Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/26/2013 12:55:30 PM EST
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53362111/

Again? Really? Really?

They actually had this happen before. Its reason why they specifically put a warning of coffee cups. So yeah...
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 12:57:27 PM EST
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 12:59:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.
View Quote

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:00:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:00:36 PM EST
Other than pouring her coffee on herself in the drive-thru... whats her claim?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:01:01 PM EST
I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:01:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2013 1:03:13 PM EST by Makarov92]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:03:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:
I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.
View Quote


To put the lid on properly??? Its not rocket science.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:03:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.

for one she had to get skin grafts.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:14:40 PM EST
First thing I check is that the top is on correctly. Lost count how many times I have had to finish putting it on. Never thought I had a potential lawsuit handed to me at the drive thru.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:14:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.


Google image search "Mcdonalds burns". I'd say that was some pretty fucking hot coffee.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:15:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.



Graphic and NSFW:

Click To View Spoiler
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:19:48 PM EST
McDonalds still says that they serve their coffee at 175 degrees ," because that's what the customers want"

I personally do not want my coffee that hot. If I buy coffee, I want to drink it when I get it, not 45 minutes later.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:22:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.



Graphic and NSFW:

Click To View Spoiler


But how does that it legally McDonald's fault? Did one of McDonald's people spill it on her?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:25:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:

I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.
View Quote

Most fast food employees aren't trained in emergency first aid. Now, if she'd needed "assistance" scoring some meth or good weed, then she would have been in the right place.

McD's Girl: There's a woman having a baby in the lobby! Teh noes!

McD's Mgr: Where's Tyklone?! He learned some stuff in prison! He'll deliver the baby!

McD's Girl: He's out behind the dumpster getting high!

McD's Mgr: He'll have to cut his break short, the life of this baby is more important!
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:26:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2013 1:29:07 PM EST by NavyDoc1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.



Graphic and NSFW:

Click To View Spoiler


However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fucked up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:27:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OiRogers:
Other than pouring her coffee on herself in the drive-thru... whats her claim?
View Quote
is part of the bummer plan, now with bummer care controlling 1/6 of US business, he now wants to control Mickey D
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:27:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:

But how does that it legally McDonald's fault? Did one of McDonald's people spill it on her?
View Quote
We done did this already.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1544941_How_much_do_you_know_about_the_McDonald_s_coffee_lawsuit_.html
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:28:49 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
[
But how does that it legally McDonald's fault? Did one of McDonald's people spill it on her?
View Quote


Common sense tells you it doesn't and this is yet another part of our messed up tort system. I learned not to put hot stuff in my lap at an early age and have never, ever, had to get skin grafts. Funny how that works.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:30:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:


Common sense tells you it doesn't and this is yet another part of our messed up tort system. I learned not to put hot stuff in my lap at an early age and have never, ever, had to get skin grafts. Funny how that works.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
[
But how does that it legally McDonald's fault? Did one of McDonald's people spill it on her?


Common sense tells you it doesn't and this is yet another part of our messed up tort system. I learned not to put hot stuff in my lap at an early age and have never, ever, had to get skin grafts. Funny how that works.
I see a pattern here, next time it should be a man suing McDonalds.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:32:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fuck up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.
View Quote


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:33:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fucked up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.
View Quote

Absolutely correct. In Liebeck's case, she was found to share some culpability and her judgement was reduced accordingly.

McDonald's, in Liebeck's case, was still found to have the lion's hare of the responsibility for her injuries and for a host of legally defensible reasons.

This chick? I dunno... we'll have to see the case play out.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:34:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fucked up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.
View Quote


By your example, it would make more sense if a bus occupant would pay the fee to use the bus, and than sat down - only to find out that there was small print on the receipt that there would be spikes on the chairs for several minutes after payment, and the person had to test the chair for spikes several times before they actually put their full weight on the chair. But in the mean time, they tripped before the spikes had receded.

Of course, if you want an example to actually make sense and be analogous to the circumstances, it isn't as exciting as kneejerk reaction of comparing someone purposefully throwing themselves in front of a moving bus.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:34:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fuck up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.

Correction: 700 prior SETTLEMENTS for burns, their recorded complaints were well into the thousands.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:37:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:
I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.
View Quote


past tense motherfucker, do you speak it?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:48:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fuck up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.

Shouldn't matter if the bus driver falsified his logs--if you throw youself in front of a bus, the fault is yours.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:49:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maggiethecat:


past tense motherfucker, do you speak it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maggiethecat:
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:
I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.


past tense motherfucker, do you speak it?



