Curse You, Justice System

-=d=- said:
...but nobody got $6,000,000. She got $480,000 or LESS....for TWO YEARS of recovery...skin-grafs my good friend. We're talking severe damage. We're talking about a company who had recorded evidence that their product container and/or product could damage people.

(shrug).

Except they put it at a temp that was actually cooler than the average adult likes it.

Once again, you are getting one side of the story in these opinion pieces and I simply still disagree. In this case in particular, the average temp people enjoy coffee as shown in the second story is 95 celcius. McD's sold it slightly less than that. When I buy coffee I know that if it is good it is hot and slightly dangerous, if I spilled it on myself I would not even have thought of suing. I took the danger on myself by ordering a product that, if made correctly, will be dangerous if I spill it on myself. I prefer to get my coffee hot and take some danger on myself than to get it tepid and be safe.

Because of this ruling I now do not order their coffee because I know it will be tepid. I get less enjoyment from my visit to their establishments because I now order a drink that is less "breakfast" and more "lunch or dinner" type of a drink because I know their coffee is now of less quality because people are unwilling to take on the responsibility of putting themselves in danger when ordering a product that is somewhat of a danger when made correctly.

In this case I would let "buyer beware" be the rule of the day and allow the company to serve a product that they know more people will like and allow for the fact that almost everybody knows that it is hot and slightly dangerous and took upon themselves the responsibility when ordering the product.

Just as with cigarettes, people who use the product correctly know they are taking danger upon themselves and that they can get cancer etc. when using the product correctly. I think it is more reasonable to assume that they knew the danger and willingly accepted it in order to get what they wanted when ordering than it is to think that people are shocked that the coffee is hotter than their skin will take if accidentally spilled on themselves.
 
-=d=- said:
.....We're talking severe damage. We're talking about a company who had recorded evidence that their product container and/or product could damage people.

(shrug).
And Cars kill people, etc etc..so where do we place the bar?
 
no1tovote4 said:
Except they put it at a temp that was actually cooler than the average adult likes it.

What gives you the idea the 'average adult' likes coffee near the boiling point? I sure as shit don't.

Once again, you are getting one side of the story in these opinion pieces and I simply still disagree. I want to see how ordering a hot item and then getting upset when it is actually as hot as people prefer it is worth that much money. These are the same containers that everybody else was putting their coffee in at the time, the only difference is McDonald's actually served it at a temp closer to what people prefer (as shown in the second story it was actually 6 to 13 degrees celcius less than what people actually prefer). I like my coffee hot, and will not thank the lady for getting them to lower the temp.

There is no side of the story to get...it's fact. 700 claims of injury due to scalding coffee. At least ONE lady, 73 yrs old, needed SKIN GRAFTS due to 3rd degree burns. That's not spin. That's simple fact.
 
Mr. P said:
And Cars kill people, etc etc..so where do we place the bar?


Car makers take reasonable steps to ensure safety. Period. When there is a safety problem - and not even a problem with the car itself, but just the problem of the operators, steps are taken.

The lady did what anyone of us would do. She got Third degree burns from it. (shrug).

This isn't a case of 'nobody TOLD Me there'd be a train coming along the tracks and could hit me'....This isn't a story of 'OMG! I got a flat tire! I'd better lose control and roll my SUV!'

It's a story of an average woman, using the product reasonably...and suffered a LOT from the average, reasonable use of the product.
 
-=d=- said:
....
The lady did what anyone of us would do. She got Third degree burns from it. (shrug).

....It's a story of an average woman, using the product reasonably...and suffered a LOT from the average, reasonable use of the product.
No, as I recall she put it between her legs. I may be mistaken but that's what I remember. That's not what we "all" would do. It's time to look at the MORON factor, don't ya think?
 
Shattered said:
They can.. Initially.. They just can't keep the lie going when questioned from different angles...until they hit their early teen years.

