffee in their lap to add Milk and Sugar is McDonalds fault in the least?

    If McDonalds gave her a coffe with a lid on it that leaked and burned her maybe. Once she pulled the lid off in her car it's frivolous.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4004372]Not really. I said they use tax code to do this. Whether it's right or good or bad or wrong was not the point. It's the way things are.[/QUOTE]

    I see. So whether something is right or wrong, we are to just accept it as it is. Got it.

  12. #32
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4004940]I don't get how the fact that someone burned themselves on "Hot Coffee" when they took the lid off in their car and put the coffee in their lap to add Milk and Sugar is McDonalds fault in the least?

    If McDonalds gave her a coffe with a lid on it that leaked and burned her maybe. Once she pulled the lid off in her car it's frivolous.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps.

    What if McDonald's served the coffee at temps considerably hotter than all other fast food restaurants? A temp that causes burns upon contact..while others don't? Is there any responsibility to serve the coffee at a temp which is safer in case of a spill?

    Again, I'm not siding with anyone. Just saying this shouldn't be the example everyone uses for frivolous lawsuits.

    I'll go with prisoners suing for HBO. :D

  13. #33
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4004749]Another libtard strawman... :rolleyes: Oh wait, you actually provided some facts. This is awkward.[/QUOTE]

    Another fact.

    In every case, the "victim" spilled the coffee on themselves. Other than providing hot coffee for money, the company had no other role in the burning. The victim burned themselves, same as if they went home, turned on their stove, and they lay on it...and then sued the Stove Manufacturer.

    The lawsuit is frivilous because the fault of the spill (cause of the burn) is 100% that of the plaintiffs. If McDonalds had sold coffee so hot it melted their packaging, and then burned the victim, then I would side 100% with the victim, and find McDonalds liable totally. But in each case, the victim took an action that resulted in spillage, which resulted in the burn.

    Oh, and just to prove I'm no McDonalds defender, McDonalds various "infringement" lawsuits against similarly named small businesses (often owned by people actually named McDonald) are some of the worst abuses of being the "big guy" I can think of. Detestable that they win them so easily, in my view one should always be permitted to use their natural born name as part of the name of their business.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005156]Another fact.

    In every case, the "victim" spilled the coffee on themselves. Other than providing hot coffee for money, the company had no other role in the burning. The victim burned themselves, same as if they went home, turned on their stove, and they lay on it...and then sued the Stove Manufacturer.

    The lawsuit is frivilous because the fault of the spill (cause of the burn) is 100% that of the plaintiffs. If McDonalds had sold coffee so hot it melted their packaging, and then burned the victim, then I would side 100% with the victim, and find McDonalds liable totally. But in each case, the victim took an action that resulted in spillage, which resulted in the burn.

    Oh, and just to prove I'm no McDonalds defender, McDonalds various "infringement" lawsuits against similarly named small businesses (often owned by people actually named McDonald) are some of the worst abuses of being the "big guy" I can think of. Detestable that they win them so easily, in my view one should always be permitted to use their natural born name as part of the name of their business.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I might agree with you, but obviously a jury didn't. All you have to do is take a look at some "premises liability" cases to see that courts don't follow your logic. Two ten year old boys trespass onto electrical utility property. They climb a ten foot wire fence with warning signs indicating danger and enter an area with power wires. They are electrocuted. Is the electrical company liable? Or a couple of kids climb up on top of an old Amtrak railroad car on Amtrak property. to skateboard off it. They get electrocuted. Is Amtrak liable?

    The law is more nuanced than: well, you bought the coffee and took it out of the shop, so we're no longer liable. Product liability extends to reasonable use. But anyway, I think the jury award was frivolous, not necessarily the merits of the case.

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4004940]I don't get how the fact that someone burned themselves on "Hot Coffee" when they took the lid off in their car and put the coffee in their lap to add Milk and Sugar is McDonalds fault in the least?

    If McDonalds gave her a coffe with a lid on it that leaked and burned her maybe. Once she pulled the lid off in her car it's frivolous.[/QUOTE]

    If they were frivolous, why did McDonalds settle all those cases to a tune of 500K?

