[Squeak]

Link here http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0820/1420765.html

Link here
http://www.9news.com/storyfull-co.asp?id=5649

I don't know if this has been covered or not, but what are your thoughts on the epidemic of "suing" here in the United States? I understand that at times it may be necessary, but it is so out of control.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Squeak
Link here http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0820/1420765.html

Link here
http://www.9news.com/storyfull-co.asp?id=5649

I don't know if this has been covered or not, but what are your thoughts on the epidemic of "suing" here in the United States? I understand that at times it may be necessary, but it is so out of control.

How dare you try to pass judgment on people who like to sue. I'm suing you for $116 bazillion dollars for mental anguish caused by posting this post. That, plus I drank from a McDonald's coffee cup and burned my lip.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


How dare you try to pass judgment on people who like to sue. I'm suing you for $116 bazillion dollars for mental anguish caused by posting this post. That, plus I drank from a McDonald's coffee cup and burned my lip.

What makes you think that the McDonald's suit wasn't justified and rational?

Oh yeah, it's important to notice that trial verdicts are gained from a collection of citizens in this country, and that pool of citizens also determines trial awards for damages.

 

[peter6061]

What happened with the OTHER McDonald's lawsuit about the people sueing because McDonalds didn't tell them that eating there would make them fat?

Just curious.

Most of these, ridiculus imo.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


What makes you think that the McDonald's suit wasn't justified and rational?

Oh yeah, it's important to notice that trial verdicts are gained from a collection of citizens in this country, and that pool of citizens also determines trial awards for damages.

I was just making a joke. I never said it wasn't justified and rational....I didn't look at it closely, but from what I understand it wasn't a simple case of spilled coffee that prompted an irate soccer mom to say "I'm upset, I think I'll sue for lots of money." EVERYONE refers to 'the McDonald's lawsuit' as an 'example' of frivolous lawsuit initiation (even though it's not really a good example.) THAT is why I referred to it.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Squeak

I don't know if this has been covered or not, but what are your thoughts on the epidemic of "suing" here in the United States

It is disgusting. Nobody takes responsibility for thier own actions anymore. No matter how dumb a person is when injuring themselves, they can always point the blame on someone else and sue for damages. I think the death penalty should be expanded to include people who file frivolous lawsuits.

Oh yeah, and when you buy a cup of hot coffee, BE CAREFUL WITH IT. Fookin' stupid people.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Squeak
Link here http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0820/1420765.html

Link here
http://www.9news.com/storyfull-co.asp?id=5649

I don't know if this has been covered or not, but what are your thoughts on the epidemic of "suing" here in the United States? I understand that at times it may be necessary, but it is so out of control.

Every time you open your insurance statement and cringe at the premium thank a lawyer. The litigous (sp?) bent of our society is a disease. It's sole source is the mindset that "we" are not responsible for the bad things that happen to us regardless of the circumstances. Lawyers feed it.

 

[Damn True]

Warning label on coffee: Caution, contents may be hot.


F'n-A, it better be?

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Damn True
Warning label on coffee: Caution, contents may be hot.

F'n-A, it better be?

Well, true, coffee better be pretty dang warm, or hot, at least. But as I said, and I COULD be wrong, as I understand it, the lady suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her thighs and such. Coffee has to be REALLY Fu@#@!ing hot to cause THIRD degree burns, I'm thinking. I've been burned with a full pot of coffee before, and I got a lot of 1st degree and one or two 2nd degree burns, but a third degree burn is a different thing altogether. She shoulda been careful (duh) but if that is the truth then McDonalds was sort of in the wrong.

 

[Damn True]

I don't know, nor do I care about the details of that particular frivolous lawsuit. It is one of many perpatrated on business and govt. by society and the flock of vultures.

My point was that for every silly warning label (Do not take hair dryer into bathtub) there is an ignorant a-hole who did something stupid and won a lawsuit.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Damn True
My point was that for every silly warning label (Do not take hair dryer into bathtub) there is an ignorant a-hole who did something stupid and won a lawsuit.

Oh, trust me buddy, I'm not arguing that point in the least. I'm just giving that particular lawsuit the benefit of the doubt simply cuz I don't know all the facts for sure.

A side note....my wife has a curling iron that says on the box containing it, "Do not use while sleeping." Last time I checked, you couldn't do much of ANYTHING while asleep, aside from snoring, farting and scratching.

I also have sponges at home with directions on them. Gee, good thing they came with them....dunno what I'd do if they didn't.

 

[I Are Baboon]

I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea that McD's is to blame. I have a scar and nerve damage on my hand because I cut myself with a steak knife while trying to pry apart two frozen hot dogs. Perhaps I should have sued the knife manufacturer for making the knife too sharp?

These are the same idiots that vote in favor of a burglar who injures himself while robbing someone's home and sues the homeowner for it.

 

[Squeak]

Interesting replies!

Acountability for ones own actions...good point! I like that.

