Don't get me started on the McDonald's Coffee case. That woman deserved every penny the jury gave her and actulally was left with less that one quarter of the jury verdict when it was all said and done.

Didn’t read all the comments but didn’t the last guy/woman who got their butt glued to a toilet seat in a store end up being the culprit. I mean the guy glued himself to the toilet seat in order to sue the store?

At least that is what I think I remember. We have become a very litigious society. You are never responsible for your own stupidity.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

i know its cuel but this is something you cant help but laugh at.

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: Don't get me started on the McDonald's Coffee case. That woman deserved every penny the jury gave her and actulally was left with less that one quarter of the jury verdict when it was all said and done.

Go **** yerself, and I mean that in the kindest possible way....some stuid beetch pour 180-degree coffee on her snatch, and thinks she should be compensated for being stupid...well, guess-fruking-what...boiling water is hot, coffee is hot....and if ya dont realize that after about age 4, then ya belong in a place with rubber walpaper and finger paints..........

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Go **** yerself, and I mean that in the kindest possible way....some stuid beetch pour 180-degree coffee on her snatch, and thinks she should be compensated for being stupid...well, guess-fruking-what...boiling water is hot, coffee is hot....and if ya dont realize that after about age 4, then ya belong in a place with rubber walpaper and finger paints..........

Except it was proven that the coffee was far hotter than it was supposed to be ( and was MCD SOP ) so she was burnt far worse than should have happened. Perhaps there was a bit of blame to go around.

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: So much misinformation.

Yeah, I don't even think anyone besides me bothered to read your post...I read it and found it very informative.

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: Don't get me started on the McDonald's Coffee case. That woman deserved every penny the jury gave her and actulally was left with less that one quarter of the jury verdict when it was all said and done.

I used to think of that case like MidEngineManiac does, because that's what I was told to think by people I used to run with and I didn't know any better. Then I read about the actual facts of the case a few years ago, and boy did (and still do) I feel ashamed.

I just had no idea what really happened, how many of the actual facts never made it into the press. I don't know if she's alive or not but I wish I could write her a letter of apology for the thoughts I had about her during the time I was uninformed about what happened. That one case really shifted me mentally on the way I think about the way legal cases are reported, and I won't make that mistake again. I won't want to be perceived as a fool...

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-07-2011).]

Curious, if it was super glue used... Has anyone thought maybe this guy super glued his own bottom to the toilet seat and then flushed the glue tubes down the toilet to set himself up for legal action against Wal-Mart?

I am curious as to how long super glue would stay liquid in such close proximity to moisture, since moisture is what causes super glue to solidify.

quote Generally, cyanoacrylate is an acrylic resin which rapidly polymerises in the presence of water (specifically hydroxide ions), forming long, strong chains, joining the bonded surfaces together. Because the presence of moisture causes the glue to set, exposure to moisture in the air can cause a tube or bottle of glue to become unusable over time.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I used to think of that case like MidEngineManiac does, because that's what I was told to think by people I used to run with and I didn't know any better. Then I read about the actual facts of the case a few years ago, and boy did (and still do) I feel ashamed. I just had no idea what really happened, how many of the actual facts never made it into the press. I don't know if she's alive or not but I wish I could write her a letter of apology for the thoughts I had about her during the time I was uninformed about what happened. That one case really shifted me mentally on the way I think about the way legal cases are reported, and I won't make that mistake again. I won't want to be perceived as a fool...

I read Tyte's post.

I still don't think she should have been able to sue for that much. To me, it's almost like a lighter company getting sued for fire burning the skin. I completely understand the pain she went through and everything, but it was still due to negligence on her part... and more than just 20%. I'd say it was 80% her fault.

I have a different mentality though. I've had friends break my stuff, and I just go out and get new stuff if it's necessary... I let them use it, after all. Same mentality here.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I have a different mentality though. I've had friends break my stuff, and I just go out and get new stuff if it's necessary... I let them use it, after all. Same mentality here.

Sounds kind of like me...

New carpet in the townhouse we rent? I paid for it, it was my family and I that used and ruined the old carpet. The HVAC breaks? I fix it, it was my families use that brought about it's breakage. My daughter broke the kitchen faucet, other one broke the toilet seat, son broke the glass front on the stove and somehow the toilet tank got cracked? Again I fixed them all at my cost, the landlord didn't break any of it.

