McDonalds' lawsuit...and tool safety.

Page 2 of 5  
On 30 Nov 2003 10:10:56 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) brought forth from the murky depths:

SPSB
============================================================= Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord. http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online =============================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques responds:

Don't know that one. Too lazy to look it up.
Charlie Self
"Say what you will about the ten commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Nov 2003 19:35:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) brought forth from the murky depths:

Both hands? "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed"
============================================================= Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord. http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online =============================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques responds:

Makes sense to me, but look around you...yanking off a person's hands doesn't keep that person from breeding, nor does stupidity, unfortunately.
Charlie Self
"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it." George Carlin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01 Dec 2003 01:56:42 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) brought forth from the murky depths:

His PARENTS shouldn't have and neither should he.

Is there any reason for the twenty CRs after your sig, Charlie?
============================================================= Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord. http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online =============================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Nov 2003 19:35:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) brought forth from the murky depths:

Both hands? "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed"
============================================================= Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord. http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online =============================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing here?

Why do you assume that? You just want to condemn some manufacturer based on your feelings and assumptions. Thank goodness there are courts to protect manufacturers from people like you.

What is "half-assed turned"?

What?

Hmmmm... reasonable assumptions.

Oh, and now reasonable expectations... you sure have done a 180.

Yeah, she is not allowed to have reasonable expectations or assume anything. She should assume she is being handed a weapon.

I've spilled coffee hundreds of times and never received a burn. Given your bizarre arguments, you must have many burn scars. Why not post some?

Well, your presentation of the facts shows you haven't read anything about the case. Are you man enough to admit at this point that you haven't or will you be dishonest?

lol...
Lots o' ASSumptions. The legal costs were insignificant, surely you know that. The potential for punishment under the tort laws that help define civilization and maintain a rule of law carried much more hazard as well as the negative publicity of not taking responsibility for negligent behavior and screwing some old lady a second time.

If it were frivolous, a jury would never hear it. There are also a variety of opportunities which McDonald's had and used which would have kept a jury from having any say. Were you "ignorant" of that?
Which lawyers are you condemning as "scuzzy"?

"No scientific evidence"? Whewwww...
Where are you getting this from? C'mon, be honest. Is this all just National Review/corporate propaganda?

LMAO. Just one facet of your completely incorrect little rant, is that courts rely on scientists to decide science.

You mean like the definition of tepid?

Not sure what to make of that sentence.

I don't believe you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mcdonalds paying someone off has nothing to do with admission of guilt. They know, as does every slimeball lawyer, that juries tend to take the attitude that "the big, bad, mean ol' corperations" should be screwd for any and all reasons. So the typical action is, here's a few bucks, FO pest.

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

*Every* other person in the world could disagree, and still be wrong. The 13 people mentioned here were also wrong, period. If you don't want to spill hot coffee in your lap, don't engage in behaviour that might lead to spilling hot coffee in your lap. Suing McDonalds because the coffee was hot was just plain stupid.
This brings to mind a more meaningful response to a lawsuit brought by some idiot who cut his throat on a fishbone. The judge who (rightly!) threw this frivolous lawsuit out included in his statement, "Fish has bones, and if you eat fish, you need to exercise care when doing so." This is the sort of response that the McDonalds suit deserved.
Stupidity is a crime against nature which occasionally carries the death penalty, and there is no way to repeal this natural law.
Along that same line...
I just finished a semi-interesting book by Peter Drucker, "Managing in Times of Great Change". I say semi-interesting, because he spent a lot of ink on psychobabble, interspersed with occasional deep insights. One in particular was the workplace *cannot* be made completely safe, and any attempt to do so is wasted effort. What is needed is an entirely different definition of 'safety', namely, safe _behaviour_. Unsafe behaviour should be considered an accident/violation, regardless of whether it resulted in injury.
This dovetails nicely with the premise of another book, "The Death of Common Sense" by P.K. Howard.
There is a limit to how safe a tool can be made, and it still be useful. Things that have sharp teeth that move rapidly are inherently dangerous. Electricity is inherently dangerous. Etc. Therefore, workplace safety must be primarily a process that occurs between the ears.
-- Howard Lee Harkness Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor www.CHL-TX.com snipped-for-privacy@CHL-TX.com Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You guys are looking at the wrong part of the issue.
She got VERY LITTLE for the fact that she spilled the coffee in her lap. Actually, IIRC, she only got 75% of what she asked for on that part of the settlement. The jury decided that she was partially responsible for what happened to her.
Its the PUNITIVE part of the judgment...the PUNISHMENT phase...that was devastating to Mickey D. They KNEW of the other cases. They KNEW that scores of other people ALSO didn't realize that HOT actually meant SCALDING. They KNEW all this...and took no action to rectify the problem.
So the court PUNISHED (punitive) Mickey D...for PAST, REPETITIVE transgressions. For her ACTUAL damages, the woman got very little.

