McDonalds' lawsuit...and tool safety.

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:51:01 GMT, "George E. Cawthon" brought forth from the murky depths:

Carry a 12v water hotter in your vehicle for the fast food places, and ask the waitress at real restaurants to nuke your food to make it REALLY HOT before she brings it to you. Be sure to take along some signed waivers to give to the cook so he knows you won't sue him.

I firmly agree.

I still can't believe a stupid judge let that one into court. It's THEIR fault, you know. Frivilous suits have been brought to court since it was first developed but the judges just tossed the stupid ones out and fined the lawyer who brought it into his courtroom. Why aren't they doing that any more? They're overbooked and overburdened by not-so-obviously-dumb stuff already.

And the bastids would still get their cuts to say that.

I'm still awed by the idiot who lost half an arm when he leaned down beneath his new log chipper to pull the stuck log through. Can you imagine how stupid someone has to be to reach up inside a running chipper? And how dumb a jury has to be to make the poor chipper manufacturer to pay for his stupidity?

The chipper mfg then had to put warning signs INSIDE and out on the bottom of the damned things. Go freakin' figure!

========================================================== CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks! ==========================================================

Comprehensive Website Development

[Larry Jaques]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:38 +0000, [e-mail] (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.

a 500F melting point.

========================================================== CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks! ==========================================================

Comprehensive Website Development

[David Hall]

SNIP

Most likely YOU did not fully switch the sander off. It is relatively easy to make most switches go "off" without fully cliking them into the full off position. On a dust protected switch it is somewhat herder to see that you have done this, but then again you probably wouldn't have checked even if it wasn't a dust protected switch. So, yes, in my opinion any resultant fire would have been your fault - not the sander's manufacturer. I would assume however that the worst that would have happened is the sander would have run until it fell off the bench and broke.

My brother once was using a belt sander and accidently pulled out the plug while it was running. He did a couple of other tasks and then was ready to start sanding again. He walked over and plugged in the sander. The next day he bought a new sander as the one he had been using took a plung off the deck he was working on and landed on the concrete carport underneath. Yes, it was his fault. If there had been someone walking under there at the time and been hit in the head, that would have been his fault, too. Undoubedly, if that had been the case the sander maker would have been sued as clearly the sander switch "should" have failed to the "off" position upon loss of power and we should all pay for these smart switches.

Dave Hall

[NoJointerHere]

And this temperature had been determined by asking customers what THEY preferred. It wasn't just some guy that decided to make it hot. Customers told MCD they wanted it that hot.

Then the inside temp was wrong. MCD specified the temp was to be 185 +/-5 degrees. Today, thanks to the lawsuit, it's 155. Starbucks will make coffee hot (185) if you request it.

Again, because customers that buy coffee generally had a long commute the higher temp was needed to esnure it stayed warm. It was a reasonable thing for MCD to do.

The cup did have a "reminder" that the coffee was very hot.

McDonalds asked customers what they wanted, and then prepared it as they requested. A few customers didn't quite understand the danger inherent to the product they were asking for and were injured by it. Several folks have been injured from eating a MCD apple pie because the filling comes out of the frier at about 200 degrees.

I had a friend lose a finger because he stuck it under a Honda lawnmower that was running BUT the power drive had been disengaged. He though that when the drive was disengaged the blade stopped even though the motor was going. To hear him tell the story it's still a mystery to him why the blade keeps spinning even if the drive is stopped. He was certain the blade was stopped. Honda cut him a check for about $3K without even really contesting it as I recall.

Both accidents (coffee and mower) are unfortunate. Both accidents will always happen because folks don't quite understand what they are dealing with. Corporations will always have to pay for this, which means we'll always have to pay for this in the end. It all kind of works out in the wash.

[Charlie Self]

Larry Jaques remarks:

Maybe a lot of customers like the guy I used to see many days: one year, he reached into a hay baler. Zip. No right hand. A couple years later, he reached into a hay baler with his left hand. Zip. His hook had a twin.

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

[Doug Miller]

No, this is false. The facts in the case showed that that specific McDonald's franchise had received numerous complaints from previous customers that their coffee was too hot. Yet they did nothing. _That_ is why they were held liable.

Not in the face of repeated complaints, it wasn't reasonable.

Nope. Those warnings didn't appear on McD's coffee cups until *after* the lawsuit.

Again, false. Customers of that specific franchise had complained previously that it was too hot.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

[Robert Bonomi]

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.