Just cut from a different cloth I guess. Of course we have been living here now for going on 5 years without a single increase to our rent and our landlord has never stopped by to do any type of "inspection". Heck, we have never even met our landlord, we met, looked over the townhouse and signed the rental agreement with her ex-husband. We have talked to the property managers on the phone, but have never seen them in person either.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-07-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: Curious, if it was super glue used... Has anyone thought maybe this guy super glued his own bottom to the toilet seat and then flushed the glue tubes down the toilet to set himself up for legal action against Wal-Mart? I am curious as to how long super glue would stay liquid in such close proximity to moisture, since moisture is what causes super glue to solidify. [QUOTE]Generally, cyanoacrylate is an acrylic resin which rapidly polymerises in the presence of water (specifically hydroxide ions), forming long, strong chains, joining the bonded surfaces together. Because the presence of moisture causes the glue to set, exposure to moisture in the air can cause a tube or bottle of glue to become unusable over time.

[/QUOTE]

I use the stuff every day at work...YEH, it is nasty, YEH...pour enough on and it stays liquid until ya breathe on it...even the gell types...ther are very good at what they do, which is glue things together....I have yet to glue my hand to my deek, but its probably comming....I can tell 1st hand, if ya get the stuff on the fingers--use a razor blade and take the skin off to seperate them....
Yeh, I can see that kind of glue doing that......

Most of you need to realize I am a dichotomy...I am a trial lawyer who is also a conservative. If I let people use my stuff and they break it, unless I specifically told them not to use it in a certain way, I usually replace it myself, luckily I have the friends who would probably replace it if they broke it anyways. That being said, when you read the real facts behind the McDonald's coffee case, and hear that it was a corporate decision to serve coffee twenty to thirty degrees hotter than any competitor because it caused people in the store to drink it slower, meaning less refills, and it improved their reputation for drive thru customers because the coffee was still hot when they got where they were going and began drinking it, despite the fact that they had warnings from their own risk management people that serving coffee as hot as they did could have significant consequences if it was accidentally spilled on exposed skin. ANd they determined it was cheaper to spend over $1,000,00.00 per year settling claims for burns than to make their coffee cooler and safer, and then yhou read that the woman who spilled the coffee had second and third degree burns on her lady bits, requiring numerous surgeries and skin grafts on her "who ha", and that there was significant nerve damage there, and you hear that the burn was so bad and hurt so much she disrobed in the mCDOnald's parking lot trying to get the burning liquid away from her skin and was standing there pantless with her skin literally hanging from her thighs and naughty bits...and that the 2 million dollar verdict was thoughtfully determined by the jury because it represented 24 hours worth of profits for coffee sales alone for McDonalds and they felt that was an appropriate punishment based upon McDonalds knowledge of the danger and ignoring it, and your hear that the judge did a "remittitur" which means he reduced the award to about half the amount the jury awarded, and that the lady finally settled with McDonald's for half that to avoid a lengthy appeals process and that her medical bills were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars...and finally when you hear that the juryt determined that the cap was not placed on the cup properly which caused it to spill in the first place...I guess your righ5...she doesn't deserve a penny...GFYS.

