Unusual Lawsuit

[AnnaMarie]

Do I think McDondald's should have turned down the temperature? Absolutely. And I'm glad they did.

700 people burned, some as severely as this woman, and McD's ignored it and kept the temp too high. They only turned it down because of this case. If they had won, they would not have turned it down. Same as all the previous instances.

So, if you are glad they turned it down, than indirectly you are glad she won.

 

[Lepplady]

700 people burned, some as severely as this woman, and McD's ignored it and kept the temp too high. They only turned it down because of this case. If they had won, they would not have turned it down. Same as all the previous instances.

So, if you are glad they turned it down, than indirectly you are glad she won.

Absolutely, I'm glad she won. I don't mind saying so directly.
But that doesn't mean that McD's was purposely negligent in serving hot coffee. Just because the judge agreed doesn't make it right. It's still legal to have sex with a horse in 23 states. Doesn't mean people should go out and do it. But if they do decide to try it, it's not the farmer's fault when the horse kicks 'em in the face.

 

[Shasta]

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

The judge, jury, and most people who have read one iota on the case.

 

[Grandpa]

AIt's still legal to have sex with a horse in 23 states. Doesn't mean people should go out and do it. But if they do decide to try it, it's not the farmer's fault when the horse kicks 'em in the face.

Well, if the farmer's promoting his horse as some objet d'affecion for that unsavory segment of society, the farmer just might get called to task for advancing a product unfit for human, uh, consumption.

If you distribute a dangerous product without some type of warning going on, then our society has said you're at least partially at fault for the consequences. That's how we've decided to roll.

 

[Lepplady]

Well, if the farmer's promoting his horse as some objet d'affecion for that unsavory segment of society, the farmer just might get called to task for advancing a product unfit for human, uh, consumption.

If you distribute a dangerous product without some type of warning going on, then our society has said you're at least partially at fault for the consequences. That's how we've decided to roll.

The horse comes with hooves. Does the farmer really NEED to put up a sign saying it kicks?
Well, I guess if the locals don't have the common sense to know that, I guess he does.

700 people got burned by hot coffee? How many didn't? MOST of the thousands, maybe millions, of people that bought coffee during that time realized that the coffee would be hot (since that's what they ordered) and handled it a little more carefully.
I'm not saying that anybody deserves to be burned, so don't assume that. I just think that people (including that judge and jury, who are only human) are placing too much blame on the restaurant. They didn't dump the coffee in anybody's lap.

At this point, all we can do is repeat ourselves. How 'bout we get back to making fun of the guy that inspired this thread with his own unusual law suit.

 

[Grandpa]

The horse comes with hooves. Does the farmer really NEED to put up a sign saying it kicks?
Well, I guess if the locals don't have the common sense to know that, I guess he does.

Well, that's not really the point, but Shasta and the others are right, in that the decision has been rendered, and you're right, in that we're just in a repetition loop now.

At this point, all we can do is repeat ourselves. How 'bout we get back to making fun of the guy that inspired this threat with his own unusual law suit.

I'm afraid he'll use this excellent forum as proof of damages. "See?!? Everyone was making fun of me!!"

 

[Out of Order]

The horse comes with hooves. Does the farmer really NEED to put up a sign saying it kicks?

I've seen signs warning folks "this horse bites."

 

[AnnaMarie]

Absolutely, I'm glad she won. I don't mind saying so directly.
But that doesn't mean that McD's was purposely negligent in serving hot coffee.

If you do not feel they were negligent, why would you think they should have lost the case?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I honestly don't understand.

 

[Lepplady]

If you do not feel they were negligent, why would you think they should have lost the case?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I honestly don't understand.

I'm glad she won some money because she had medical bills to take care of. I'm glad she got some help with that. But I do not believe that macDonald's was criminally negligent in her accidentally spilling hot coffee in herself. My being happy for her getting some money to help with her medical bills is a human consideration, not a legal one.

 

[AnnaMarie]

I'm glad she won some money because she had medical bills to take care of. I'm glad she got some help with that. But I do not believe that macDonald's was criminally negligent in her accidentally spilling hot coffee in herself. My being happy for her getting some money to help with her medical bills is a human consideration, not a legal one.

