Last edited by a moderator:
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
GM CEO calls for $1 gas tax hike
- Thread starter Russ
- Start date
i did not want to start another tread so i am using this old one as the issue of 'frivolous lawsuits" was brought up here so recently. i hope you all had a chance to catch the HBO documentary this weekend about business-related lawsuits titled "Hot Coffee". It just shows how much misinformation is fed to the public, the famous mcdonalds / hot coffee incident is one of the topics and contrary to popular belief the claimant (a 87 year old woman) was asking mcdonalds for a better cup lid design and covering of medical expenses not covered by medicare. no punitive damages were sought whatsoever (no 30 mil payoff in sight). please watch it if you can to have an educated discussion.
Yeah. Most don't realize how badly that old lady was injured from that overly hot cup of coffee. They just cite the case as another example of fraud. But they don't know that she endured 2 years of skin grafts in her crotch.
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
Let's not forget it was her fault that she spilled the coffee- not McDonald's.
If you aren't able to hold drinks, operate your phone or change radio stations while driving you probably shouldn't do it.
Let's not forget it was her fault that she spilled the coffee- not McDonald's.
If you aren't able to hold drinks, operate your phone or change radio stations while driving you probably shouldn't do it.
That's correct. The lady spilled her coffee. Just like thousands of people do every day, whether they're in a car or at the table. I don't think you're aware of the particulars of the case.
The car was not moving. The lady got 3rd degree burns over nearly 20% of her body. That's 3rd degree burns. And much of it was on her genitals. She had to endure skin grafts. The coffee was near boiling and typically coffee is about 150 degrees. The lady was out of work for two years.
The jury said 80% of the fault was McD and 20% was the lady and this reduced her award to $160K.
The old lady wasn't a gold digger and deserved the award. McD changed their policy too.
Would you pour a boiling cup of coffee on your genitals for $160K?
once again, the claimant DID NOT ASK FOR ANY PUNITIVE DAMAGES. anything that was awarded was done so by the jury to cover medical expenses not honored by medicare. the point of the lawsuit was to force mcdonalds to change the design of the lid (which was the same as for cold drinks back then, if you recall) to the 'positive latch' type we enjoy today.
please do watch the HBO special, it just might change your outlook.
please do watch the HBO special, it just might change your outlook.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
I am aware of the particulars of the case. I know the car was not moving...the lady was in the drive thru.
Regardless-
I don't agree that McDonald's should have been held 80% responsible. It should have been the other way around.
People who don't accept responsibility for their own actions ruin it for the rest of us.
A while back a pool in our community was shut down because some irresponsible parent wasn't watching their child and it drowned.
It is an unfortunate circumstance, but it is no one's fault but the woman's.
No. But I wouldn't sue someone else if I did, either.
No need to go further on this subject as you see it one way and I see it the other.
Per Wikipedia:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
So was the coffee excessively hot? Was there a flaw in the cup/lid design? Or was Stella just clumsy and negligent?
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
So was the coffee excessively hot? Was there a flaw in the cup/lid design? Or was Stella just clumsy and negligent?
People have a reasonable expectation of not getting 3rd degree burns from their coffee. I'm all for personal responsibility and I too originally felt this was yet another example of someone working the system, but no more.
If it were solely the lady's fault then why did McD agree to change the design of the cup and to make changes to their heating systems?
We are not merely talking about spilling hot coffee here. Sure, people have to be responsible but people do spill coffee. Mistakes happen. Those people shouldn't have to suffer 3rd degree burns.
If it were solely the lady's fault then why did McD agree to change the design of the cup and to make changes to their heating systems?
We are not merely talking about spilling hot coffee here. Sure, people have to be responsible but people do spill coffee. Mistakes happen. Those people shouldn't have to suffer 3rd degree burns.
Silverstone, if I take your view to the logical extreme, it seems personal responsibility can be the answer to everything. Let me ask, do you think we should have product safety standards? Laws about wearing seatbelts? Drug trials? If so, then where do we draw the line to say that drug manufacturers need to sell a product that is safe to the consumer but coffee sellers do not?
Even more controversially, how can we make sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past from a product safety standpoint? The free market and the average American consumer unfortunately doesn't do a great job in doing this for themselves. It is horrible that this woman got burned so badly... do you think anything would have changed without the lawsuit? Has society advanced from a safety standpoint as a result?
Even more controversially, how can we make sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past from a product safety standpoint? The free market and the average American consumer unfortunately doesn't do a great job in doing this for themselves. It is horrible that this woman got burned so badly... do you think anything would have changed without the lawsuit? Has society advanced from a safety standpoint as a result?
Yes. Then I'd go buy me one of dem Ford GT's.
Now that I've thought it over, I'd rather spill a cold milkshake on my lap and freeze my groin... then sue for $160k.
Sweet. Just when i thought this one was dead.
FWIW, i've got a Ford GT. It is a HELL of a ride. Not sure if it's worth burning an entire 12" of my body... but if I did get said burns, and felt sorry for myself, I suppose I'd rather cry in my GT than cry in my Kia.:biggrin: Swear to god, that car can make even Yassar Arafat look like Brad Pit.
