FOX News - not fair and balanced

[SpidermanTuba]

So you put no merit in the fact that she was holding the cup of coffee between her knees and spilled it in her own lap?

I don't care how hot the coffee was, it's her own damn fault she spilled it.

Was she the one who decided to serve it to herself at a temperature far in excess of what is safe? Oh, wait, no, she wasn't!


I hope you don't drive a car Jimmy, not unless you are an automotive engineer. Because if it has a manufacturing defect in it, that the company is aware of and knows could possibly lead to severe injury, it won't be their fault when you get hurt, because you are the one who chose to drive.

Companies have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the safety of the products they sell. Its the consumer that chooses to use the product, so its always 100% their fault.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Of course. The jury found that she was 20% at fault, which decreased the amount she received.

The point is, McDonald's knew , by their own admission, that their coffee was scaldingly hot (185 degrees) and would cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. They knew this because it had happened at least 700 times in the past. Then, they knowingly continued to serve their coffee at this temperature. It's quite obvious that they were negligent. Coffee at normal temperatures (140-150 degrees) doesn't cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The coffee they were serving was not safe for consumption.

That same coffee, if swallowed, would have caused second and third degree burns to a person's lips, mouth, and esophagus. Think about that for a second. Is the following really your argument?

"I don't care how hot the coffee was, it's her own damn fault she drank it."

BTW, do you know what debridement is? This woman had to undergo debridement treatments for her injuries. Debridement is a process they use for burn victims to remove dead skin layers. I won't post pictures because they are stomach turning. Search google images for debridement if you really want a treat.

Now imagine having one or more of the previous procedures applied to your inner thighs, genitals, perineum, and anus over the course of a few weeks.

All over a company's stubborn refusal to lower the temperature of it's coffee to a reasonable level and subsequent stubborn refusal to take care of a person they had injured through their negligence.

Any reasonable person should expect to have to undergo debridement if they spill coffee on themselves.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

OK, if that's not your entire argument (people are responsible for their own actions regardless of the fact that the other party was negligent), then what is your point?

Your entire argument centers around personal responsibility. I'm all for personal responsibility. However, I contend that while she had some responsibility for what happened to her, McDonalds was negligent in the way they were preparing the coffee. A reasonable person wouldn't expect to get 3rd degree burns from spilt coffee.

That's why I think the settlement was just.

Personaly responsibility, but not corporate responsibility. Corporations aren't responsible for any of their actions.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As I said before, I don't think it was worth $3 million. If she had sued for and received enough to pay her medical, and maybe plus a little more, perhaps I could see it easier.

SHE OFFERED TO SETTLE FOR 20 THOUSAND DOLLARS. The JURY decided to award her that amount, and only 160k was for compensatory damages.

And the final dollar amount isn't even known, as they ended up settling out of court? Did you even READ the article?

Everyone else seems to be basing a lot of their argument on what could have happened or what might have happened. If a case is decided on what could have happened or what might have happened, I think that sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

What does this even mean? "Well your honor, your assuming that if I hadn't killed the victim, that no one else would have killed him. You shouldn't based your decision on what might have happened or what could have happened! You can't base your decision on an assumption they wouldn't have died anyway!" Uhh, yeah he can. And the jury in the McDonald's case can base their decision on the fact that if the coffee was served at a reasonable temperature only minor burns - if even that - would have resulted.

Finding someone only 20% responsible for spilling hot coffee in their own lap because they were trying to open it in that way is bullshit in my opinion.

What percent responsibility does she have for serving it a 180 F?

Note: I said hot coffee. Yes, I know she wouldn't expect it to be that hot, but that doesn't change the fact that everone knows coffee is going to be hot and it wouldn't be a good idea to open it while bracing it between your knees.

Its also not a good idea to go skydiving but if my parachute fails because of a manufacturing defect that the manufacturer was aware of and failed to do anything about, my surviving family members are owed some money.

 

[misterblu]

SHE OFFERED TO SETTLE FOR 20 THOUSAND DOLLARS. The JURY decided to award her that amount, and only 160k was for compensatory damages.

And the final dollar amount isn't even known, as they ended up settling out of court? Did you even READ the article?

Maybe it would make JimmyEW feel better to know that she undoubtedly received less than $500,000 in punitive damages:

"The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful."

 

[Hobbit]

Regardless of the validity of the case, one thing remains true, and that is that this case got bad publicity and was the pebble that started the avalanche of frivilous lawsuits. It is the quintessential example of a bad lawsuit. The original point was that bringing this case up on Fox shows that they're biased towards corporations, or against suers, or something like that, and that's a load of bullcrap.

 

[misterblu]

Ha! There were plenty of frivilous lawsuits far before this one surfaced. It was hardly

the pebble that started the avalanche of frivilous lawsuits.

If McDonald's had paid the woman for her medical bills, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit at all.

It isn't so much that the case got 'bad' publicity. The media sensationalized the entire thing, leaving out details that would allow reasonable adults to understand that the case wasn't frivilous at all.

I see many knee jerk responses to this case and too few reasoned and informed ones.