How do you KNOW fish has bones? Seriously. How do you know that fish has bones? Didn't you LEARN that?...somehow?
How was this woman to know that the hot coffee from Mickey D was actually hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? When you turn on the HOT water in someone's house, how hot IS it?
Her lawsuit...for ACTUAL damages...was reduced because of her contribution to the accident. The balance she received was PUNITIVE damages...to punish Mickey D and get them to change their practice.
Which they promptly did...after the suit. They DIDN'T before the suit...they had no incentive. So roughly 80 people were injured before her.

Repeal...no. Amend...you bet! Happens every day.
We now have a blade guard on circular saws...and on table saws, too. We have a lock on the circular saw trigger button...so you can't lift the saw and accidentally have it turn on. And many saws have a brake on them now...immediately stopping them when you let up on the trigger.
When was it that you learned that you don't hafta actually touch an electrical high-tension line to have it jump out to you...and possibly kill you?
Stupidity is one thing...but ignorance is another.

Pure BUNK! We should ALWAYS be striving to make the workplace safer.
I have several friends my age with some fingers missing...they worked a punch press when we were kids. That kind of accident seldom happens anymore. There's many more examples of how safety has progressed over the years...and only because of 'attempts'.

But you've gotta know the DIFFERENCE. And the people that have that important information have gotta TEACH us.
Mickey D HAD the information...that the degree of 'hot' for their coffee was actually 'scalding'...and dangerous if you spill it on yourself...NOT just uncomfortable. They didn't tell us (or her) that...in more than 80 instances...NOT just with her.
So, for those 80+ cases, the jury decided they should be punished.

Workplace safety must occur BEFORE the ears...and before the eyes...and before ALL the senses. Its called education.
People first hafta be TAUGHT safe and unsafe practices. Only THEN will they be able to decide for themselves how to act.
If it wasn't for frivolous lawsuits, we'd probably still be living in the dark ages. Remember...they're only frivolous if you loose.
If you win...they become law! lol
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So McDonalds is supposed to be responsible for the idiots of the world?
They KNEW

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

The point is that, while reasonable people reasonably expect coffee to be hot, nobody expects it to be hot enough to cause _third_ degree burns. That's not reasonable.
A point frequently overlooked in regard to this case is that the little old lady didn't file suit immediately. The only thing she asked for at the beginning was reimbursement of her medical bills. They told her to buzz off, and _that's_ when she filed the suit.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good idea. The trditional way of making coffee involves boiling or nearly so water. That should be a clue. I would have told her to get lost too. It was her fault, plain and simple.
wrote:

