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.
*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
You really need to learn to follow threads and ascribe thoughts to the proper authors.
Kevin
This is a misconception generated by disinformation from gun-haters, the same idiots that brought you trigger locks. (I'll start using a trigger lock the day that all police officers are required to use them.)
An unloaded rifle is just a stick, except less useful. I always consider a firearm loaded unless I have personally cleared it, so there is no point to having one that isn't actually loaded. That's not complacency. If your firearm isn't loaded, then you might as well not have one.
I unload only in circumstances that absolutely require it.
(When the grandkids visit, the firearms are locked in the safe, or concealed on my person at all times, so that they are completely inaccessible to anyone but me. But they are still loaded.)
Firearm safety, like workplace safety, is a matter of behaviour. For instance, you should never point a firearm at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Similarly, when operating a bandsaw, you need to pay close attention to where your fingers are.
-- Howard Lee Harkness Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
When I use my saw, I don't plug it in until I have done my layouts & setups, and I am immediately ready to cut (and I've checked the position of the cord!). When I finish using my saw, I set it down, then unplug it. After I've unplugged it, I'll pick it up and depress the switch to make sure I unplugged the right thing. If the next cut requires re-positioning the work, I unplug between cuts.
I don't change blades unless the power plug is in plain view.
Same basic behaviour when I use our rotary meat slicer or the electric knife.
Basically, I'm respectful of sharp things that move quickly.
Could be I'm overdoing it, but I've still got all my fingers, and I try to keep them in good working order, since I also like to play the violin.
And I like my coffee hot. So, I don't drink coffee while driving.
-- Howard Lee Harkness Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
I gotta wonder at this. Do coffee drinkers just burn off all the cells on the inside of their mouths and develop a layer of scar tissue that allows them to consume liquids this hot?
I don't drink coffee (doesn't agree with my stomach *at all*) but I notice that commercial hot chocolate comes out of the nozzle HOT. I have to let it cool for at least half an hour before I can think about putting any of it in my mouth. I never buy hot chocolate anywhere because by the time the damn stuff has cooled off enough to actually drink, I'm way past being thirsty for it.
When I make it (hot chocolate) at home, I aim to get it hot enough to melt marshmallows, but not so hot that I can't drink it immediately. I also find that I tend to let foods cool down a good while before eating them. Delivery pizza is usually at the right temperature, restaurant pizza needs to sit there for at least 20 minutes to reach a point where it won't turn the roof of my mouth into a dangling lump of burnt tissue.
It doesn't seem to just be a matter of getting used to being burnt. Hot pizza still physically burns me after all these years, so it isn't an acclimatzation thing.
Maybe I'm just a freak, because from where I sit, it seems like the vast majority of the world is completely nuts WRT food/beverage temperature.
Doesn't make a rats ass either way. Common sense tells you not to put hot stuff near your crotch as it'll burn the hell out of you whether its
165º or 185º. So McNastys lowered the temp of their coffee. If the old bitch does it again the lowered temp will still burn her snatch. Yeah, I'm partial to this arguemwnt as it happened in my hometown.As for the tools, thats interesting that they can do this. I wonder if perhaps all power tools should maybe have a removable 'key' like Craftsman uses on their bigger stuff.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:45:05 -0500, Silvan brought forth from the murky depths:
There may be a few like that, but most of us don't. We learn how to sip it so cold air cools it to the temp we like, then we swallow it. By making coffee hot and learning how to sip, the last gulp is still hot. Stomachs don't like superheated foods/bevs, either.
Stroll on over to the soda refill station and drop a chunk of ice into it. Stir for 30 seconds and drink. Not a prob.
Ditto here. I drink my water at room temp, thanks. No gallon Icee or
210° coffee for me, thanks. I'll cool my cuppajoe with creamer.========================================================== CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks! ==========================================================
Funny, I do the exact opposite.
My table saw has a rocker switch, covered by a faceplate. I still unplug it.
My router has a shaft lock that includes a power switch interconnect. There's no way that a simple bump will unlock the shaft lock. If the interlock fails, the shaft is locked anyways, so it shouldn't do any damage. Probably should unplug it anyways, though.
Now, the tool that *really* annoys me from a safety point is the pc 557 biscuit joiner. It's so easy to hit the trigger while just picking it up :-( Damn things makes a racket, too, if you do that.
--randy
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
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?
"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.
Good you cool your food, but for the rest of us that like hot stuff hot, how are we going to get it from luke warm to hot? Stuff cools naturally but it doesn't heat up naturally, so the only way to prepare it for all customers is to make it hot and those that like it cooler can add water or just wait. That's what is bad about these stupid law suits, it forces everyone to live like the lower half need to. Maybe McDonald's and others need to lines, one that says stupids and the other that say others. But then the lawyers would say that the stupids are too stupid to read the signs.
((skipped))
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.
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.
At least SHE stuck to her word!
Hi, Dougie!...again!! lol
BTW...both points of your tag line are bogus.
You should go to the site where you got it...and tell them.
We often vote for more than 2 people for President (you did mean the President of the United States, didn't ya? If so, that should be a capital P).
And they always choose from more than 50 candidates for Miss America.
I find it interesting...that you chose to capitalize 'Miss America'...and not President! lol
'Bye, Dougie!
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Common sense tells you to test it first, doesn't it? Not stick your hands in it for 5 seconds to see. Do you gulp hot coffee or sip it to see how hot it is? All I'm saying is I don't believe she used reasonable precautions to keep herself from being burned. As I rememebr they dropped the temp from 185º to 165º and were she to do the same again, I believe it would burn her again.
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",
HomeOwnersHub website 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.