Curse You, Justice System

[CivilLiberty]

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.

Which story are we talking about? the appeal?

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.

McDonalds has a "duty to warn".

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.

False. They were PARKED. The flimsy cup was a contributing factor.

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

Sure. And the JURY FOUND HER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPILL.

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.

Bull. She TRIED on several occasions, and THEY REFUSED.

You clearly have none of the facts of this case, so debating with you is pretty pointless.


Read it here:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

 

[CivilLiberty]

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.

No doubt there are plenty of times I disagree with the SCOTUS.

I do, however, actually read the full opinions of the court on a regular basis. While I may disagree at times, they are not capricious.

A

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

No it doesnt.

 

[no1tovote4]

Which story are we talking about? the appeal?

No, -=d=- posted two stories in support of the jury's decision in this case, in the second of those stories it puts forward that on average people like hot coffee 95 degrees celsius and that McD's served theirs at 82 to 89 degrees celsius.

McDonalds has a "duty to warn".

About a product that is supposed to be hot? That is like warning that use of an automobile makes it a higher danger that you are in a car accident. I think logic was warning enough.

False. They were PARKED. The flimsy cup was a contributing factor.

I realize they were parked but in the story it stated the coffee spilled over the rim after she opened it making the "flimsy" cup not a factor, opening the cup after putting it between her legs was the factor. It was discussed during the case but the jury found her responsible for the spill as you have already stated in a previous post. Obviously you cannot be responsible if it was the flimsiness of the cup that was responsible but since she was ruled responsible for that it WASN'T THE FLIMSINESS OF THE CUP THAT CAUSED HER TO SPILL.

Sure. And the JURY FOUND HER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPILL.

Good. You stated that before and are repeating yourself. However spilling the drink is what caused the injury, not serving it hot as most people desire. Her actions caused the problem in my opinion. If McD's was responsible for serving a product that most people want served that way, I cannot see why they should be faulted for that.

Bull. She TRIED on several occasions, and THEY REFUSED.

You clearly have none of the facts of this case, so debating with you is pretty pointless.

As I said before, if they had settled as you stated in over 700 cases there was no reason for me to assume that they would not in this case. Was there an agreement that McD's would not go to the news after the case? What did they say when they refused? Is there a statement in the media of their refusal and why?

It may be that she simply is saying that they tried and McD's refused and McD's signed an agreement not to go to the news with other facts. It may be one of the terms of the settlement; you cannot know because the finalized settlement is not a public document. People do not even know how much she got, there are only estimates in publication.

Clearly you do not have all the facts, the terms of the settlement that was finalized are not open to the public, you are taking your facts from sites that are biased to make the point that the decision by the jury was right and good. Clearly reasonable people can disagree, and often do. Simply saying it is a waste of time and that I am less informed doesn't mean that it is so.

Read it here:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

I have read these before, however they are sites that are in favor of the jury decision and therefore bias their facts towards that decision. In effect a trial solely in the media and without both sides of the issue.

 

[Mr. P]

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

I've seen worse. What's your point?

 

[Avatar4321]

McDonalds has a "duty to warn".

Not for open and obvious dangers. That is dangers which are obvious to a person of reasonable intelligence or using the normal standard of care for an ordinary person.

The injustice of this case was that Mcdonalds was held absolutely liable for her negligence. Tort reform does need to take place in the strict liability regime because they are going too far in some places.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Not for open and obvious dangers. That is dangers which are obvious to a person of reasonable intelligence or using the normal standard of care for an ordinary person.

One expects coffee to be hot. One DOES NOT expect to receive third degree burns. Duty to warn exists for dangers that are unreasonable.

It is UNREASONABLE to assume that something that you are being served to put in your mouth will cause a serious injury that will send you to the hospital.

The injustice of this case was that Mcdonalds was held absolutely liable for her negligence.

No they weren't - they were held PARTLY liable.


A

 

[Merlin1047]

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).

That comment is unsupportable, untrue and uncalled for.