Dude, don't you recognize future past tense imperfect?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:51:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
[div style='text-align: right;']

Shouldn't matter if the bus driver falsified his logs--if you throw youself in front of a bus, the fault is yours.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
[div style='text-align: right;']
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fuck up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.

Shouldn't matter if the bus driver falsified his logs--if you throw youself in front of a bus, the fault is yours.

How is your statement germane to the current discussion? Are you suggesting the lady in the story or Liebeck intentionally threw coffee on themselves?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:56:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:

How is your statement germane to the current discussion? Are you suggesting the lady in the story or Liebeck intentionally threw coffee on themselves?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
[div style='text-align: right;']
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fuck up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.

Shouldn't matter if the bus driver falsified his logs--if you throw youself in front of a bus, the fault is yours.

How is your statement germane to the current discussion? Are you suggesting the lady in the story or Liebeck intentionally threw coffee on themselves?

No, what I'm saying is that if someone does something stupid or irresponsible, the fault for that act is theirs, not the guy with the biggest pockets.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 1:58:22 PM EST
I also think their coffee is too hot.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:04:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:


By your example, it would make more sense if a bus occupant would pay the fee to use the bus, and than sat down - only to find out that there was small print on the receipt that there would be spikes on the chairs for several minutes after payment, and the person had to test the chair for spikes several times before they actually put their full weight on the chair. But in the mean time, they tripped before the spikes had receded.

Of course, if you want an example to actually make sense and be analogous to the circumstances, it isn't as exciting as kneejerk reaction of comparing someone purposefully throwing themselves in front of a moving bus.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fucked up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.


By your example, it would make more sense if a bus occupant would pay the fee to use the bus, and than sat down - only to find out that there was small print on the receipt that there would be spikes on the chairs for several minutes after payment, and the person had to test the chair for spikes several times before they actually put their full weight on the chair. But in the mean time, they tripped before the spikes had receded.

Of course, if you want an example to actually make sense and be analogous to the circumstances, it isn't as exciting as kneejerk reaction of comparing someone purposefully throwing themselves in front of a moving bus.



You are suggesting that McDonalds intentionally wanted to hurt this lady? A more apt comparison, using the bus metaphor, is a person get on the bus, pays their fee, neglects to use the provided seatbelts, then sues when the bus hits a bump and they fall down.

Knee jerk has absolutely nothing to do with it. I've read the case and the opinions, for and against, and I still hold the same opinion...and it's not about evil corporations being all corporationy as I hear quite often.

This next case is one reason why we have so many frivolous lawsuits--"She got a big payout so why not try to get myself a big payout for the same problem." One person hears about a big payout and others come flocking.

True story: I was involved in a case in Hawaii where an individual burned down his house when the hairdryer he was using to put decals all over his surfboard shorted out. The sued the retailer who sold the product, the manufacturer who made it, and the subcontractors who made some of the components. The defense was: "This is a hair dryer, it was not made to be on continuously for several hours putting flammable decals on surfboards and we are in New York and don't even know decals go on surfboards." The surfer won because a jury of his "peers" said "Yep brah, everybody knows you put decals on surfboards with hairdryers. Haole betta pay up 'cause they are a corporation and stuff."
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:10:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

You are suggesting that McDonalds intentionally wanted to hurt this lady? A more apt comparison, using the bus metaphor, is a person get on the bus, pays their fee, neglects to use the provided seatbelts, then sues when the bus hits a bump and they fall down.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

You are suggesting that McDonalds intentionally wanted to hurt this lady? A more apt comparison, using the bus metaphor, is a person get on the bus, pays their fee, neglects to use the provided seatbelts, then sues when the bus hits a bump and they fall down.


No - what I'm saying is that if the product or service being sold is unfit for use or consumption, then perhaps they shouldn't be surprised to find out if someone got hurt by it.

Knee jerk has absolutely nothing to do with it. I've read the case and the opinions, for and against, and I still hold the same opinion...and it's not about evil corporations being all corporationy as I hear quite often.


It sure seemed like it considering that your original argument was so devoid of logic and had so little resemblance to the case that it makes some wonder.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:16:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:


No - what I'm saying is that if the product or service being sold is unfit for use or consumption, then perhaps they shouldn't be surprised to find out if someone got hurt by it.



It sure seemed like it considering that your original argument was so devoid of logic and had so little resemblance to the case that it makes some wonder.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

You are suggesting that McDonalds intentionally wanted to hurt this lady? A more apt comparison, using the bus metaphor, is a person get on the bus, pays their fee, neglects to use the provided seatbelts, then sues when the bus hits a bump and they fall down.


No - what I'm saying is that if the product or service being sold is unfit for use or consumption, then perhaps they shouldn't be surprised to find out if someone got hurt by it.