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

"Reasonable people" also do not expect THIRD DEGREE BURNS as a result thereof, either.
"Third degree burns" is NOT mere reddening of the skin, nor is it 'blisters'. "Third Degree burns" is _charring_ of the skin.
In the particular instance, the burns were so extensive as to require reconstructive surgury. That is not a 'minor' burn injury.
McDonalds _drive-up_ coffee was: a) not just 'hot', but *dangerously* hot b) some 20 degrees F hotter than that which was dispensed _inside_ the McDonalds. c) served _so_hot_as_to_be_undrinkable_, *according*to*McDonalds* d) lacking any notice that it was 'excessively hot'.
What got McDonalds in trouble was the fact that they *knowingly* served drive-up coffee at *excessively*hot* temperatures _WITHOUT_NOTICE_ of the associated risk.
The 'consequences' of "accidental" exposure to the coffee, _as_served_, were *far*in*excess* of what the proverbial "reasonable person" _could_expect_ to 'reasonably occur', even in a worst-case scenario. Which is _why_ McDonald's was held liable.
The original jury award _was_ excessive, and was reduced more than 90% on review.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Reasonable people expect to get burned and reasonable people do not consider whether the burn is going to be 1st degree or third degree. You expect them to say, well it's just 2nd degrees so I guess I'll go ahead and get burned? That's the kind of argument you would expect from a lawyer anticipating a big pay off, not from a person that has any sense.
In the case of the McDonald lady, if she had jumped out of the car and torn her clothes off, she would not have had 3rd degree burns. Was it reasonable for her to do so? You, bet. Life is full of choices and some people make bad choices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. that is -not- what a 'reasonable person' would do. and you know it.
A reasonable person _would_ regard 1st and 2nd degree burns as a 'reasonable consequence' of having hot coffee spilled on them. Third degree burns are _excessive_.

since you misrepresent the argument, your subsequent conclusion is "not from a person that has any sense", itself.

I do believe that there were polyester garments involved. And the coffeee was so hot it *melted* the clothing onto her body.
In that scenario, your proposed actions *would*not*have*mattered*.

Available evidence does _not_

"Assumes facts not in evidence". Vehicle was _in_motion_ at the time. *HOW*FAST* was it moving? Too fast to make a safe exit?

No argument. In the cited instance there were *multiple* bad choices made. And McDonalds made the most egregious ones.
The lady was _not_ "held blameless",
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:38 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) brought forth from the murky depths:

A reasonable person would have gotten up and danced around until the breeze cooled the spill, eliminating any 3rd degree burn.
If I'd been the judge:
"Stella, did you know the coffee was hot? She answers "Yes, sir."
"Have you ever been able to drink freshly poured hot coffee from a cup at a fast food restaurant before?" She answers "No, sir."
BANG! (sound of gavel) "CASE DISMISSED" sez I.

Sorry, clothes don't melt at 185 degrees, sir. http://www.metacrylics.com/specs/MSDS_Tietex.html shows a 500F melting point.
========================================================= CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks! ========================================================= http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
They don't? Do a survey on here and find out how many people think it is safe to pour hot coffee on themselves. Coffee can be at up to 212 degrees. Keep this in mind. Since you are making this argument, apparently you are one of those that don't know better so I will tell you right now, DON'T POUR HOT COFFEE ON YOURSELF.
wrote:

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

You're already known to be illiterate -- proven by your inability to provide any cite for 'antiques' required to be 100+ years old, and that it there is *nothing* in the law where you said it exists, to support your claim -- and you're demonstrating it *again*.
I didn't say it was 'safe' -- nor did I claim that a 'reasonable person' would consider it safe.
The issue _is_ a matter of "degree", to pun a phrase.
"Reasonable people" _do_ expect to get 1st and 2nd degree burns if/when they come in contact with "hot coffee".
"Reasonable people *do*not* expect CHARRING of the flesh as a result thereof.

At temperatures in that vicinity, it is not "safe for human consumption",
Serving it _at_those_temperatures_, *for*consumption*, WITHOUT WARNINGS, violates the implied warranty of merchantability that _is_ part and parcel of *every* object offered for sale in the jurisdiction where the suit was brought. On that basis _alone_, McDonalds was liable.

I've *never* done it deliberately. Neither had the plaintiff.
Plaintiff was _not_ "blameless".
McDonalds was *NOT* "blameless".
The legal standard, in such situations is "comparative negligence".
McDonalds, "deliberately and knowingly" served drive-up coffee that was 'UNDRINKABLY HOT' _as_served_. They were advised as to the potential for _serious_ injury, and the advisability of displaying a "warning", *by* *in- house* *experts*. Nonetheless, they consciously _chose_ *NOT* to display any cautionary notices.
This was found, by the jury, and the appellate court, to be "gross indifference and grossly negligent" with regard to the safety of the customers.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Look again twit, it was posted several times. Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension. Now, quit being an idiot and crawl of to my twit file like a good little looser.

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.