But to get back to the issue, you seem wrapped up in the emotion of a little old lady getting burned by McDonald's coffee, so you automatically hold McDonald's responsible. Bullshit. Both you and Civil Liberty have cherry-picked your way through my argument and both of you have conveniently ignored my main point and that was one of personal responsibility. Yes, I feel bad for the woman that she suffered injury, but that doesn't make it the fault of McDonald's restaurants.

Jurors admitted that their verdict was derived from sources other than the facts of case. They wanted to punish McDonald's because they felt the company was callous. McDonald's was not on trial for a bad attitude.

Now, since neither of you have bothered to provide a supporting source for your arguments, I did a little cursory search and found the following. Now keep in mind that this article was copied from the website of a couple of trial shysters, and as the comments at the end demonstrate, they can hardly be called unbiased.

Civil Liberty claims that McDonald's had settled 700 burn cases. That appears to be incorrect. Based on my reading of the following article, the only true statement that can be made is that there were approximately 700 CLAIMS, some of which were settled.
=======================================
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

McDonald's Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors Say, In Case of Burned Woman

How Hot Do You Like It?

by Andrea Gerlin
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
September 1, 1994
The Wall Street Journal
(© 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.

It should have been a warning.

But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year.

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naïve. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot. I mean, man, it hurts."

McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during brewing.

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Since the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.

Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee.

Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that this is an isolated incident."

Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."

Public opinion is squarely on the side of McDonald's. Polls have shown a large majority of Americans - including many who typically support the little guy - to be outraged at the verdict. And radio talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining to be interviewed for this story, one juror explained that he already had received angry calls from citizens around the country.

It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood - before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.

For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.

Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.

Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.

As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount.

But McDonald's didn't bite.

Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.

To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. "There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that," says juror Betty Farnham.

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers." (well, perhaps McDonald's should have put a warning label on their cups - "Caution, careless or clutzy handling of this product can result in spills and possibly painful burns". Had they done that, they probably would have been totally exonerated. But how stupid is that? You buy hot coffee and put it between your legs, you're acting in an irresponsible manner and anything that happens is your own damn fault.)

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. (And how did they do that? Wanton or malicious? Baloney. They served HOT coffee. They didn't tell the woman to park it between her legs and they aren't responsible for the fact that she spilled it.) Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point of steaming. (So McDonald's "wanton, malicious" conduct is simply an attempt to give customers what they want. Will this mean that if you want a hot cup of coffee, McDonald's will have to serve it cool, then provide a microwave so you can nuke it yourself?")

__________________________

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

OUR COMMENT - Any common consumer product which can cause third-degree burns (the worst kind) in two to seven seconds is seriously dangerous. Who could have imagined this risk from a cup of coffee? But, McDonald's had ample evidence of it.

These hyper-heated beverages should be eliminated from the marketplace. The Liebeck jury can be commended for its courage in sending this message to the food service industry. Remember, these horrific burns could have happened to you or your family members and friends.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I wasn't cherry picking, Merlin.

As far as that article, It supports my argument. Did you do the comments in red? If so I'll go back and comment on them.


A

 

[dmp]

That comment is unsupportable, untrue and uncalled for.

Its a gut-feeling...it doesnt have to be supportable.

 

[Merlin1047]

I wasn't cherry picking, Merlin.

As far as that article, It supports my argument. Did you do the comments in red? If so I'll go back and comment on them.


A

yup, the red are mine.

And yes, the article's slant ATTEMPTS to support your position. I think that it fails miserably in that department.

When I go to find a source, whenever possible I prefer to use one which supports the opposing viewpoint. That way I cannot be accused of attempting to stack the deck

 

[Merlin1047]

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.

Standards? Is there an ISO standard for coffee temperature at fast food restaurants? That is a misleading statement. It may have been above the industry AVERAGE - which is a far cry from a standard.

The flimsy nature of the cup WAS called into question.

Called into question? So what? Another misleading statement. Was the cup PROVEN to be unsuitable? Apparently not. McDonald's is still using it. I've had many a cup of coffee from McDonald's in their so-called "flimsy" cup. I have yet to boil my balls in the process of putting creamer into the cup.

