Unusual Lawsuit

[DiO'Bolic]

I listened to a host read the legal disclaimer printed on the back of the NY Yankees tickets the other morning on the Mike & Mike Show, in relation to this lawsuit. It was golden! I've looked but can't seem to find the wording of the disclaimer in my online searches. Does anyone know of a link for it?

The guy should have tried to get money advertising for Bobbie's Discount Mattresses or something to that effect rather then suing. But who knows, it could be the plan all along. After the lawsuit is thrown out in court, the continued media attention will boost his stock, and he could then demand a premium for any advertising work he does.

 

[Out of Order]

The guy should have tried to get money advertising for Bobbie's Discount Mattresses or something to that effect rather then suing. But who knows, it could be the plan all along. After the lawsuit is thrown out in court, the continued media attention will boost his stock, and he could then demand a premium for any advertising work he does.

From the way the guy was sleeping he should have a good shot at selling neck braces as well.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

From the way the guy was sleeping he should have a good shot at selling neck braces as well.

Yup. The guy needs an agent, not a lawyer.

 

[Lepplady]

See? He's gonna be a meme anyway. He should jump on board, have a few laughs and make some money while he's at it.

 

[Lepplady]

I listened to a host read the legal disclaimer printed on the back of the NY Yankees tickets the other morning on the Mike & Mike Show, in relation to this lawsuit. It was golden! I've looked but can't seem to find the wording of the disclaimer in my online searches. Does anyone know of a link for it?

The guy should have tried to get money advertising for Bobbie's Discount Mattresses or something to that effect rather then suing. But who knows, it could be the plan all along. After the lawsuit is thrown out in court, the continued media attention will boost his stock, and he could then demand a premium for any advertising work he does.

I found this on their website. It's the terms and conditions of (season?) ticket holders.
It states, among other things that: DURING ALL BATTING PRACTICES, FIELDING PRACTICES, WARM-UPS AND THE COURSE OF THE GAME EXPERIENCE, HARD HIT BASEBALLS AND BATS AND FRAGMENTS THEREOF MAY BE THROWN OR HIT INTO THE STANDS, CONCOURSES AND CONCESSION AREAS. FOR EVERYONE’S SAFETY, PLEASE STAY ALERT AND BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS.
(Their all caps, not mine.) He fails on the 'stay alert' front from the jump. So if we want to get all legal and everything, he was in breach of the terms and conditions of buying a ticket to the game.

 

[Dana Jean]

This is SUCH a perfect example of one of those memes I think are mean and unnecessary! Good find, Scott!

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm a horrible person. I laughed.

 

[Out of Order]

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm a horrible person. I laughed.

Me too.


I wonder how long it will be before he's on Letterman?

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I found this on their website. It's the terms and conditions of (season?) ticket holders.
It states, among other things that: DURING ALL BATTING PRACTICES, FIELDING PRACTICES, WARM-UPS AND THE COURSE OF THE GAME EXPERIENCE, HARD HIT BASEBALLS AND BATS AND FRAGMENTS THEREOF MAY BE THROWN OR HIT INTO THE STANDS, CONCOURSES AND CONCESSION AREAS. FOR EVERYONE’S SAFETY, PLEASE STAY ALERT AND BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS.
(Their all caps, not mine.) He fails on the 'stay alert' front from the jump. So if we want to get all legal and everything, he was in breach of the terms and conditions of buying a ticket to the game.

Thanks, ant that applies. But what they read on the Mike & Mike show was something to the effect that they were in a public place and therefore agreed to allow any public likeness of themselves utilized for broadcast in any manner, and were not to expect any level of privacy blah blah blah.

 

[Lepplady]

Thanks, ant that applies. But what they read on the Mike & Mike show was something to the effect that they were in a public place and therefore agreed to allow any public likeness of themselves utilized for broadcast in any manner, and were not to expect any level of privacy blah blah blah.

That's not the point, he'll argue. They were MEAN, he'll say. I'm damaged to the tune of ten mil because they poked fun at me, he'll insist.
Pity of it is that whether he wins a lawsuit or not, he'll likely end up making money one way or another on the back of this.

 

[Shasta]

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm a horrible person. I laughed.

Pretty much.

