Unusual Lawsuit

[swiftdog2.0]

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."

Sheesh, are you guys trying to bait me or what??

Don't get me started on juries. They are not perfect. I served on a jury for a murder trial for three weeks. We saw plenty of evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of a cold-blooded, drug related murder. What happened you ask? Jury was hung resulting in a mistrial. All because we had a couple of jurors that could not deal with having made the decision to put someone in jail for the rest of their life. They guy walked. No justice for the victim and the streets are now less safe. Having all the evidence does not mean you will make the right decision.

Anyway, we are waaaayy of topic on this thread now

 

[Grandpa]

Sheesh, are you guys trying to bait me or what??

Don't get me started on juries. They are not perfect. I served on a jury for a murder trial for three weeks. We saw plenty of evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of a cold-blooded, drug related murder. What happened you ask? Jury was hung resulting in a mistrial. All because we had a couple of jurors that could not deal with having made the decision to put someone in jail for the rest of their life. They guy walked. No justice for the victim and the streets are now less safe. Having all the evidence does not mean you will make the right decision.

I agree that the jury system is an imperfect one and can have bad results. In that sense, it's like every other human system ever.

But it is still true that the jury and/or judge hears a lot more depth of evidence than we do in a newspaper column.

Anyway, we are waaaayy of topic on this thread now

Oh, gosh, you're right.

If some lawyer is representing this guy and asking for $10 million, he should get called up in front of the grievance committee.

 

[swiftdog2.0]

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

Yeah, hot things will burn you. I guess we are going to have to wrap everyone up in heat shielded, protective bubble wrap Just be sure to poke enough holes in the part that goes over the face and head so that no one suffocates or we'll have to sue the bubble wrap company!

I have now shifted into sarcasm mode. No offense is meant by my cranky dog-barking.

 

[Grandpa]

Yeah, hot things will burn you. I guess we are going to have to wrap everyone up in heat shielded, protective bubble wrap Just be sure to poke enough holes in the part that goes over the face and head so that no one suffocates or we'll have to sue the bubble wrap company!

I have now shifted into sarcasm mode. No offense is meant by my cranky dog-barking.

I'm glad you said that, because I was wondering how making what I thought was a valid contribution to the discussion was "baiting." But I am a jumpy, nervous, oversensitive guy, so I thought maybe it was just me.

Sure, we could wrap up people in bubble wrap. Or we could just serve them coffee that's not so hot that it treats them like tonight's fresh lobster dinner.

We could say, "Look, driving in a car is dangerous. If you get thwammed by a speeding lunatic, you took that chance getting on the road." Or, "You know you can get food poisoning eating in a restaurant. So if you do, you've got no one to blame but yourself."

But our milquetoast society has somehow seen fit to hold people who create dangerous conditions at least partly responsible for the results of those conditions. Yeah, I know. I don't get it either. Anarchy will soon ensue.

Spoiler

Please take the above post in the humor in which it's intended, and yes, that was more properly "baiting."

 

[AnnaMarie]

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.

Not exactly. because of McDonald's ignoring the many cases of customers being burned, and because of McDonald's ignoring being told repeatedly to turn down the temperature on their coffee, and because of McDonald's amazingly competent public relations department restaurants now have warnings on labels.

And anyone who blames the woman who suffered burns and required skin grafts, would you feel the same way if someone was sitting at a table in the restaurant and the coffee got spilled onto a child? Coffee from those machines is not supposed to be that hot.

And for the record, she initially asked for medical expenses covered. That was all she initially wanted.

 

[AnnaMarie]

McDonalds Coffee Case Facts | Texas Trial Lawyers Association

• McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

 

[swiftdog2.0]

I'm glad you said that, because I was wondering how making what I thought was a valid contribution to the discussion was "baiting." But I am a jumpy, nervous, oversensitive guy, so I thought maybe it was just me.

I was being a smart-a**. Something I've struggled with since I could cogitate. Case in point, my Dad always used to ask me "Why do you always have to be such a smart-a**?' To which I would usually reply, "I don't know. But at least I'm not a dumb-a**!" He usually was not very pleased.......

 

[FlakeNoir]

Not exactly. because of McDonald's ignoring the many cases of customers being burned, and because of McDonald's ignoring being told repeatedly to turn down the temperature on their coffee, and because of McDonald's amazingly competent public relations department restaurants now have warnings on labels.

And anyone who blames the woman who suffered burns and required skin grafts, would you feel the same way if someone was sitting at a table in the restaurant and the coffee got spilled onto a child? Coffee from those machines is not supposed to be that hot.

And for the record, she initially asked for medical expenses covered. That was all she initially wanted.

I have a child who was burned from near boiling liquid when he was 21 months old... hospital, surgery... mucho pain. Though it wasn't from a McDee's drink--the anguish and suffering we went through... yeah, if your coffee is that hot (and accidents do happen, as I sadly found out) cool it the f'k down.
It is not necessary to have a beverage available for sale that is too hot to be able to drink right away. Seems like common sense to me.