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

It does not matter what injury resulted. The fact is that the injury was attributable to her own negligence. You keep dancing around this issue. Are you unable to accept the fact that a person is responsible to use a product in the manner intended? If you cut yourself with an extremely sharp knife, would you sue the manufacturer because the knife had been sharpened beyond the "industry standard"?

She WAS found to be partly responsible for the incident.

PARTLY responsible my butt. She was entirely responsible for spilling the coffee on herself. She didn't have any help from a McDonald's employee with that. Yes, the temperature of the coffee caused the burns, but the fact remains that there would have been no injury had SHE not spilled the contents of the cup into her own lap. Equivocate all you want, but that fact does not change.

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

As I previously pointed out, this is not a correct statement. McDonalds had approximately 700 complaints. They settled SOME of those. I cannot find the data on exactly how many were settled. I would speculate that less than one-quarter of the total number actually received any settlement.

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

She was not entitled to have McDonald's pay hospital expenses for her self-inflicted injury. If I hit my own thumb with a hammer, I cannot go to Stanley tools and demand they pay my hospital costs because their hammer is larger than the "industry standard".

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.

This part of your statement is simply flat-out incorrect from start to finish. There is no attempt to undermine the constitution, tort reform is simply an effort to introduce some degree of sanity back into the process. The McDonald's coffee case is a graphic demonstration how juries can be swayed by a sympathetic plaintiff and ignore both the law and common sense, especially when a frail defendant is pitted against those mean old corporations.

Whatever laws we have in place for stopping frivolous lawsuits are an ineffective joke. They don't work.

And you must surely be kidding with your statement "This "coffee" case is the only one that these tort reformers seem able to dig up, and it is not frivolous.". PLEASE! Without looking them up, here are a few I recall:

1. An idiot in CA purchased a mountain bike. The vehicle was not equipped with lights or reflectors. Said idiot proceeded to ride the bike on the public street, in traffic, AT NIGHT. When the inevitable happened, and he got his stupid ass run over, he hired a shyster (on contingency) who sued the manufacturer because the bike did not have a warning label telling their idiot owners "do not ride at night". (Saw this on a TV news report)

2. Again, this time from a "60 minutes" report (back when I used to watch it). Some obnoxious dingbat made a hobby out of suing her neighbors for any real or imagined breach of her expectations. She was constantly in court. She sued for someone's dog pooping on her lawn, she sued when someone's child walked across her property, she sued when someone played a stereo too loud or had a party at their home. She was a demented, obnoxious bitch who made life miserable for everyone around her. She was a joke at the local courthouse, yet the judge was loath to brand her litigious. She was also very lucky she didn't have me for a neighbor. I would have burned her damn house down around her ears - that's my own personal version of tort reform.

3. And these from the Snopes site:

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Though the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance:

In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something than can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.

A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.

In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.

In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.
============================================

All of the cases quoted from Snopes were eventually dismissed, but there was still damage done to the defendants in the form of exhorbitant legal costs. But the fact that they ever even got into court is damning enough. The fact that some sleazy shyster took the case is even worse. Lawyers are taking meritless cases on contingency, hoping for a stupid jury. This is nothing more than the lawyer version of playing the lottery. I could go on, but this is getting too lengthy already. The fact is that we have become an extremely litigous society. There are predators who use the courts as a means of robbing other people through frivolous lawsuits.

Also from Snopes, the following in regard to the cost to consumer of BS lawsuits. "Our current overly-litigious society is not merely an offense to common sense — it costs everyone money, though most are not aware they pay to support this madness through a trickle down to consumers in the form of markedly higher prices. This trickle down accounts, for example, for $8 of an $11.50 diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) vaccine, $191 of a $578 tonsillectomy, $170 of a $1,000 motorized wheelchair, and $3,000 of an $18,000 heart pacemaker."

Product liability lawsuits are driving manufacturing firms out of the country. Bell Helicopter, based in Ft. Worth TX has moved much of their helicopter manufacturing to Canada. The reason? More favorable product liability rules up north. Today, the average single engine fixed wing aircraft costs around one hundred fifty thousand dollars. That cost should be easily under 100k. But product liability concerns account for the balance.