In a case like this, though, they should be relying only on medical examinations - not verbal accusations.. A verbal accusation like that can damage a man for *life*, whether it's true or not. As utterly unfair as it is, it happens. :(

That is a scary thought........One of my main concerns in counseling children is always the thought of made up allegations, especially in a school.....I could loose my career and even go to jail... For me the door will always remain open literally..
 
Mr. P read my mind as I read the details of this case...


You get a cup of very hot, steaming hot coffee in a flimsy, paper cup from the drive-thru. Do you:

a) recognizing that you want to add cream and sugar to this very hot, steaming hot coffee in a flimsy, paper cup, you pull over into the nearby parking spot, stop the car and carefully add the cream and sugar, replacing the lid and place the coffee in a safe place for driving.

b) put it between your legs, pull out of the McDonalds parking lot, removing the lid and try to add the cream and sugar while turning left into traffic with an open container of hot coffee precariously set between your legs?


This woman chose B...or some variation of it. She was not showing intelligent, reasoned choices and any driving instructor, traffic cop, or state trooper would be able to tell you that just like changing the stereo or cd while driving or talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking items while driving is dangerous and can cause accidents, both inside the car and out.

When you blatantly misuse a product (I believe that most people would be able to acertain that a steaming hot cup of coffee in a flimsy paper cup should NOT be put between your legs on an uneven car seat. And that if you make that choice you should not be removing the lid to try to add cream and sugar while driving) you should not be able to sue the company that gave you that product.

Having experienced a skin graft procedure, not for a burn, but for a biking accident, I completely empathize with the pain and sufferring this woman experienced due to her burns...but the lawsuit she filed due to her own improper use of a product that was actually cooler than most people prefer their coffee...opened a legal Pandora's box that sent this country reeling.
 
-=d=- said:
What gives you the idea the 'average adult' likes coffee near the boiling point? I sure as shit don't.



There is no side of the story to get...it's fact. 700 claims of injury due to scalding coffee. At least ONE lady, 73 yrs old, needed SKIN GRAFTS due to 3rd degree burns. That's not spin. That's simple fact.


Because the second story posted in defense of this particular result of the lawsuit clearly stated that most people enjoy their coffee at the temp of 95 degrees C yet McD's sold it at 82 to 89 degrees C.

Once again, I think that if you order a product that, when made correctly, is a danger you take upon yourself the known danger. Just like with cigarettes where people know that there is a danger even when using the product correctly therefore I would not be inclined to give any amount to a person that attempted to place the blame on the company when they get cancer or any of the other known dangers when using the product.

In this case it is a product that is hot and people know that they are taking upon themselves a measure of danger when ordering it. Now that the product is tepid it is simply not of the same quality it was before.
 
-=d=- said:
It's a story of an average woman, using the product reasonably...and suffered a LOT from the average, reasonable use of the product.

I most emphatically disagree.

If you purchase a Ferrari, run it up a tree at 150 mph, would you then sue the automaker because they sold you a car whose capabilities exceeded your competency?

Yes, she suffered. She did NOT suffer because the coffee was hot. She suffered because SHE spilled it in her own lap. Now if the cup was defective, I would agree she had a case. Or if the McDonald's employee had dropped the cup in her lap, or if the design of the cup was inherently faulty and would tend to cause a person exercising reasonable caution to spill the contents.

She bought the coffee. She was responsible for handling it in a manner that would not injure her. She put it between her legs instead of into a cup holder or instead of going into the restaurant where she could have set the cup on a table.

And as far as your assertion that she "suffered a LOT from the average, reasonable use of the product". Well, I have to disagree with that too. Yes, she suffered, but not from the "reasonable use of the product". McDonald's coffee was never intended to be used as a douche.

So there.
 
No doubt the DMCA is BAD LAW, written by LAWMAKERS not judges.


But it is a JUDGE that ruled that the subpeona process wherein someone can get your name and address just from your IP address is an ILLEGAL invasion of privacy and lacks due process under the 4th/5th amendments.


In terms of Roe v Wade, the judges there did NOT "make a law". They ruled that an EXISTING state law was not valid under the FEDERAL law of the constitution, which has supremacy.