 

[SutterKane]

People will sue for anything. I gave up all hope on humanity years ago when the prison inmate sued the state because they wouldn't give him Chunky Peanut Butter (The smooth kind in the commissary just wasn't cutting it I guess)

Lawsuit.no: Peanut butter prisoner lawsuit

 

[swiftdog2.0]

I studied that case in a business law class for my MBA. If you actually look into and don't just buy the media hype, that case was totally valid and that woman should have won.

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

It's really a shame that so many people easily judge others without all of the facts.

What's really a shame is when people automatically assume that others don't know all the facts when a comment is made.

Despite what you may have thought, I would not have posted what I did if I wasn't reasonably informed of the situation. Reading the link you provided did nothing to change my understanding of the facts or provide me with any new insight to the case. So, to paraphrase Jules Winfield from Pulp Fiction, "please allow me to retort....."

I still feel the suit was frivolous. I'm sorry if my opinion differs from yours. I respect your opinion. Please return the favor and respect mine.

Now, I'm sorry the woman was injured and I'm sure there was genuine pain and suffering. However, it is my belief that said pain and suffering was caused by her own actions.

To me, what this boils down to (pun definitely intended) is this:

• Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, etc. are hot beverages. Any reasonable person should be aware that if you spill a hot beverage on yourself it will burn you. Hot beverages have lids on them for that reason. It shouldn't matter if the coffee was 100 degrees or 1,000 degrees. This person's coffee had a perfectly functional lid on it.
• Placing a cup of hot liquid between your legs to try and remove the lid while sitting in a car is not very smart. You are in an awkward, tilted position when attempting this. A spill is almost guaranteed to happen. Why should the company that sold you the beverage be held responsible for the ill advised actions of a customer after their transaction had been completed? No representative from the company spilled the coffee on the woman. She did it to herself. That would be like me suing GM if I wrap my car around a tree because I can't handle or control the 420 HP the engine of my car puts out. It would be my fault if that happened and I would have no one to blame but myself.

Not looking to start a flame war or hijack the thread. I just don't like being labeled as "so many people". I find that phrase condescending and insulting.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.......

 

[Lepplady]

What's really a shame is when people automatically assume that others don't know all the facts when a comment is made.

Despite what you may have thought, I would not have posted what I did if I wasn't reasonably informed of the situation. Reading the link you provided did nothing to change my understanding of the facts or provide me with any new insight to the case. So, to paraphrase Jules Winfield from Pulp Fiction, "please allow me to retort....."

I still feel the suit was frivolous. I'm sorry if my opinion differs from yours. I respect your opinion. Please return the favor and respect mine.

Now, I'm sorry the woman was injured and I'm sure there was genuine pain and suffering. However, it is my belief that said pain and suffering was caused by her own actions.

To me, what this boils down to (pun definitely intended) is this:

• Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, etc. are hot beverages. Any reasonable person should be aware that if you spill a hot beverage on yourself it will burn you. Hot beverages have lids on them for that reason. It shouldn't matter if the coffee was 100 degrees or 1,000 degrees. This person's coffee had a perfectly functional lid on it.
• Placing a cup of hot liquid between your legs to try and remove the lid while sitting in a car is not very smart. You are in an awkward, tilted position when attempting this. A spill is almost guaranteed to happen. Why should the company that sold you the beverage be held responsible for the ill advised actions of a customer after their transaction had been completed? No representative from the company spilled the coffee on the woman. She did it to herself. That would be like me suing GM if I wrap my car around a tree because I can't handle or control the 420 HP the engine of my car puts out. It would be my fault if that happened and I would have no one to blame but myself.

Not looking to start a flame war or hijack the thread. I just don't like being labeled as "so many people". I find that phrase condescending and insulting.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.......

I agree. Who doesn't know that coffee is hot? But because of her, restaurants now have to put a warning on the label saying to be careful. The contents may be hot. All I can do is shake my head.

 

[Shasta]

What's really a shame is when people automatically assume that others don't know all the facts when a comment is made.

Despite what you may have thought, I would not have posted what I did if I wasn't reasonably informed of the situation. Reading the link you provided did nothing to change my understanding of the facts or provide me with any new insight to the case. So, to paraphrase Jules Winfield from Pulp Fiction, "please allow me to retort....."

I still feel the suit was frivolous. I'm sorry if my opinion differs from yours. I respect your opinion. Please return the favor and respect mine.

Now, I'm sorry the woman was injured and I'm sure there was genuine pain and suffering. However, it is my belief that said pain and suffering was caused by her own actions.