One of the main concerns when industry selects a site for expansion is the lawsuit climate in that locale. Companies do not want to do business in areas where slack-jawed yokels seek to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars of company money. Especially when the decision to award damages is based on emotional appeal instead of the merits of the case.

At least two things need to happen in tort reform, if nothing else. We need to adopt a system where the loser pays the costs and we need to prohibit shysters taking a case on contingency. But I just looked at how long this is getting, so I'm going to stop here without supporting that last comment. Yes, I know the arguments against contingency cases - "poor folks won't be able to afford . . . :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

 

[no1tovote4]

Its a gut-feeling...it doesnt have to be supportable.

It seems to me like it was anger at myself for having a differing opinion than yours in this case. Your "gut-feeling" is incorrect.

 

[CivilLiberty]

No it doesnt.

Yes, it does:

Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law*, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


*"Common law" is a term analogous to civil suit.

 

[CivilLiberty]

(well, perhaps McDonald's should have put a warning label on their cups - "Caution, careless or clutzy handling of this product can result in spills and possibly painful burns". Had they done that, they probably would have been totally exonerated. But how stupid is that? You buy hot coffee and put it between your legs, you're acting in an irresponsible manner and anything that happens is your own damn fault.)

(And how did they do that? Wanton or malicious? Baloney. They served HOT coffee. They didn't tell the woman to park it between her legs and they aren't responsible for the fact that she spilled it.)[/COLOR]

McDonald's DOES NOW have a warning at the drive through window indicating that the coffee is hot enough to cause injury. After Stella's case, I see it at every McDonalds drive through I visit.

As far as the "wanton and malicious" bit. In studying the case, it was clear the McDonalds lawyers were arrogant and cavalier in their presentation. No doubt the jury too their attitude into account. This is a failure on the part of McDonald's COUNCIL, not on the trial PROCESS.

The government's role in the civil suit process is to provide an "impartial forum" for the resolution of disputes.

The government can certainly halt "frivolous" suits, but those suits are ones with absolutely no merit - insufficient evidence or malicious litigation.

The actual merits of a case are to be heard by a jury, as provided in the 7th amendment.

The reality is that any suit making it to court is rare. Frivolous suits are rarer still. And they are NOT responsible for the "ills' that people attribute to them.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Standards? Is there an ISO standard for coffee temperature at fast food restaurants? That is a misleading statement. It may have been above the industry AVERAGE - which is a far cry from a standard.

In this case, the "industry standard" was determined by measuring the coffee temperature at 20 restaurants in the area.

It does not matter what injury resulted. The fact is that the injury was attributable to her own negligence. You keep dancing around this issue. Are you unable to accept the fact that a person is responsible to use a product in the manner intended? If you cut yourself with an extremely sharp knife, would you sue the manufacturer because the knife had been sharpened beyond the "industry standard"?

No, the SPILL was caused by her negligence, the INJURY was caused by a combination of her negligence, and the extreme temperature of the coffee.

It's easy for you to disagree with the jury, YOU WEREN'T ON the jury. You did not see the evidence they saw.

She was not entitled to have McDonald's pay hospital expenses for her self-inflicted injury. If I hit my own thumb with a hammer, I cannot go to Stanley tools and demand they pay my hospital costs because their hammer is larger than the "industry standard".

If the hammer shatters or chips or flys off the handle, causing injury, they will be liable.

For this they have product liability insurance. As it happens I own a corporation, we are making a new toy, and product liability insurance is part of that process. The cost is INSIGNIFICANT. We're talking under a penny for a $20 product.

tort reform is simply an effort to introduce some degree of sanity back into the process.

If that were true, then why is tort reform ONLY aimed at preventing consumers from suing, but does NOTHING to quell the HUGH lawsuits of corporations against corporation? That's where the REAL incredible settlements are.

Whatever laws we have in place for stopping frivolous lawsuits are an ineffective joke. They don't work.

They work quite well.