Turbo2go, Yeah it's unfortunate that the kid died. Tragic, really. That really wasn't the point. The point was personal responsibility of the parents.
What kind of parent leaves a kid who is unable to safely enter the water to fend for themselves? We don't know the particulars of course. At least, I don't.
There was a situation mentioned on the Ford GT forum a while back. A teenager takes his dads porsche, at over 100mph around a 35 (45?)mph turn, and kills himself. Now the city feels it must build a concrete barricade, tearing out a long stretch of very attractive landscaping/scenery because of some moron doing MORE THAN TWICE the posted limit. Not to mention whatever money the city has to dole out to the dad for pain and suffering. Sure, you can argue "oh, but the city must feel the turn isn't safe if it's doing that." Yeah.. it isn't safe.. if you're doing 100... No it's not a 90 degree turn.. it's more of a wide sloping "S" type I beleive. As an aside... what city street... even a STRAIGHT one... would be safe at 100? I say I feel sorry for dad, but the city should not only not tear out all the landscaping, but actually charge the owner of the vehicle for damage, just like they would if the kid hit a fire hydrant but was not injured. Sucks, but when someone uses your car with your permission, you bear financial responsibility. That's actually the ONLY reason i don't let coworkers use my jetskis. If they lose control and hit someone, or get injured... it doesn't matter that I'm at work when it occurs... i'm still "responsible."
FWIW, i've got a Ford GT. It is a HELL of a ride. Not sure if it's worth burning an entire 12" of my body... but if I did get said burns, and felt sorry for myself, I suppose I'd rather cry in my GT than cry in my Kia.:biggrin: Swear to god, that car can make even Yassar Arafat look like Brad Pit.
Turbo2go, Yeah it's unfortunate that the kid died. Tragic, really. That really wasn't the point. The point was personal responsibility of the parents.
What kind of parent leaves a kid who is unable to safely enter the water to fend for themselves? We don't know the particulars of course. At least, I don't.
There was a situation mentioned on the Ford GT forum a while back. A teenager takes his dads porsche, at over 100mph around a 35 (45?)mph turn, and kills himself. Now the city feels it must build a concrete barricade, tearing out a long stretch of very attractive landscaping/scenery because of some moron doing MORE THAN TWICE the posted limit. Not to mention whatever money the city has to dole out to the dad for pain and suffering. Sure, you can argue "oh, but the city must feel the turn isn't safe if it's doing that." Yeah.. it isn't safe.. if you're doing 100... No it's not a 90 degree turn.. it's more of a wide sloping "S" type I beleive. As an aside... what city street... even a STRAIGHT one... would be safe at 100? I say I feel sorry for dad, but the city should not only not tear out all the landscaping, but actually charge the owner of the vehicle for damage, just like they would if the kid hit a fire hydrant but was not injured. Sucks, but when someone uses your car with your permission, you bear financial responsibility. That's actually the ONLY reason i don't let coworkers use my jetskis. If they lose control and hit someone, or get injured... it doesn't matter that I'm at work when it occurs... i'm still "responsible."
Turbo - bringing up Palin now?
This thread is about Dan Akerson (remember? Lt. Dan at GM?).
And Russia IS close to Alaska :biggrin:
This thread is about Dan Akerson (remember? Lt. Dan at GM?).
And Russia IS close to Alaska :biggrin:
I handle liability claims for a public entity, and the McDonald's coffee incident is well known as an example of how to lose a lawsuit.
Just to set the record straight, Mcdonalds lost not because the coffe was hot, as everyone has an expectation that coffee is hot. McDonald's lost because it failed to act on almost all of the complaints it received stating they were serving coffee that was much hotter then typical, without providing any warning. McDonalds upper management did not respond to the complaints, did nothing to acknowledge them, did not address those concerns to local management, and did nothing to warn consumers.
It's termed deliberate indifference, and results in larger payouts (typically, jury of your peers...) then negligence or even gross negligence. They received over 500 complaints, but responded to only 3 of them. They were made aware of a potential issue, but did nothing.
Just to set the record straight, Mcdonalds lost not because the coffe was hot, as everyone has an expectation that coffee is hot. McDonald's lost because it failed to act on almost all of the complaints it received stating they were serving coffee that was much hotter then typical, without providing any warning. McDonalds upper management did not respond to the complaints, did nothing to acknowledge them, did not address those concerns to local management, and did nothing to warn consumers.
It's termed deliberate indifference, and results in larger payouts (typically, jury of your peers...) then negligence or even gross negligence. They received over 500 complaints, but responded to only 3 of them. They were made aware of a potential issue, but did nothing.
Thank you for providing real insight.
LOL... I will link hot coffee to Jessica Alba's underwear soon enough... Don't you worry.
well, i'll take the 'credit' for that one as i did not want to start yet another tread- we should just rename this one "everything controversial rant" and be done.
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
I second that notion, swerve. :biggrin:
