An idiot and his table saw...

Page 7 of 8  


Instead of an "air ride", it's a "dairy ride".. <smirk>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

How about a cup holder Hell they even sell those that hook into your window well
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com says...

You hold it in your hand--she wasn't driving, she was a passenger. Or you find a place to wedge it--I've never had any trouble finding one in any car I've owned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

<http://www.squidoo.com/car-drink-cup-holder
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Third degree burns from coffee that was at the maximum...221F?
Really?
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    Also something which McD's had been sued about before - burns from overly hot coffee.

    Tissue destroyed is tissue destroyed - be it by fire, or boiling water. And in this case, he clothes acted to hold that fluid in place.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:52:15 -0800, pyotr filipivich

It wasn't. She was careless. Her fault.

Lies noted. Case lost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Huh? McD most assuredly had been sued before. What makes her unique is that she won.
Later, somebody tried the same crap on the manufacturer of the coffee maker that McD uses. Unlike McD, Bunn pulled out the ANSI specification for coffee makers, showed that theirs were compliant, and that was the end of that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/6/2012 12:21 AM, Smitty Two wrote:

That does not change the fact that she was responsible for her own burns. If she had a car wreck with the coffee between her legs would she have included the expense for that in her suit?
to paraphrase SHE IS THE MASTER OF HER FATE, THE CAPTAIN OF HER SOUL.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A judge and jury say you're wrong. And having heard the actual evidence, I'd say their opinion is worth a lot more. Here are some of the facts:
"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandsons car having purchased a cup of McDonalds coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000. However, McDonalds refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio- mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation; McDonalds 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, McDonalds coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks; Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonalds scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonalds employees; McDonalds admitted at trial that its coffee is not fit for consumption when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk; McDonalds did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler."
Sounds to me like the jury did the right thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article < snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-

Yeah, we all know the story. A stupid old bat spilled hot coffee in her lap and looked for somebody other than herself to blame.
If she had cranked up an oxyacetylene torch and applied it to herself would the maker of the torch be at fault? If she had stuck her finger in a light socket would the power company be at fault?
She was stupid, she got punished for it, and the courts should have told her to sod off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Re: An idiot and his table saw... The truth:

Well put.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story. And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept responsibility for theirs.
Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go bigger than usenet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked into it a bit and here are some of the facts:
McDonalds Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio- mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonalds 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, McDonalds coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
McDonalds admitted at trial that its coffee is not fit for consumption when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebecks treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen. McDonalds did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one. Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself doesn't absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A large percentage of the customers will be opening the container in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had been burned. It would have been very easy for them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for most of what happened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote:

Even though the money awarded was reduced, and the case was appealed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
11:22:23 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    The problem with suing a company with an in house Legal Firm and also keeps Legal Firms on retainer. Their pockets are deeper than yours.
tschus pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not a big issue in the States where anyone can start a lawsuit for just about any trivial reason with very little downside risk except for the filing costs
If the US brought in a system like in Canada, where the loser pays, it would reduce some of the really stupid lawsuits It it also required judges to review a case BEFORE it went to jury, that would also eliminate many flawed cases that rely on jury ignorance or sympathy instead of good law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I'd like to see a system where the suit _must_ go to trial once brought. The current system is profitable for the plaintiffs because on an individual basis it is cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if the case is winnable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one. Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself doesn't absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them.>
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html
As this British case describes, people *should* know "perfectly well" from experience that hot beverages are HOT and can burn you. Faced with a similar case, the Brits reached the conclusion that it's the buyer's responsibility to handle hot beverages carefully. Opening up a cup of hot coffee between your legs seems to me to be more than 20% the fault of the person opening the cup.
The trial judgement in the British case is very interesting. It covers some details and analysis that I haven't come across before. One that clearly seems to side with you was the contention that Styrofoam is such a good insulator that people holding the cups are really unaware of how hot the contents are. I believe McD's no longer uses such cups.
Could McDonald's have done things differently? The article considers whether burns would be fewer if the serving staff mixed in cream and sugar *before* handing the cup over. The now-famous accident might have been avoided had McDonald's served the coffee in one of the cardboard cupholders, but IIRC, they only use those when dealing with more than one cup of coffee.
They could have also declined to sell coffee via the drive-up window as a number of scaldings have occurred during the transfer from window to car occupant. But the article points out that many burns are simply accidents where someone knocks over an open cup on an innocent 3rd party inside the restaurant. The testimony in the British case indicates that even lowering the coffee temperature won't prevent serious burns - but obviously the hotter the liquid, the more severe the burn.
<< On the basis of Mr. Hathaways evidence I find that McDonalds serving temperatures were based on what the rest of the catering industry was doing in terms of hot drinks and I infer that what the rest of the industry was doing was endeavouring to meet customers requirements. Perhaps unsurprisingly there was no evidence that McDonalds serving temperature was unusually hot compared with the serving temperatures adopted by other similar restaurants and outlets. On the material before me therefore I reject the criticisms the claimants have made about McDonalds serving temperatures and for the reasons I have given I propose to answer generic issues (1) and (2) No. >>
No matter which side you fall on in this matter, the summary above makes for very interesting reading.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

LOL They were responsible for selling her a cup of hot coffee Apparently selling a cup of hot coffee to an idiot is a crime for which they were punished

There are some aspects of the jury system which are flawed in the US. In particular the notion that juries, have not demonstrated a "let's stick it to the corporation since they have money" syndrome.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.