And you must surely be kidding with your statement "This "coffee" case is the only one that these tort reformers seem able to dig up, and it is not frivolous.". PLEASE! Without looking them up, here are a few I recall:

Yea? Cite? Or just recall? Most of the "frivolous" suits that are bandied about are BOGUS, or important FACTS are left out, to make them sound "ludicris". Unless you have cites, I can't comment. And even so, these are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

regards,

Andy

 

[Yurt]

No, the SPILL was caused by her negligence, the INJURY was caused by a combination of her negligence, and the extreme temperature of the coffee.

It's easy for you to disagree with the jury, YOU WEREN'T ON the jury. You did not see the evidence they saw.


Andy

This is absolutely correct. In a pure comparative negligence state, even if she was 80% at fault, MCD should pay her 20% damages.

Another thing, what do you think would have happened if MCD just paid her meds when she asked? I have an answer, she would NOT have sued. I have studied this case and this lady did not want to sue, when she grew up, if you wronged someone, you just paid up or fessed. However, when they refused to pay her meds, the only recourse was to sue.

MCD was clearly major cause of this injury, but for their coffee being so hot, she would not have been burned.

 

[Shattered]

MCD was clearly major cause of this injury, but for their coffee being so hot, she would not have been burned.

What kind of shit is that?

Had she not ordered coffee from a freakin DRIVE-THRU, she would not have been burned. Take your lazy ass OUT of the car, WALK in to the building, order your HOT COFFEE, put cream/sugar in it there at the COUNTER, cover it back up, and WALK back out to your car.

Christ.

 

[Merlin1047]

Yea? Cite? Or just recall? Most of the "frivolous" suits that are bandied about are BOGUS, or important FACTS are left out, to make them sound "ludicris". Unless you have cites, I can't comment. And even so, these are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

regards,

Andy

Debating with you is pretty much like pushing a pile of jello. You can shove it till you've passed through to the other side, but the pile still sits, quivering, in the same spot.

You've got some damn nerve demanding that I "cite". First, I did - or did your eyeballs slam shut when you got to the part where I cited research by Snopes? If you think I'm going to the trouble to go find case numbers then you're even nuttier than I thought. The other two cases that I used as examples, I clearly stated that I had seen these on TV news programs. You can either take my word for that, or you can go play in traffic.

Second, I find your demand to "cite" puzzling since during your entire attempt at rebuttal you never used a single source other than that cavernous ego of yours. Apparently your standards are external only.

And finally, to answer your complaint "It's easy for you to disagree with the jury, YOU WEREN'T ON the jury. You did not see the evidence they saw." Well, you finally got something right. I wasn't on the jury. Were you? No? Well, since you weren't there either, what makes your assessment of the facts of the case any better than mine? Simply because you agree with it? Bah.

 

[Merlin1047]

What kind of shit is that?

Had she not ordered coffee from a freakin DRIVE-THRU, she would not have been burned. Take your lazy ass OUT of the car, WALK in to the building, order your HOT COFFEE, put cream/sugar in it there at the COUNTER, cover it back up, and WALK back out to your car.

So far everyone who has argued in favor of the verdict overlooks the aspect of personal responsibility. They gloss over or ignore the fact that a person has a duty to use a product in the manner intended.

If I go out and buy a quart of Jim Beam, I cannot sue the distiller for the hangover or for the fact that I broke my arm when I fell out of the chandelier on which I was swinging.

Likewise, this woman puts a cup of coffee - that she KNOWS is hot - between her legs. Then she spills it. Somehow the resulting injury has become the fault of the product and the product's vendor. It puzzles me how anyone can reach such a conclusion. Had the cup leaked, had the bottom fallen out of it, had a McDonald's employee spilled it on her, had she been hit by a McDonald's delivery truck and that caused the spill then I would agree that she should be compensated.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot enough to scald. When your purchase it, you're SUPPOSED to be competent enough to handle the product without causing injury to yourself.

Perhaps the day is coming when we will all have to sign a waiver to purchase any food product whose temperature is higher than 98.6 degrees.