 

[EMTP513]

Speaking of unUSUAL LAW suits, what the holy H*LL is John Boehner and stupid bleep Sarah Palin doing NOW?
I consider myself partially Republican, but watching all this f*ckery is starting to grind my last nerve out of existence. I thought it was bad when Clinton was in office, and I was 100% Republican then, but THIS ridiculous bs is the worst I've ever seen.
Why the hell do people who act like that much of a baby get to stay in power. Boehner, Bachmann and Palin disgust me so bad I'd like to throw up on them.
Don't they EVer have anything better to do than start trouble every 2 seconds?

 

[GNTLGNT]

...whoo-wee...time for a break!....coffee anyone???....

 

[Out of Order]

...whoo-wee...time for a break!....coffee anyone???....

Black, no sugar.

 

[GNTLGNT]

Black, no sugar.

 

[Out of Order]

After reading through this thread maybe the coffee should be iced.

 

[Grandpa]

I was being a smart-a**. Something I've struggled with since I could cogitate. Case in point, my Dad always used to ask me "Why do you always have to be such a smart-a**?' To which I would usually reply, "I don't know. But at least I'm not a dumb-a**!" He usually was not very pleased.......

My dad was the same way, except he'd say, "Son, everyone likes a little one, but no one likes a smart one."

Anyway, when responding last night, after trying to unwind from a tough day, I unleashed the inner smart@$$ myself. We've now both ridden the Path of Rhetoric astride the same breed of ass. (Hint: It wasn't the little one.) All good.

 

[Lepplady]

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.

In all fairness, not all of us would have stuck a cup of hot coffee between our legs. Some of us might have that that there was a chance it might, I don't know... be hot.
As for what constitutes "abnormally" hot, that paints a very fine line. They know it's not cold when they buy it. A little common sense, folks.

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.

Exactly.

Sure, she was in the car, but that doesn't preclude her from pulling over and getting out. And modesty be damned. If she was burned, those clothes could have come off.

 

[Lepplady]

If some lawyer is representing this guy and asking for $10 million, he should get called up in front of the grievance committee.

No. He should just get laughed out of court, along with his client.

 

[Lepplady]

Not exactly. because of McDonald's ignoring the many cases of customers being burned, and because of McDonald's ignoring being told repeatedly to turn down the temperature on their coffee, and because of McDonald's amazingly competent public relations department restaurants now have warnings on labels.

And anyone who blames the woman who suffered burns and required skin grafts, would you feel the same way if someone was sitting at a table in the restaurant and the coffee got spilled onto a child? Coffee from those machines is not supposed to be that hot.

And for the record, she initially asked for medical expenses covered. That was all she initially wanted.

I didn't say I blamed the woman. It was an accident. One that could have been avoided with a little common sense, but an accident none the less. She didn't spill it on herself on purpose. But she did, in fact, spill it on herself. Not comparable with somebody pouring coffee on a child. Completely different scenario, unless junior is chugging his fifth cup of the day.

 

[AnnaMarie]

Pouring coffee on anyone is assault.

But, imagine you are sitting at McD's with your child. Another child at the next table accidentally knocks over your coffee and your child suffers such severe burns that she requires skin grafting. Do you not feel McD's holds some responsibility in that, after 700 other people have accidentally been burned and they have repeatedly been told the temperature should be lower? What if you do not have insurance to cover the surgery, medication, and hospital stay.

 

[Lepplady]

Pouring coffee on anyone is assault.

But, imagine you are sitting at McD's with your child. Another child at the next table accidentally knocks over your coffee and your child suffers such severe burns that she requires skin grafting. Do you not feel McD's holds some responsibility in that, after 700 other people have accidentally been burned and they have repeatedly been told the temperature should be lower? What if you do not have insurance to cover the surgery, medication, and hospital stay.

First, the kid at the next table would have to be Stretch Armstrong to reach a cup on my table. And second, I keep my hot beverages, as well as knives and anything else that could harm a child, on the other side, away from them. Might just be me. Third, It's not the restaurant's fault if by some chance the long-limbed kid at the next table dumps over the coffee I carelessly left next to the child at mine. It's a toss-up between me as the responsible adult in charge of my table and my child, and the parent of the other child that should have been watching that kid better. I know, I know. Accidents happen. That's why they aren't called on-purposes. But a little due diligence goes a long way.
Do I think McDondald's should have turned down the temperature? Absolutely. And I'm glad they did. But I do not think that McD's is responsible for what people do with food or beverage after it's been claimed by the consumer. After cash and goods exchange hands, it's the property, and the responsibility, of the person that bought it.

 

[Tim D.]

First, the kid at the next table would have to be Stretch Armstrong to reach a cup on my table. And second, I keep my hot beverages, as well as knives and anything else that could harm a child, on the other side, away from them. Might just be me. Third, It's not the restaurant's fault if by some chance the long-limbed kid at the next table dumps over the coffee I carelessly left next to the child at mine. It's a toss-up between me as the responsible adult in charge of my table and my child, and the parent of the other child that should have been watching that kid better. I know, I know. Accidents happen. That's why they aren't called on-purposes. But a little due diligence goes a long way.
Do I think McDondald's should have turned down the temperature? Absolutely. And I'm glad they did. But I do not think that McD's is responsible for what people do with food or beverage after it's been claimed by the consumer. After cash and goods exchange hands, it's the property, and the responsibility, of the person that bought it.

Well, let's just agree to disagree on the whole matter. But the judge agrees with me.