A judge cannot "make" a law - but when there is a CONFLICT between laws, they can make a ruling as to WHICH law takes precedence.



Regards,


Andy
 
Merlin1047 said:
Yes, she suffered. She did NOT suffer because the coffee was hot. She suffered because SHE spilled it in her own lap. Now if the cup was defective, I would agree she had a case. Or if the McDonald's employee had dropped the cup in her lap, or if the design of the cup was inherently faulty and would tend to cause a person exercising reasonable caution to spill the contents.


The flimsy nature of the cup WAS called into question.

The coffee WAS found to be UNREASONABLY HOT, and more than 20 degrees hotter than industry standards.

She suffered THRID DEGREE BURNS on her vagina that required skin grafts, a week of hospitalization, and several more weeks of recover.

She WAS found to be partly responsible for the incident.

McDonalds HAD ALREADY settled over 700 cases of coffee burns before her.

And all she ever wanted was the reimbursement of her hospital bill.

The Jury award WAS overturned, and the case latter settled out of court for a very small amount (unpublished, but estimated at $150,000)

------

The 7th amendment to our constitution guarantees the right of a trial by jury for civil suits. Tort reform is an attempt to undermine that.

We already have laws in place for stopping frivolous lawsuits. We *don't* need more bureaucratic nonsense based on a perceived need that does not exist.

This "coffee" case is the only one that these tort reformers seem able to dig up, and it is not frivolous.

The reality is that the REAL huge settlements are NOT in cases of personal injury, but in cases between corporations. Corporations suing other corporations end up with awards in the BILLIONS. Yet tort reform does NOTHING to address these suits.


Andy
 
Gem said:
Mr. P read my mind as I read the details of this case...
a) recognizing that you want to add cream and sugar to this very hot, steaming hot coffee in a flimsy, paper cup, you pull over into the nearby parking spot, stop the car and carefully add the cream and sugar, replacing the lid and place the coffee in a safe place for driving.

b) put it between your legs, pull out of the McDonalds parking lot, removing the lid and try to add the cream and sugar while turning left into traffic with an open container of hot coffee precariously set between your legs?

The woman chose B



Based on this statement Gem, and can tell you that you HAVE NOT read this case.

The woman chose A.

1) She was NOT driving, she was the passenger.

2) Her grandson PULLED OVER AND PARKED.

3) Stella then carefully removed the lid and added cream.

4) The flimsy cup spilled in her lap

5) the Jury found her RESPONSIBLE for the spill, however,

6) The coffee was 20 degrees HOTTER than industry standards, and caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS.


Gem, don't say you've "read the case" when you obviously have not.


Regards,


Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
The flimsy nature of the cup WAS called into question.

The coffee WAS found to be UNREASONABLY HOT, and more than 20 degrees hotter than industry standards.

Except per the second story that was posted in defense of this particular ruling we find out that most people prefer their coffee to actually be hotter than that served by McD's. Just because McD's chose to serve coffee that was closer to what people actually liked than other people doesn't take away the person's clear responsibility when ordering a product that may be a danger to themselves.

The "flimsy" nature of the cups was not the reason the coffee spilled on her, it was because she put it between her legs and opened it as another person was driving. When they turned a corner the coffee spilled over the top of the cup. In this case I still believe that it was unreasonable to put hot coffee between your legs and expect safety therefore it was unreasonable use of a product that when purchased was clearly supposed to be hot.

She suffered THRID DEGREE BURNS on her vagina that required skin grafts, a week of hospitalization, and several more weeks of recover.

She WAS found to be partly responsible for the incident.

McDonalds HAD ALREADY settled over 700 cases of coffee burns before her.

That still doesn't take from her the rest of the resposibility, that of not putting something that may burn you between your legs.

And all she ever wanted was the reimbursement of her hospital bill.

As you have shown before McD's was pleased to settle over 700 other cases and would have this one as well, this particular argument doesn't hold water when shown that in over 700 cases McD's was willing to pay those bills it seems that we can logically assume they would have here as well.