Knee jerk has absolutely nothing to do with it. I've read the case and the opinions, for and against, and I still hold the same opinion...and it's not about evil corporations being all corporationy as I hear quite often.


It sure seemed like it considering that your original argument was so devoid of logic and had so little resemblance to the case that it makes some wonder.



One could argue that the product was fit for consumption, just not fit to pour in one's lap.

Oh, I see, you are one of those guys who cannot have a discussion without resorting to personal insults.


MY position was logical and thought out and based on the situation. My position, unlike many in our litigious society, is that if one hurts themselves by negligent or irresponsible behavior, then that injury is their own fault. I like very hot coffee. I don't like my coffee to be cold when I get to the office. I have never injured myself with coffee because I do not put it in my lap, balance it on stuff I am carrying, nor run down the hallway with it. Amazingly, this works very well.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:19:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

No, what I'm saying is that if someone does something stupid or irresponsible, the fault for that act is theirs, not the guy with the biggest pockets.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
[div style='text-align: right;']
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
However, the extent of an injury has not much to do with the culpability of an injury (well, perhaps in the fuck up world of lawsuits). If a guy throws himself in front of a bus, it does not matter if he has one broken leg or is killed, it still is nobody's fault but his own.


Unless of course, the bus driver was found to be negligent by driving "out of service hours" and falsifying his logs. Or if the bus company knew of a faulty brake situation on the bus, but did not change it even though they knew it was a problem.

In mcd's case, they knew darn well that the coffee was TOO HOT, yet they continued serving it. The cups back then were different as well.
Mcd also had something like 700 prior documented cases of coffee burns.

The lady's injuries were a direct result of the negligence of mcd.

Shouldn't matter if the bus driver falsified his logs--if you throw youself in front of a bus, the fault is yours.

How is your statement germane to the current discussion? Are you suggesting the lady in the story or Liebeck intentionally threw coffee on themselves?

No, what I'm saying is that if someone does something stupid or irresponsible, the fault for that act is theirs, not the guy with the biggest pockets.

That may be true in this case, it was demonstrably false in the case of Liebeck, at least as far as the majority of the culpability was concerned and assigned.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:32:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
One could argue that the product was fit for consumption, just not fit to pour in one's lap.

Which McDonald's would have to prove...

Oh, I see, you are one of those guys who cannot have a discussion without resorting to personal insults.
My sincerest apologies if you honestly feel that someone jumping in front a bus is analogous to being served coffee that's scalding hot.


MY position was logical and thought out and based on the situation. My position, unlike many in our litigious society, is that if one hurts themselves by negligent or irresponsible behavior, then that injury is their own fault. I like very hot coffee. I don't like my coffee to be cold when I get to the office. I have never injured myself with coffee because I do not put it in my lap, balance it on stuff I am carrying, nor run down the hallway with it. Amazingly, this works very well.

If I used an air tool rated for 250psi, and it explodes at 80psi on the initial air up, it's somehow my fault?
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:39:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
One could argue that the product was fit for consumption, just not fit to pour in one's lap.

Which McDonald's would have to prove...

Oh, I see, you are one of those guys who cannot have a discussion without resorting to personal insults.
My sincerest apologies if you honestly feel that someone jumping in front a bus is analogous to being served coffee that's scalding hot.


MY position was logical and thought out and based on the situation. My position, unlike many in our litigious society, is that if one hurts themselves by negligent or irresponsible behavior, then that injury is their own fault. I like very hot coffee. I don't like my coffee to be cold when I get to the office. I have never injured myself with coffee because I do not put it in my lap, balance it on stuff I am carrying, nor run down the hallway with it. Amazingly, this works very well.

If I used an air tool rated for 250psi, and it explodes at 80psi on the initial air up, it's somehow my fault?



If you use a tool rated 250 psi and you stick it in your ear and you lose your hearing, then yes, you are at fault.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:42:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:


If you use a tool rated 250 psi and you stick it in your ear and you lose your hearing, then yes, you are at fault.
View Quote


Except that isn't what happened - she was sold a product that wasn't fit for use...
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:45:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/26/2013 2:46:10 PM EST by NavyDoc1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:


Except that isn't what happened - she was sold a product that wasn't fit for use...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:


If you use a tool rated 250 psi and you stick it in your ear and you lose your hearing, then yes, you are at fault.


Except that isn't what happened - she was sold a product that wasn't fit for use...



I don't recall "spilling it on yourself" one of the advertised uses of McDonald's coffee. She was in a moving car, she opened the lid to pour sugar in, she is the one who spilled it on herself, she is the one who screwed up.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:45:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:



I don't recall "spilling it on yourself" one of the advertised uses of McDonald's coffee.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:


If you use a tool rated 250 psi and you stick it in your ear and you lose your hearing, then yes, you are at fault.