So, if she had an insurance policy that covered the expenses you would feel differently?

We (you & I) obviously look on these things very differently. I don't feel courts should force an innocent person or company to pay expenses incurred. It should not be based on a company's ability to pay, but only on guilt.

 

[Lepplady]

So, if she had an insurance policy that covered the expenses you would feel differently?

We (you & I) obviously look on these things very differently. I don't feel courts should force an innocent person or company to pay expenses incurred. It should not be based on a company's ability to pay, but only on guilt.

I didn't say anything about the company's ability to pay. I'd feel the same way about her getting help with her bills no matter who the company was. As I said, my being glad for that doesn't deal with the legalities. It's just one person being glad that another got taken care of.

I don't think the word "Innocent" applies, as the spill was an accident. Her insurance would be on the hook because it was her actions that caused her injury. The suit about the EXTENT of her injuries is why she got some money, because the coffee was proven to be too hot. She would likely have been burned anyway, no matter how hot the coffee was, so her insurance would have had to pay anyway. She's the one that spilled it. If the McD's worker at the drive through dumped it in her lap, the company would be on the hook for the whole thing.

That's a good question, though. How much of her medical expenses did her insurance pay out for, versus how much compensatory damages were awarded? Did they pay anything? Did McD's foot the whole bill, even though she was found partially responsible?
We'll probably never know. We'll just have to disagree about the restaurant's culpability. After all, if she'd put the coffee in the cup holder instead of between her legs, we wouldn't be having this discussion, no matter how hot the coffee was.

 

[AnnaMarie]

The actual expenses were approximately $20,000. The rest was based on things like pain and suffering and legal fees. She may not have had any insurance to cover expenses. She asked for them to cover her expenses and look into lowering the temperature of the coffee machines. They refused.

And the discussion would have been had when one of the next 700 people burned went all the way to court, and was made to look frivolous. And until someone took them to court and got a large settlement, there would have continued being people burned.

~~~~

Sometimes the only way to get a company to change something that injures people is to sue them. But you cannot sue unless you sue for money. Part of the settlement includes whatever change is necessary to make something safe. BTDT! I did not want to sue a company, but when we pointed out a safety hazard and made some suggestions of making it safer the guy in charge said "Or what?" And when we pointed out our son required surgery and the next child could be hurt even worse (blind was a very real risk), he shrugged and turned away. Our expenses were very small, but unless we took them to court, they didn't care if other kids got hurt.

 

[AnnaMarie]

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.

How big are tables at McD's? I haven't been in one in a long time, but I recall people bumping into table quite often because they are so close together, and kids are getting up to go to the play area. No rubber-arms required to knock something over. Just a kid in a rush. I've been trying to find the list of 700 (I 've seen it before, so I know it is public) and I'm sure some of the customers burned were kids.

 

[Lepplady]

If this guy's lawsuit flies, maybe Mitt Romney can cash in, too.
Seems he's a mouth breather.

 

[GNTLGNT]

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

...blue ice, ice baby...

 

[FlakeNoir]

If this guy's lawsuit flies, maybe Mitt Romney can cash in, too.
Seems he's a mouth breather.

See.. this here (IMO) is what's wrong with people today. (No, not the mouth breathing...)
I don't really know much about the guy, other than he is in politics...
...and yet, he can't have a wee sleep on a plane, without becoming the butt of a joke?
WTF?

 

[GNTLGNT]

...LOOK!....squirrel!...

 

[AnnaMarie]

Anyone watch Rules of Engagement? Remember Adam and Jennifer at the baseball game? Maybe this guy has friends like Audrey and Jeff. They keep rewinding and replaying Adam and Jennifer on the kiss-cam. (Though I don't think Kiss-cam really is on tv, I think it only shows one the screen at the stadium.)

 

[Lepplady]

...LOOK!....squirrel!...

Look! A sleeping squirrel.
If we make fun of him, do you think he'll sue?

 

[Shasta]

Well, that's not really the point, but Shasta and the others are right, in that the decision has been rendered, and you're right, in that we're just in a repetition loop now.


I'm afraid he'll use this excellent forum as proof of damages. "See?!? Everyone was making fun of me!!"

Except me! I'm safe!