[p_j]

Hey, maybe there is hope for you. You must be thinking of some other lawsuit, perhaps one of the many fake stories that are propagated.

Really? Like what?

Now you've really got me interested. This must be big.

Name a couple. Better yet give us some information from transcripts or briefs and above all refer to the tort in question.

You're opposed to the adversarial system?

And you say "if"? I thought you knew the faults and had the answers.

Lawyers, like doctors, are self-regulating. I would call both a failure, but the legal system's great handicap are the legislatures. How is it you think it should be "monitered"? Perhaps religious leaders givings edicts?

You drink coffee that burns?

I don't believe you.

and

You should read what happened...

[p_j]

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.

[p_j]

Edit: "He"

A single word wrong and nothing to contribute re the real issues or conversation...

[p_j]

I didn't say they were identical. If you can't see similarities in issues, you have a problem.

Awww, you're trying to be a jerk and you stuck your foot in your mouth. Do you do that persistantly?

[p_j]

As well as a variety of actions and conditions that could degrade the switch...

[Larry Jaques]

On 30 Nov 2003 10:10:56 GMT, [e-mail] (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 ==============================================================

[CW]

[Charlie Self]

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

[George E. Cawthon]

You must be a lawyer. Only a lawyer wouldn't know that our court system is broken.

Go sit in any traffic court which usually handles a multitude of stuff not traffic related, and you will be appalled at what goes on and the injustices done and the way judges handle trials. Did you watch the OJ trial? That was enough to make any intelligent person puke, regardless of whether you believe he did or did not do the deed. It was the subject of derision by most people for months, and that doesn't suggest that something is wrong?

Most of what goes on in a court room is just posturing and emotion building by lawyers. Prosecutor spend great amounts of time on how heinous a crime is which has no bearing on whether a specific individual did or did not commit the crime. It's just passion building to get the jury pissed and find somebody, anybody, guilty. What's the nonsense of a prosecutor charging the defendant with 80 different crimes when he murders someone? Yea, legislatures are to blame, they should immediately remove the status of doctors and lawyers to be self governing. But legislatures have exerted little control over trial conduct.

You want examples? A lawyer runs over two kids that are off the highway because she has been drinking but claims the sun was in her eyes. It's established that she has had at least

6 drinks in the hour and one-half before the "accident." She is found guilty of the most minor offense and given 40 hours of public service. Claims it would be a hardship and never receives any punishment. You think maybe it was because she worked on the prosecutors staff?

How about silicon breast implants? We know how that ended and the big bucks involved. However, leading scientists generally agree that there is no evidence that silicone caused the women's complaints. Oh and if you don't like that one. Take the tobacco case. Anyone who has ever smoked, knows that smoking is bad for you. What the hell do you think caused all that hacking and coughing. And the packs say right on them that they will kill you. So what reasonable person would smoke them. You may not like tobacco and you may not like the tobacco companies, but who is at fault, the tobacco company or the individual that smokes even though he can barely get through the first cigarette? And apportioning fault is total bullshit. No one forced anyone to smoke, and if you stupid enough to ever smoke the 2nd or more cigarette, it's all your fault.

Want to improve the court system. Easy, pass a law that a lawyer may not receive more than 5 percent or $100,000 of a settlement which ever is lower. Then pass a law that civil suits can't be ganged together. And, pass a law that lawyers and judges may not be elected a representative or a senator, because it is a conflict of interest and violation of the separation of power. And finally, make judges accountable by undergoing period review (not less that every

3 years) with the potential for being removed permanently from the bench by a board that is not composed of lawyers.

[Robert Bonomi]

Oh my. ad hominems. In lieu of facts. Must be he doesn't *have* any facts.

I'm *so* flattered. *snicker*

[Charlie Self]

Not always. Smoking killed my father, but he never saw a warning on a cigaret pack: IIRC, that first arrived about '65, maybe '64, and his throat cancer killed him in '61.

The big problem with the cigaret companies is the FACT that their internal memos prove that they knew of the damage smoking does several decades before the public did, and spent much effort, and tons of money, hiding the facts.

Just one thought to add to that: why do kids still smoke today, in the face of the expense (when I started, Viceroys cost about a quarter a pack: when I quit, Luckies were 9 bucks a carton; today, the cost is on the order of $35 a carton in tobacco states), the parental disdain (sometimes), the difficulty even finding a place to smoke?

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

[CW]

[Larry Jaques]

On 30 Nov 2003 19:35:11 GMT, [e-mail] (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 ==============================================================