Curse You, Justice System

[Shattered]

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.

Ok, so you're a tad more polite than I am.. I prefer to call a fucking idiot a fucking idiot.

 

[CivilLiberty]

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?

I'm quite familiar with the cases in Snopes. Most of them they point out are TOTALLY BOGUS.

From the SNOPES page:

Claim: * Six outrageous-but-real lawsuits showcase the need for tort reform.

Status: * False.

So, the main cite you make is for a set of lawsuits that NEVER EVEN EXISTED.???

Later on the SNOPES page are four alleged "actual" suits (with no cites). I do cut Snopes a bit of slack here as they are not a legal site, but the actual court cites for these cases seem to be vapor. In fact the only reference seems to be pages that parrot the Snopes page WORD FOR WORD.

Even the ATRA does not list these alleged cases. I'll venture that they all were tossed as frivolous, with the exception of the dog/cat one, and THERE the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the majority of the city's legal fees as a penalty for bringing the frivolous suit.

In another example of polly says, those stats about "trickle down" are parroted all over, with no cite or reference. they seem to be based wholly on an old report by Tillinghast, a firm that makes alot of reports regarding tort "costs". The report in question seems to be out of print, but I'll look for it some more - might be out there, and I've been researching for an article on torts anyway.

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.

I provided cites earlier in the thread. And I wasn't "demanding" cites, but stating that I wouldn't care to comment until I read the whole case(s).


Andy

 

[MissileMan]

We're all victims in this insane, politically correct looney bin the liberals have created. The endless echoes of "not my fault" will continue to ring as long as there is the possibility of "winning the lottery" in a civil suit. Tort reform is way overdue.

 

[Yurt]

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.

So if you order a big mac and it has a part of a thumb in it, and you eat it, who is at fault?

By your logic, you, because you were to lazy to make a burger at home.

Please reconsider your drive thru analysis. The same thing could have happend had she "walked" inside (as everyone who goes through drive-thru is lazy), got her coffee, sat down and the coffee (of course, like me and most people I know, they put the cream and sugar in after they sit down if they have a tray of food), for whatever reason spilled. Same issue, different circumstances. But for the coffee being too hot, but for MCD NOT paying her bills when she kindly asked them too, this lawsuit would never have happened.

Merlin:

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.

She did use the product in the manner intended. You buy a cup, you drink it, sometimes you spill it (I have, know people who have) and guess what, you DO NOT expect to get burns so severe they require skin grafts. Oh, well if she is so fragile maybe she should not buy "hot" coffee. Too bad, you take your plaintiff as you find them. You hit someone who has a "glass" jaw, you pay all damages accompanied. Therefore, regardless of her sensativity, she was injured "because" MCD had coffee that was hotter than reasonable.

Again, MCD simply pays her bills, NO lawsuit. Read the facts of the case before passing judgment.

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.

Assumption of risk. You "knew" that drinking an achololic drink could make you drunk, and you "preceded" anyways. What if you bought JB and spilled it on your clothes and tore a hole through layers of clothes? Normal?

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.

As to your analogy to the leak in the cup, when in a pure comparitive fault state, your negligence is taken into factor, up to 100%. What is the problem with this? The fact is, you were not on the jury, hence, you did not see the entire evidence presented. As such, I urge you to do some background on this case.

Question of fact. How hot? To you, coffee is supposed to be SO hot, it scalds you. Being from the Northwest, if the coffee is that hot, the barrista has problems. Coffee is not like a knife. A knife is an inherently dangerous object. You assume the risk using it. But coffee?

Is there someone here that really likens coffee with a knife. That because coffee is hot, you should expect to have skin grafts if it spills on you?

.......

 

[Shattered]

She did use the product in the manner intended. You buy a cup, you drink it, sometimes you spill it

It's intended manner does not entail putting it between your legs no matter WHERE you are, but *especially* in a moving (or potentially moving) vehicle. Take responsibility for your own stupid actions. How ignorant can one person be? By *your* logic, I should be able to walk around with that same cup of coffee on my head, and if it spills, McDonalds should pay me for it.

 

[Bonnie]

Is there someone here that really likens coffee with a knife. That because coffee is hot, you should expect to have skin grafts if it spills on you?

No not coffee with a knife, but it is common knowledge that coffee is served hot, or the assumption is hot as that is how most people drink it. But the issue is not that the coffee is hot, but that it is a stupid thing to do to drive, mix, and drink all at the same time. That's common sense. It's not a stretch for McDonald's to assume everyone knows that.

 

[Bonnie]

It's intended manner does not entail putting it between your legs no matter WHERE you are, but *especially* in a moving (or potentially moving) vehicle. Take responsibility for your own stupid actions. How ignorant can one person be? By *your* logic, I should be able to walk around with that same cup of coffee on my head, and if it spills, McDonalds should pay me for it.

Yes they should give you new eyeballs........... :teeth:

 

[Shattered]

Yes they should give you new eyeballs........... :teeth:

Multiple pairs. In the color(s) of my choosing.