The Jury award WAS overturned, and the case latter settled out of court for a very small amount (unpublished, but estimated at $150,000)

And could have been settled before, as you clearly pointed out that McD's willingly settled with over 700 cases before this one. Instead it appears to me that the woman went for the big paycheck. Thank the gods she ended up with less, but it still doesn't change my mind and make me think this was McD's responsibility to protect her from her own action.

------
The 7th amendment to our constitution guarantees the right of a trial by jury for civil suits. Tort reform is an attempt to undermine that.

We already have laws in place for stopping frivolous lawsuits. We *don't* need more bureaucratic nonsense based on a perceived need that does not exist.

This "coffee" case is the only one that these tort reformers seem able to dig up, and it is not frivolous.

The reality is that the REAL huge settlements are NOT in cases of personal injury, but in cases between corporations. Corporations suing other corporations end up with awards in the BILLIONS. Yet tort reform does NOTHING to address these suits.

I never said anything about tort reform when bringing up this case in this thread. I just expressed irritation about the "justice" of a system that takes responsibility away from those that are truly responsible for their safety and puts it on the backs of those that simply put out a product as people want it.

In this case they actually sold the coffee at a lesser temp than what was put forward as the average of what people actually want, but it was closer than what was used as the industry standard. All this tells me is that lawsuits effect even more than just the company, they also reach into my life and make it so people cannot even sell me coffee that is up to the standards of the average.
 
Merlin1047 said:
I most emphatically disagree.

If you purchase a Ferrari, run it up a tree at 150 mph, would you then sue the automaker because they sold you a car whose capabilities exceeded your competency?

Yes, she suffered. She did NOT suffer because the coffee was hot. She suffered because SHE spilled it in her own lap. Now if the cup was defective, I would agree she had a case. Or if the McDonald's employee had dropped the cup in her lap, or if the design of the cup was inherently faulty and would tend to cause a person exercising reasonable caution to spill the contents.

She bought the coffee. She was responsible for handling it in a manner that would not injure her. She put it between her legs instead of into a cup holder or instead of going into the restaurant where she could have set the cup on a table.

And as far as your assertion that she "suffered a LOT from the average, reasonable use of the product". Well, I have to disagree with that too. Yes, she suffered, but not from the "reasonable use of the product". McDonald's coffee was never intended to be used as a douche.

So there.


good lord...You have never held a cup tween your legs, while driving? You guys simply don't get it, in this case.



THIRD DEGREE BURNS

3rd_degree.jpg
 
no1tovote4 said:
Because the second story posted in defense of this particular result of the lawsuit clearly stated that most people enjoy their coffee at the temp of 95 degrees C yet McD's sold it at 82 to 89 degrees C.

'Adults enjoy very hot beverages' is speculative in nature. It's VERY different than what you are reading "The average Adult enjoys Very hot beverages".
 
-=d=- said:
good lord...You have never held a cup tween your legs, while driving? You guys simply don't get it, in this case.



THIRD DEGREE BURNS

3rd_degree.jpg


When I buy coffee I do not put it between my legs in my car. This is what cup holders are for. I take that action because I know that coffee can burn me, make me lose my attention and hit another person if I am driving. If I am not driving I do not put coffee between my legs because I cannot know if the person will have to jerk the car to the left or right or stop suddenly making the coffee spill and burn my crotch. I think it was an unreasonable use of the product by putting it between her legs and opening the product when the car was moving. Shoot I wouldn't even do that when the car is not moving.

That she had 3rd degree burns doesn't make it more or less the responsibility of McD's, that she put the product between her legs makes me question her judgement, if not her intelligence.

I don't even put cold drinks between my legs in my car because if it spills it too may draw my attention away from my driving and cause me to have an accident. If it happened it would be my fault and not that of the cup maker or the person who sold me the drink. If we judge putting drinks between your legs while in a vehicle as good judgement then the next person in an accident can sue if their cold drink spilled and caused the accident and I would not like to see us go there.