Is there any solution for these frivoluous suits? I have heard that "loser pays" is one solution. Loser of the suit pays costs. Problem could be that the "little guy" would be out gunned bigtime in the lawyer department, and not stand a chance in hell.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea that McD's is to blame. I have a scar and nerve damage on my hand because I cut myself with a steak knife while trying to pry apart two frozen hot dogs. Perhaps I should have sued the knife manufacturer for making the knife too sharp?

These are the same idiots that vote in favor of a burglar who injures himself while robbing someone's home and sues the homeowner for it.

I think my point was missed......the ONLY thing I meant to say is that there MAY be something I missed that MIGHT place some blame on McDonalds. Not McDonald's as a corporation, but the local store, sure. And I am only saying this because I DON'T know all the details. But I'm all for the woman not getting any money if she can't read the label on the coffee cup.

And no, I'm not the idiot to cheers on the burglar. I'm the guy who would beat hell out of the burglar. :angry:

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by fourgivn1



And no, I'm not the idiot to cheers on the burglar. I'm the guy who would beat hell out of the burglar. :angry:

oops....didn't mean to imply that you are. Sorry. I was referring to the jurors that award the prizes.

 

[sub6]

Regarding the McDonalds' suit: (Zonic correct me if I'm wrong) I think the crux of the issue was that McD's was serving the coffee SO extraordinarily hot so that they could get more use out of the grounds than would ordinarily be possible. In other words, they were attempting to cover up the lack of quality by serving it boiling hot.

On top of that, a number of people had been burned before in a similar manner and to a similar extreme, and apparently this verdict was in essense saying "enough is enough, you have GOT to stop burning people."

No, I didn't read the transcript of the trial, so this may be incorrect, but I think that this is why a seemingly frivolous suit wound up netting such a large verdict.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon

oops....didn't mean to imply that you are. Sorry. I was referring to the jurors that award the prizes.

Oh, I know what you meant...I wasn't trying to say you were directly calling me an idiot.

For the record, I'm in the same boat you are about the whole taking responsibility thing. The ONLY reason I said what I did, is because knowing MY luck, I'd go off on a tirade about the whole lawsuit, and talk about how stupid that woman was......and then find out one or two very important facts that change the whole thing around, and make me look like a jerk. Other than that, I too laugh at most of the lawsuits that come along.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
knowing MY luck, I'd go off on a tirade about the whole lawsuit, and talk about how stupid that woman was......and then find out one or two very important facts that change the whole thing around, and make me look like a jerk

see my post above

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by sub6


see my post above

That's why I did NOT go off on a tirade....like I said, knowing my luck....being careful helps out a lot.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea that McD's is to blame. I have a scar and nerve damage on my hand because I cut myself with a steak knife while trying to pry apart two frozen hot dogs. Perhaps I should have sued the knife manufacturer for making the knife too sharp?

These are the same idiots that vote in favor of a burglar who injures himself while robbing someone's home and sues the homeowner for it.

Read, and be enlightened.

From http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.

OVER.

Oh, it should be noted that McDonald's only made the coffee that hot because they could suck more out of the beans...creating greater volume with using less beans. If that isn't negligent, I don't know what is.

In my opinion, the problem isn't the lawyers or legal system in this country, it's the citizens who jump to conclusions, talk out of their ass, and otherwise STILL remain completely closed minded and think they have a clue.

Buy alas, ignorance, especially of reality, is bliss.

 

[sub6]

well look at that, I was right (for once). Good post, Zonic.

 

[RideMonkey]

Originally posted by Zonic Man
In my opinion, the problem isn't the lawyers or legal system in this country, it's the citizens who jump to conclusions, talk out of their ass, and otherwise STILL remain completely closed minded and think they have a clue.

Buy alas, ignorance, especially of reality, is bliss.

I feel that I am educated. I agree with the suit.

For a minute I thought Zonic had provided some useful information without stooping to insults but alas I got to the last paragraph and found that I was wrong.

Most lawsuits in the US are still BS.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Read, and be enlightened.

From http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.

OVER.

Oh, it should be noted that McDonald's only made the coffee that hot because they could suck more out of the beans...creating greater volume with using less beans. If that isn't negligent, I don't know what is.

In my opinion, the problem isn't the lawyers or legal system in this country, it's the citizens who jump to conclusions, talk out of their ass, and otherwise STILL remain completely closed minded and think they have a clue.

Buy alas, ignorance, especially of reality, is bliss.

Hooray! I'm vindicated! Hooray! That's what I get for watching what I say.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by RideMonkey


I feel that I am educated. I agree with the suit.

For a minute I thought Zonic had provided some useful information without stooping to insults but alas I got to the last paragraph and found that I was wrong.

Most lawsuits in the US are still BS.

The insults weren't necessarily applicable to people in this forum, much the way I'm sure True's comments about lawyers wasn't necessrily applicable to members of this community.

Right?

 

[I Are Baboon]

Cars are made for driving, not drinking your morning coffee and eating your Egg McMuffin in. She placed the coffee between her legs. It's her own fault for spilling it. If an employee spilled the coffee on her, I would take her side. Regardless of how hot it was, she spilled it. You don't see the billions and billions McD's has served that have NOT spilled their coffee complain about the temperature.

Frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Cars are made for driving, not drinking your morning coffee and eating your Egg McMuffin in. She placed the coffee between her legs. It's her own fault for spilling it. If an employee spilled the coffee on her, I would take her side. Regardless of how hot it was, she spilled it. You don't see the billions and billions McD's has served that have NOT spilled their coffee complain about the temperature.

Frivolous lawsuit.

Really?

Even if there was over 700 people that complained about before? And what about the people who's formal complaints never got heard?

And what about the fact that the "beverage" was not fit for consumption served at the temp that it was served at?

And she wasnt' driving her car, she was sitting in it. I bet you've drank coffee in your car, as has everyone else here. What's unreasonable about that.

Your arguments lack reason and logic. As for this one, you may have your opinions, but I think reason and logic both say you're wrong.

Edit: By the way, a jury of her peers (that's you and me) said she was 20% at fault for the accident as well.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Really?

Even if there was over 700 people that complained about before? And what about the people who's formal complaints never got heard?

More people that can not take responsibility for their own actions. Coffee too hot? Go to Dunkin Donuts instead.

And what about the fact that the "beverage" was not fit for consumption served at the temp that it was served at?

Let it cool off. I learned that when I was a child. What's this lady's excuse?

And she wasnt' driving her car, she was sitting in it. I bet you've drank coffee in your car, as has everyone else here. What's unreasonable about that.

What I do in my car is irrelevant. But for the record, I keep the coffee in a sealed cup until I get to the office (yes, really).

Your arguments lack reason and logic. As for this one, you may have your opinions, but I think reason and logic both say you're wrong.

Good thing I'm not a lawyer then. I'd just be seeking the death penalty for everyone, anyway.

Edit: By the way, a jury of her peers (that's you and me) said she was 20% at fault for the accident as well.

I've jury duty next month. I hope I get a case like this.

 

[Damn True]

I think it really depends on they type of lawsuit. The class action stuff has a better record IMO of being legit. For instance the suit against GM a few years ago in relation to the placement of the fuel tanks on (I think it was) 3/4 ton pickups. Totally legit.

But the slip and fall personal injury, punative damages, mental anguish, and absurdly high awards for what amounts to people blaming others for their own carelesness is damaging to us all. The money dosen't come from the individual corporation or small business, it comes from their insurance. The insurance companies pass on the expense to their other policy holders in the form of premium increases. The insurance companies don't take a loss, and many of the ambulance chasers (not all lawyers) get paid regardless if they win or lose.

We end up paying for all of it in one form or another.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


I've jury duty next month. I hope I get a case like this.

You will not be selected, I can tell you that already.

You are too set in your opinions to be neutral in our system of justice and apply the law to the facts in such a consistent manner.

Oh well, the pre-emptive strike will be fun on you. One side (probably defense in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case) is gonna be bummed you got struck. LOL.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


You will not be selected, I can tell you that already.

You are too set in your opinions to be neutral in our system of justice and apply the law to the facts in such a consistent manner.

Oh well, the pre-emptive strike will be fun on you. One side (probably defense in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case) is gonna be bummed you got struck. LOL.

Honestly dude, I think the legal system is seriously abused in this country, and cases like this add fuel to the fire. IMO, of course. And yes, I am set in my opinions.

By the way, "One side (probably defense in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case) is gonna be bummed you got struck" was funny!!

And why the hell do I get called every two years? I'm 30 and have gotten called five times already. WTF? I know people that have never gotten called and are a lot older than me.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


Honestly dude, I think the legal system is seriously abused in this country, and cases like this add fuel to the fire. IMO, of course. And yes, I am set in my opinions.

By the way, "One side (probably defense in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case) is gonna be bummed you got struck" was funny!!

And why the hell do I get called every two years? I'm 30 and have gotten called five times already. WTF? I know people that have never gotten called and are a lot older than me.

You just got that kinda name that "pops" into the computer, I guess.

I AM actually bummed when a juror I want gets struck....I know the feeling! One guy was wearing a NYPD hat in the courtroom...what a ringer! (He was the first to go by the defense!)

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


You just got that kinda name that "pops" into the computer, I guess.

I AM actually bummed when a juror I want get's struck....I know the feeling! One guy was wearing a NYPD hat in the courtroom...what a ringer! (He was the first to go by the defense!)

Bummer!

I only got to the jury box once. All other cases were dismissed. But the one where I got to the box, it was for a guy who was busted for DWI. He plead "not guilty." COME ON! I already had him pegged as guilty before I heard any of the facts! (I'm THAT good). Would have been interesting to hear the case. Cop error, I'm sure.

 

[KrusteeButt]

Too much hate in the world.
Sucks that it keeps getting added to everyday.

people are like

when they should be

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon

And why the hell do I get called every two years? I'm 30 and have gotten called five times already. WTF? I know people that have never gotten called and are a lot older than me.

They've got you on one of those "sucker lists" - now everyone who wants an eyeball or a spine or a vestigial tail will be after ya!

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by sub6


They've got you on one of those "sucker lists" - now everyone who wants an eyeball or a spine or a vestigial tail will be after ya!

As long as they don't want my bike!