 

[Bonnie]

Multiple pairs. In the color(s) of my choosing.

Absolutely, just like shoes

 

[CivilLiberty]

but *especially* in a moving (or potentially moving) vehicle.

The car was PARKED.

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

No not coffee with a knife, but it is common knowledge that coffee is served hot, or the assumption is hot as that is how most people drink it. But the issue is not that the coffee is hot, but that it is a stupid thing to do to drive, mix, and drink all at the same time. That's common sense. It's not a stretch for McDonald's to assume everyone knows that.

1) they were not driving, they were PARKED.

2) She was not driving, Stella was the passenger.

3) Hot yes, but do you expect to get a THRID DEGREE BURN requiring a skin graft from the coffee you are about to drink? No. That is "hotter that reasonable expectation".


Andy

 

[Yurt]

It's intended manner does not entail putting it between your legs no matter WHERE you are, but *especially* in a moving (or potentially moving) vehicle. Take responsibility for your own stupid actions. How ignorant can one person be? By *your* logic, I should be able to walk around with that same cup of coffee on my head, and if it spills, McDonalds should pay me for it.

Ok,

follow this...

grab a cup of coffee as hot as the cup she got served, dump it on your head.

Same issue?

No.

Let me ask you this,

If you buy a cup of coffee from X place, as you are walking away, seconds after you paid your bill (imagine, inside the holy grail of coffee, starbucks [hey, don't laugh, their coffee is consistanly superior than any other]) you bump into someone, the coffee spills on your wrist, anywhere open to a scalding burn, who do you seek compensation from? Well, you had to get skin grafts, period. Ok, sue the guy that "bumped" into you. No, because this sort of thing happens. Spilling your coffee happens. This is NOT unforeseeable. Hence, the negligence of MCD.


Follow this through, we know the coffee is hot, what we do not know is whether the coffee is SO hot it will burn us.

 

[Mr. P]

McDonalds has a "duty to warn".

Again, we're talking the MORON factor here.
What "reasonable" person needs to be warned that coffee is HOT? Should we be warned that our one ply toilet paper may allow contact with poop too? Can I sue if it does? That would cause me emotional distress. This sort of argument that the vendor/merchant/manufacturer has more responsibly than the buyer is nothing more than an addition to the dumbing down of the population IMO. Gawd forbid anyone think for themselves much less take responsibility for their actions, it's someone elses' problem. We can always sue or better yet, lets get the gov. to fix it. Geeeeeezzzzzz have we all forgotten those few words, "Ah shit, boy that was stupid, Damn I won't do that again"?

 

[Mr. P]

Ok, so you're a tad more polite than I am.. I prefer to call a fucking idiot a fucking idiot.

Me too!

 

[CivilLiberty]

What "reasonable" person needs to be warned that coffee is HOT?

Hot, or unreasonably too hot?

This jury found, based on the evidence presented to them that McD's was serving it too hot - hot enough to cause a serious injury requiring hospitalization.

I've spilled coffee/tea on myself alot. I've never had a 3rd degree burn from it, putting me in the hospital.


A

 

[manu1959]

give me a fucking break the stupid olde women put coffee she knew was hot between her legs in a flimsy cup

she fucked up and has to blame someone else

tell me she had never been to mcdonalds before and never bought their coffee

darwins theory in actioon this is

 

[no1tovote4]

It mostly is age that caused the burning. As people age their think gets thinner and they are less quick to react to the burning. A healthy 30 year old would likely have had some 1st degree burning after jumping around and flailing for a while and some imaginative cursing. Lawsuits would likely not ensue from that as they were not seriously injured.

A child could have had 3rd degree burns as well as their skin also is more sensitive than an adults. But it is likely that her age as well as the heat of the coffee played a part in this. When we went to restaurants with my GMother (she lived with us for several years near the end of her life) my mother always mixed her coffee and added ice to the coffee to insure she would not be burned. (My mother is a Nurse that worked in Geriatrics and knew the result of age). There is some responsibility for the person that watched her do this rather than making sure that she was safe as well.

The only thing that I disagreed with the verdict on was the amount of responsibility they put towards McD's as opposed to the person who spilled the coffee (they did find her responsible for that). She would have gotten far less if I were the jury (and McD's may not even have kept the case going), but it was 6 or 12 other people depending on the type of jury selected in this case. I disagree with their assessment of the amount of responsibility that McD's had to take.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm quite familiar with the cases in Snopes. Most of them they point out are TOTALLY BOGUS.

From the SNOPES page:



So, the main cite you make is for a set of lawsuits that NEVER EVEN EXISTED.???

Andy

Do you even bother to read at all, or are do you just jump right in and get pompous? Good grief, this is like talking to a damn rock. Go back and READ what I posted regarding the cases from Snopes. Here, I'll give it to you AGAIN.

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:

The cases listed in the snopes article were real, as indicated. Have you finally got that, or do I need to draw a picture?

Jeeez.