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005223]If they were frivolous, why did McDonalds settle all those cases to a tune of 500K?[/QUOTE]

    the Jury awarded her 2.86 million. The Judge should have thrown it out before it got to trial.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-20-2011 at 01:21 PM.

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,160
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005236]the Jury awarded her 2.86 million. The Judge should have thrown it out before it got to trial.[/QUOTE]

    Nah, McDonalds should have covered her medical expenses and lost wages, etc. She would have gotten maybe $10,000. Suppose you went to a hotel and took a shower. You get in and turn the knobs as you usually do and the temperature is okay. What you don't know is that the system has a delay before the hot water fully kicks in from the heater, which is set at 180 deg. Suddenly, the water is scalding and you're getting seriously burned. You jump out with blisters on your bald head (just guessing you're bald :) ). If the hotel had set its hot water temperature at 120 or 130, you'd have not received any burns. Are they liable?

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005277]Nah, McDonalds should have covered her medical expenses and lost wages, etc. She would have gotten maybe $10,000. Suppose you went to a hotel and took a shower. You get in and turn the knobs as you usually do and the temperature is okay. What you don't know is that the system has a delay before the hot water fully kicks in from the heater, which is set at 180 deg. Suddenly, the water is scalding and you're getting seriously burned. You jump out with blisters on your bald head (just guessing you're bald :) ). If the hotel had set its hot water temperature at 120 or 130, you'd have not received any burns. Are they liable?[/QUOTE]

    Ever hear of the plumbing company that got sued for 15 million because a new water heater burned someone?

    Of course you didn't.

    Because they weren't incorporated and thus not warranting defense by tort-reform stroking Pubs and their ilk.

    15 million. That's a hell of a lot more than this McDonald's suit. But it is never spoken of. :D

  19. #39
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005218]Well, I might agree with you, but obviously a jury didn't. All you have to do is take a look at some "premises liability" cases to see that courts don't follow your logic. Two ten year old boys trespass onto electrical utility property. They climb a ten foot wire fence with warning signs indicating danger and enter an area with power wires. They are electrocuted. Is the electrical company liable? Or a couple of kids climb up on top of an old Amtrak railroad car on Amtrak property. to skateboard off it. They get electrocuted. Is Amtrak liable?[/quote]

    No.

    And no.

    And yes, I know in our courts the answer to both is "yes!". Again, part of the problem.

    [QUOTE]The law is more nuanced than[/QUOTE]

    Not nuanced. Unfair, descriminatory and illogical, as the two brilliant examples you posted above indicate.

    As with so much else in our society, it's a support for the abdication of personal responsabillity. I won't lie, it leaves me angry and confused that anyone could see the two above issues as the fault of the Electric/Amtrak, and not the individuals themselves.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005277]Nah, McDonalds should have covered her medical expenses and lost wages, etc. She would have gotten maybe $10,000. Suppose you went to a hotel and took a shower. You get in and turn the knobs as you usually do and the temperature is okay. What you don't know is that the system has a delay before the hot water fully kicks in from the heater, which is set at 180 deg. Suddenly, the water is scalding and you're getting seriously burned. You jump out with blisters on your bald head (just guessing you're bald :) ). If the hotel had set its hot water temperature at 120 or 130, you'd have not received any burns. Are they liable?[/QUOTE]

    I expect my tea and coffee to be served just below the boiling point around 190 to 200. I don't expect hot water in my shower to be set at just below the boiling point. However I travel all the time and always set and wait before getting into a shower.

    Getting coffee at 130 to 140 degrees and then adding cold milk or cream into it isn't hot coffee anymore.

    These same cases were thrown out in Courts in the US and Great Britian. Juries are notorious for killing large companies.

    As far as what McDonalds should do? Companies normally do settle and we are all paying for it. Coffee is more expensive and it's no longer hot. Normally big companies allow this extortion because it's cheaper in the long run and they can pass it along to their customers as a cost of doing business.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-20-2011 at 02:39 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us