To me, what this boils down to (pun definitely intended) is this:

• Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, etc. are hot beverages. Any reasonable person should be aware that if you spill a hot beverage on yourself it will burn you. Hot beverages have lids on them for that reason. It shouldn't matter if the coffee was 100 degrees or 1,000 degrees. This person's coffee had a perfectly functional lid on it.
• Placing a cup of hot liquid between your legs to try and remove the lid while sitting in a car is not very smart. You are in an awkward, tilted position when attempting this. A spill is almost guaranteed to happen. Why should the company that sold you the beverage be held responsible for the ill advised actions of a customer after their transaction had been completed? No representative from the company spilled the coffee on the woman. She did it to herself. That would be like me suing GM if I wrap my car around a tree because I can't handle or control the 420 HP the engine of my car puts out. It would be my fault if that happened and I would have no one to blame but myself.

Not looking to start a flame war or hijack the thread. I just don't like being labeled as "so many people". I find that phrase condescending and insulting.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.......

You are right. I've never met anyone who was familiar with the case who thought it was frivolous, so I just assumed, which was wrong of me and I apologize.

But that does make me very curious about your opinion. So you think it's okay that mcD was incredibly aware that the coffee was burning people and still chose not to do anything about it?

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.




700 times is a whole lot of times. When should they take responsibility?

It was 40 degrees higher than what even they considered consumable!

I'm curious at what point you think a company should take responsibility.

Regardless, it's law that companies have to provide a product that's safe for consumers and if they knowingly violate that they are held responsible. In this case it was more than proven that mcD knew it was burning people and yet kept selling it. The law doesn't think that's a frivolous lawsuit. It's why consumer protections are in place.

 

[Grandpa]

According to Shasta's link, the woman spent eight days in the hospital with deep and horribly painful burns and offered to settle for $20K. MickeyD said no. That was a bad business decision.

A label on coffee everywhere that says, "This is hot," is an overreaction to the liability, because they generally don't keep it as hot as McDonald's used to. Now, if McDonald's had a sticker that said, "We keep this to near boiling all the time," maybe they could've claimed notice to the consumer. But the next logical question is, "Why the hell do you keep it near boiling all the time? Are you trying to hurt people?"

I have some familiarity with the case. Even the judge said McDonald's behavior was way out of line. Sorry, this isn't the poster child for a overreaching case that the industry would like us to think. There are other and better examples. Of course, for every one of those examples, there are counter-examples of corporate defendants crushing valid claims because they drown the plaintiffs in litigation costs. We don't hear about those.

 

[Tim D.]

You are right. I've never met anyone who was familiar with the case who thought it was frivolous, so I just assumed, which was wrong of me and I apologize.

But that does make me very curious about your opinion. So you think it's okay that mcD was incredibly aware that the coffee was burning people and still chose not to do anything about it?

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.




700 times is a whole lot of times. When should they take responsibility?

It was 40 degrees higher than what even they considered consumable!

I'm curious at what point you think a company should take responsibility.

Regardless, it's law that companies have to provide a product that's safe for consumers and if they knowingly violate that they are held responsible. In this case it was more than proven that mcD knew it was burning people and yet kept selling it. The law doesn't think that's a frivolous lawsuit. It's why consumer protections are in place.

I agree. I've spilled coffee on myself in restaurants and I've spilled coffee on myself that I've made at home, usually caused by my own clumsiness, and while the burns caused some pain and redness it was nothing like what the McDonald's coffee did. Maybe the lady did perform a stupid act by trying to open the coffee while it sat between her legs, and that's why the court found her to be 35% responsible for what happened. But the fact that McDonald's knew that their coffee was abnormally hot (too hot to consume, by their own admission)and knew of the long history of people being burned by their coffee clearly and without doubt put the largest responsibility on them. Everyone knows that a fresh cup of coffee is hot, but McDonald's didn't tell people that their coffee was so much hotter than the average cup of restaurant coffee. And that was negligent. Having to get skin grafts and spend 8 days in the hospital is in no way frivolous. And I daresay to anyone who is of the opinion that she shouldn't have sued over this, had they spilled a scalding hot beverage on their genitals they would probably have been on the phone to their lawyer before they even reached the emergency room.

 

[Shasta]

According to Shasta's link, the woman spent eight days in the hospital with deep and horribly painful burns and offered to settle for $20K. MickeyD said no. That was a bad business decision.

