OT - Sometimes It Pays To Be Stupid

Page 2 of 2  
J T wrote: $50,000 medical cost for a cup of coffee burn seems

Although I am in agreement that such awards make but little sense, it wasn't her foot or hand that got burned.
Where something is wholly or even just substantially my fault, I 'take the hit'. Maybe I am out of step with this world ... but I really do think that this is the right thing to do.
Stella could tell from her fingers that the coffee was hot. Coffee, by its very nature, is normally served hot. Stella chose to put it between her legs ... the serf in the window did not put the coffee there. Then Stella, and no one else, spilled the stuff.
As a juror ... well, it's a good thing for Stella that I was not on that jury.
In Ireland, the great cliffs of Moher stand some 800 feet above the sea. There are no guardrails. Last year 6 people were blown over the edge because they stood too close to it.
There has got to be some "Peter Principle" at work here. Something along the lines of morons being able to harm themselves no matter how clearly hazards are marked.
The thing is 800 feet in the air ... that's marking enough! Coffee, even at 160 degrees, is hot. That's warning enough.
Bill
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If this is in reference to the "3rd degree burns from the McDonalds' coffee" story, that particular story has been discredited for years now. Not only did no one receive any money, it is virtually impossible to receive 3rd degree burns, which means burns through the full epidermal layers of the skin resulting in charred flesh, from even scalding hot liquid.
John E.

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

Are you claming that this story is an urban myth? If so then a quick google search shows quite a few articles that indicate that the lawsuit was real.
For instance here are a couple of references to the lawsuit in the NY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res ”03E0D61F30F93AA2575BC0A962958260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res œ0CE6DE163CF931A25753C1A962958260&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fMcDonald%27s%20Corporation
Here are a few commentaries on the lawsuit:
http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mea culpa....
A lawyer friend told me that that story was an urban myth, apparently he should have done more research, as I should have.
I still find it hard to believe that coffee can cause full thickness burns unless it was literally boiling and being poured continuously onto the victims skin. Even being held against the skin by the clothing, it seems very unlikely that a hot liquid could burn thru the epidermal layers of the skin. Blisters, yeah, burned through? I don't think so.
Whatever the terms of the "secret" agreement between the woman and McDonalds were, she didn't get rich suing them.
John E.

coffee"
only
google search

Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res ”03E0D61F30F93AA2575BC0A9629 58260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res œ0CE6DE163CF931A25753C1A9629 58260&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fMcDonald%27s%20Corporation
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here ya go, If your interested here is a link to the facts of the case. I am not sure why someone would attempt to sound demeaning instead of just posting a link to the facts. I am however not the demeaning kind of guy so I will post the link for you. http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg úcts Puff
message

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

Discredited? Google "Stella Liebeck".
If you know with certainty that "no one received any money" then you must be privy to information which is bound by a nondisclosure agreement. The only thing that is known with certainty by anybody other than Stella, McDonalds, the lawyers, the judge, the bank, and the IRS is that there was a settlement for something less than $680,000.
While it may be "virtually impossible to receive third degree burns . . . from scalding hot liquid", according to the testimony of the surgeon who performed the repairs on her, Stella Liebeck did in fact somehow manage it. Now it may be that he was mistaken on that point, however McDonalds' lawyers appear to have been unable to prove it in court.
I don't know where you get the idea that "that story has been discredited". It isn't something that somebody made up, it's a matter of public record. If you call the Albuquerque courthouse they'll probably be willing to sell you a copy of the transcript.
The only real point of contention is whether the temperature at which the coffee was served was in fact excessive. According to published standards and the opinion of numerous coffee experts (none of whom appear to have been brought into the trial) it was not, but according to a survey of establishments near the one in which the coffee was purchased it was in excess of what a "reasonable man" would expect.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"BillinDetroit" wrote in message

Just nature's way of insuring they won't pass on the stupid gene.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/08/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No kidding. If those cliffs were in North America and was prone to be hit by hurricanes we would see new TV reporters every few years.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If there is a herd anywhere that cries out for a good thinning, it would be TV reporters.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 4, 7:13 pm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

It sounds like you are presuming the property owner would appraise the individual of any hazards. In general it is entirely possible for people to legally be on the property without the knowledge of the property owner. Obvious examples include police and firemen.
A city used a similar argument when a drunk sued after falling down an open manhole. In his ruling the judge observed that "An inebriated man has as much a right to a safe street on which to walk as a sober man, and far greater need."
--
FF


Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

The duty a landowner owes varies from state to state. In most state the duty is greater to an invitee than it is to a licensee, than it is to a trespasser. And the duty also varies depending how obvious the danger is. Without knowing what state you're in, the status of the person on the property, and the particular danger to that person, it's impossible to say if the landowner owes a duty.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.