Except that isn't what happened - she was sold a product that wasn't fit for use...



I don't recall "spilling it on yourself" one of the advertised uses of McDonald's coffee.


No, but drinking it is, and if it's hot enough to burn, it's certainly way too hot to drink. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:47:09 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:


No, but drinking it is, and if it's hot enough to burn, it's certainly way too hot to drink. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By the_great_mantis:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:


If you use a tool rated 250 psi and you stick it in your ear and you lose your hearing, then yes, you are at fault.


Except that isn't what happened - she was sold a product that wasn't fit for use...



I don't recall "spilling it on yourself" one of the advertised uses of McDonald's coffee.


No, but drinking it is, and if it's hot enough to burn, it's certainly way too hot to drink. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand.


If something is too hot to drink, I put it aside until it is cooler--no lawsuits needed. How difficult is that to understand?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:51:09 PM EST
Murrica!
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:53:16 PM EST
I went through McDonalds last year one morning. The window worker handed me my order
and hit the coffee cups on the door sill and spilled coffee on my arm and in my lap. It burned
like crazy, but did no damage.
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:54:28 PM EST
Sue Micky-D over warm coffee
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:55:46 PM EST
I think the biggest problem with lawsuits is the treatment of punitive damages. There is a perverse set of incentives created by allowing a civil jury to determine punishment as well as damages, and by allowing the punishment of one party to directly benefit the other party. One can make a good case that Mc Donalds deserved to pay the sum that they did as punishment for their negligence, both in that case and in the past. However, one cannot possibly argue with a straight face that the plaintiff deserved that Sim of money. That sum of money was orders of magnitude larger than the actuarial value of her life; justice may be served by punishing the company but her being so enriched makes a mockery of justice.

Here's an idea - keep the current system but for one simple change: compensatory damages still accrue to the plaintiff (including pain and suffering) but punitive damages accrue to the jurisdiction and are NOT COUNTED TOWARD THE LAWYER'S FEES. If the lawyer wants more money than awarded he can petition the court for reimbursement of his labor, but ONLY at the hourly rate paid to lawyers in the jurisdiction's prosecutor's office. If an attorney is going to pay the part of defender of the public interest, that's fine but they should only be paid accordingly. This would remove the "lottery mentality" of plaintiffs and juries; awarding $100 million looks a lot different when the little old lady is only going to get 2 million of it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 2:56:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By maleante:
Originally Posted By Makarov92:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
You can sue a ham sammich if you have the filing fees. McDonalds has deeper pockets than a ham sammich.

Yup.

Further Liebeck *actually* had a good case and that's *why* she won.

This chick? At first blush? Not so much. We'll see how it plays out at trial.

This again. OP doesn't know what he thinks he knows about that case.


Ok, then explain to me what I am missing.



Graphic and NSFW:

Click To View Spoiler

Coffee could not have burned her like that, NO F*CKING WAY!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 5:22:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By lonewolf465:
First thing I check is that the top is on correctly. Lost count how many times I have had to finish putting it on. Never thought I had a potential lawsuit handed to me at the drive thru.
View Quote
this
someone hands me a cup of 2degrees under boiling liquid I make sure the lid is on,its often not.
I never knew it could have been a payday
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 5:26:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KennyW1983:


To put the lid on properly??? Its not rocket science.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KennyW1983:
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:
I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.


To put the lid on properly??? Its not rocket science.


your right its not but it seems to be something they have a problem with I have gotten many a drink that the lid was not put on correctly..
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 5:28:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Murrica!
View Quote

Yeah...

Link Posted: 10/26/2013 5:37:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:


your right its not but it seems to be something they have a problem with I have gotten many a drink that the lid was not put on correctly..
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:
Originally Posted By KennyW1983:
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi:
I saw an interview with this woman the other night she said that the employee fail to put the lid on correctly and it pop off and spilled on her. She claim that she ask for help and that no one would assist her in any way.


To put the lid on properly??? Its not rocket science.


your right its not but it seems to be something they have a problem with I have gotten many a drink that the lid was not put on correctly..


First thing I do when handed ANY cup of take out coffee is to double check the lid being applied properly...
So many potential lawsuits lost I guess.

I have gotten lids askew from various cash cows as Starbucks, White Castle AND McDonalds....
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 6:56:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Coffee could not have burned her like that, NO F*CKING WAY!!!!!!!!
View Quote



Thermodynamics disagrees with you. 190 degree liquid(which was what the coffee was) can cause a full thickness burn of your skin in less than 5 seconds.
Top Top