A label on coffee everywhere that says, "This is hot," is an overreaction to the liability, because they generally don't keep it as hot as McDonald's used to. Now, if McDonald's had a sticker that said, "We keep this to near boiling all the time," maybe they could've claimed notice to the consumer. But the next logical question is, "Why the hell do you keep it near boiling all the time? Are you trying to hurt people?"

I have some familiarity with the case. Even the judge said McDonald's behavior was way out of line. Sorry, this isn't the poster child for a overreaching case that the industry would like us to think. There are other and better examples. Of course, for every one of those examples, there are counter-examples of corporate defendants crushing valid claims because they drown the plaintiffs in litigation costs. We don't hear about those.

Grandpa, I adore you. You say everything about eight million times better than I ever could. And even when I don't agree with you (which is rare, granted) your writing is just so damn good I have to think about any point you make. I love it.

 

[swiftdog2.0]

You are right. I've never met anyone who was familiar with the case who thought it was frivolous, so I just assumed, which was wrong of me and I apologize.

But that does make me very curious about your opinion. So you think it's okay that mcD was incredibly aware that the coffee was burning people and still chose not to do anything about it?

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.




700 times is a whole lot of times. When should they take responsibility?

It was 40 degrees higher than what even they considered consumable!

I'm curious at what point you think a company should take responsibility.

Regardless, it's law that companies have to provide a product that's safe for consumers and if they knowingly violate that they are held responsible. In this case it was more than proven that mcD knew it was burning people and yet kept selling it. The law doesn't think that's a frivolous lawsuit. It's why consumer protections are in place.

No need to apologize. As I said, I respect your opinion. Your logic is sound, I just don't agree with it.

I still disagree with the finding and here is why:

If the server at the drive through had spilled the coffee on her as they were transferring it then I would say sue to your hearts content. That didn't happen. She spilled it on herself. Would she have been as litigious if her grandson spilled it on her by accident?

To me it just comes down to commonsense. If you pour scalding water on yourself 700 times you are going to get burned 700 times. Should you make them shut off the hot water in their bathrooms, too?

Hot coffee is no different than hot water. Ir's hot, its going to burn you if you spill it on yourself. This woman would still have been burned if the coffee was at a lower temperature. She was in a car and couldn't change her clothes so she had to sit in the coffee she spilled on herself, keeping the hot liquid on her skin for a longer period of time than if she were at home at or somewhere else where she should dry herself off. In the car setting, who is to say she still wouldn't have been burned severely enough to cause her injuries if the coffee was at a lower temperature? The fact that she spilled the coffee on herself, after removing the lid, which is a safety device, is what I base my opinion on. To me it's no different than if I remove the safety guard from a circular saw and try to sue Makita after I cut off a finger.

Anyway, I'm just about done defending my position on this. My apologies to the OP for derailing their thread.

 

[Grandpa]

I still disagree with the finding and here is why:

When I hear people say, "How could the jury/judge possibly make that decision?" I tend to say, "Well, they heard all the evidence, and we didn't."

The jury heard the admissible evidence and gave her an award they felt commensurate with her injuries and punitives for McDonald's lack of caring. The judge reduced the punitives, but the judge heard all the evidence, too, and agreed that punitives were called for. And the judge reduced the award by what the jury said was the level of her own negligence.

I think the punitives boil down (nyuk!!) to the fact that McDonald's essentially said, "Yeah, we knew our coffee would burn the snot out of people, but we kept it boiling anyway."

I've spilled fresh coffee on my hands when taking the lid off a cup, not even in my car, and it hurt, but it didn't peel the skin off (and you learn very quickly to hold the cup down low and not at the top). No, I didn't sue, even though if I can't use my hands to type, I can't work. But then again, Starbucks didn't keep it hot enough to send me to the hospital for eight days or even incapacitate me for more than a minute or two. I said, "Ow," rinsed off with cold water, and didn't have anything worse than a mild tingle. Now, if Starbucks kept it flame-on to where I got blisters, sloughed-off hide, disfigurement, and I'd missed work, I might've thought about it. So good for them that they didn't do stupid stuff like that.

 

[Shasta]

To me it just comes down to commonsense. If you pour scalding water on yourself 700 times you are going to get burned 700 times. Should you make them shut off the hot water in their bathrooms, too?

Yes! If it's 190 degrees, yes!!

Hot water heaters are only allowed to go to 150 or 160 from what I can tell.

And here's an interesting table on the temps it takes to burn.
Residential ENERGYSmart Library