Her responsibility was to be careful with a hot product, she failed in that responsibility. I do not think it was McD's fault for that regardless of the extent of the burns.
 
who here doesn't know that mcdonalds coffee is hot

who here doesn't know that their cups are flimsy pieces of shit

who here doesn't know that mcdonalds coffe tastse like crap and needs creme and sugar

who here is dumb enough to put this cup between thier legs

who would let their 81 year olde mother place a hot cup of coffee between their legs to add cream and sugar

elder abuse i tell ya
 
no1tovote4 said:
When I buy coffee I do not put it between my legs in my car. This is what cup holders are for. I take that action because I know that coffee can burn me, make me lose my attention and hit another person if I am driving. .

She wasn't 'driving'...she was pulling up in line, after getting her product, so the car behind her could get theirs.

I think it was an unreasonable use of the product by putting it between her legs and opening the product when the car was moving. Shoot I wouldn't even do that when the car is not moving.

She wasn't 'driving'...she was pulling up in line, after getting her product, so the car behind her could get theirs.

That she had 3rd degree burns doesn't make it more or less the responsibility of McD's, that she put the product between her legs makes me question her judgement, if not her intelligence.

You aren't even being realistic now. wow.

I don't even put cold drinks between my legs in my car because if it spills it too may draw my attention away from my driving and cause me to have an accident. If it happened it would be my fault and not that of the cup maker or the person who sold me the drink. If we judge putting drinks between your legs while in a vehicle as good judgement then the next person in an accident can sue if their cold drink spilled and caused the accident and I would not like to see us go there.

She wasn't 'driving'...she was pulling up in line, after getting her product, so the car behind her could get theirs.

Her responsibility was to be careful with a hot product, she failed in that responsibility. I do not think it was McD's fault for that regardless of the extent of the burns.

Good lord...I think the reason behind your unwillingness to empathize with that lady, and capture reality, stems from jealousy that you weren't the one burned. You may be upset 'you' haven't injured yourself into money.

(shrug).
 
-=d=- said:
She wasn't 'driving'...she was pulling up in line, after getting her product, so the car behind her could get theirs.



She wasn't 'driving'...she was pulling up in line, after getting her product, so the car behind her could get theirs.

If you noticed, I stated that I also would not put coffee between my legs regardless of whether the car was moving and whether I was a passenger or the driver. I covered all of this before now.

You aren't even being realistic now. wow.

I think you are not being realistic. I think in this manner you want the person who had the burns to get help paying the bills, it is compassionate but it doesn't mean that I think it is responsible to put coffee between your legs in a vehicle.


Good lord...I think the reason behind your unwillingness to empathize with that lady, and capture reality, stems from jealousy that you weren't the one burned. You may be upset 'you' haven't injured yourself into money.

(shrug).


I think not. I think the reason is that while I do empathize I realize that putting your coffee there puts you in danger of this and therefore by your action you accepted the danger.

I feel sorry for her but do not put responsibility of that action on McD's.

I will put this way, if I were a lawyer and could pick which side of this to be on I would have been on the side of the defense. Reasonable people can disagree.

There is no need for making it seem that I am some sort of monster incapable of compassion and ruled only by money and envy, when clearly by earlier posts you would know that I am not a monster, that I am capable of compassion, and that I am not ruled by money or envy.
 
CivilLiberty said:
No doubt the DMCA is BAD LAW, written by LAWMAKERS not judges.


But it is a JUDGE that ruled that the subpeona process wherein someone can get your name and address just from your IP address is an ILLEGAL invasion of privacy and lacks due process under the 4th/5th amendments.


In terms of Roe v Wade, the judges there did NOT "make a law". They ruled that an EXISTING state law was not valid under the FEDERAL law of the constitution, which has supremacy.

A judge cannot "make" a law - but when there is a CONFLICT between laws, they can make a ruling as to WHICH law takes precedence.



Regards,


Andy

You have a point, but it was a pretty broad interpretation of the Constitution, and before a decision like that is made, voters need to be involved.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top