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: Most of you need to realize I am a dichotomy...I am a trial lawyer who is also a conservative. If I let people use my stuff and they break it, unless I specifically told them not to use it in a certain way, I usually replace it myself, luckily I have the friends who would probably replace it if they broke it anyways. That being said, when you read the real facts behind the McDonald's coffee case, and hear that it was a corporate decision to serve coffee twenty to thirty degrees hotter than any competitor because it caused people in the store to drink it slower, meaning less refills, and it improved their reputation for drive thru customers because the coffee was still hot when they got where they were going and began drinking it, despite the fact that they had warnings from their own risk management people that serving coffee as hot as they did could have significant consequences if it was accidentally spilled on exposed skin. ANd they determined it was cheaper to spend over $1,000,00.00 per year settling claims for burns than to make their coffee cooler and safer, and then yhou read that the woman who spilled the coffee had second and third degree burns on her lady bits, requiring numerous surgeries and skin grafts on her "who ha", and that there was significant nerve damage there, and you hear that the burn was so bad and hurt so much she disrobed in the mCDOnald's parking lot trying to get the burning liquid away from her skin and was standing there pantless with her skin literally hanging from her thighs and naughty bits...and that the 2 million dollar verdict was thoughtfully determined by the jury because it represented 24 hours worth of profits for coffee sales alone for McDonalds and they felt that was an appropriate punishment based upon McDonalds knowledge of the danger and ignoring it, and your hear that the judge did a "remittitur" which means he reduced the award to about half the amount the jury awarded, and that the lady finally settled with McDonald's for half that to avoid a lengthy appeals process and that her medical bills were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars...and finally when you hear that the juryt determined that the cap was not placed on the cup properly which caused it to spill in the first place...I guess your righ5...she doesn't deserve a penny...GFYS.

Good post with a lot of information. Thank you.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I read Tyte's post. I still don't think she should have been able to sue for that much. To me, it's almost like a lighter company getting sued for fire burning the skin. I completely understand the pain she went through and everything, but it was still due to negligence on her part... and more than just 20%. I'd say it was 80% her fault. I have a different mentality though. I've had friends break my stuff, and I just go out and get new stuff if it's necessary... I let them use it, after all. Same mentality here.

But did you follow up by researching the facts of the case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...nald%27s_Restaurants

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

Did you know that McD sold the coffee at the temperatures they did (180°-190°F) claiming it was for flavor, despite the fact that attempting to drink the coffee at that temperature would cause virtually instant critical burns and was completely undrinkable?

McD claimed that they served it this hot so that it would stay hot during the commuter's trip, despite their own internal research that showed consumers wanted to drink the coffee right away instead of at their destination?

That McD had received over 700 reports of burns of varying severity in the preceding ten years and had paid over $500,000 in claims for scalding injuries in that time?

Did you know that she wasn't even driving at the time, that she was a passenger in a stopped car?

That her initial claim was just medical expenses, less than $25,000?

That McD offered $800 to settle and never offered a penny more?

That the 180-190° serving temps were at least 20 degrees warmer than actual tested temps in other restaurants in the area?

That McD attempted to blame the severity of her injuries on her age, saying that old people have thinner skin?

That McD said they knew their coffee could cause serious burns but never bothered to consult burn experts about it?

That they deliberately decided not to warn consumers about the severe burn risk despite the fact that most people wouldn't think it was possible that a spilled cup of coffee could put you in an intensive care burn ward and leave you needing years of treatment and skin grafts?

That Dr. Knaff, an expert witness testifying for McD, told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually? That seemed to say that because the burns were rare compared to the number of cups sold that they didn't matter.

That the victim was found 20% liable, and her award was reduced accordingly?

That the final money paid was a fraction of the original award?

The jurors at the beginning of this case were annoyed about being put on a "coffee spill case", but after seeing *all* the facts and testimony and seeing McD's behavior in court and in the record came to change their paradigm.

From wiki:

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

The judge in the case called McD's conduct reckless, callous and willful.


From: http://www.vanosteen.com/mc...s-coffee-lawsuit.htm

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

To sum it up, She got everything she deserved, wish she'd gotten more. She never received what the deliberate purveyors of false information claim she got, not even close, not even in the same order of magnitude.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-07-2011).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tytehead:

Most of you need to realize I am a dichotomy...I am a trial lawyer who is also a conservative. .GFYS.[/QUOTE

OMFG--Angela, is that you ?? <joking>....I've dated and worked with a trial lawyer, LOL...LOL...lmaoa...Still want to argue and make a legal case about me wearing old spice aftershave ?????

frack, lawyers.....really are something else, but loads of fun to screw with

Don't agree with Tyte on the McDonald's case either so not picking on you jazzman. I just like your post better for rebuttal structure-wise.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: But did you follow up by researching the facts of the case?

I did. I read the wikipedia link when you first posted it.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Did you know that McD sold the coffee at the temperatures they did (180°-190°F) claiming it was for flavor, despite the fact that attempting to drink the coffee at that temperature would cause virtually instant critical burns and was completely undrinkable?

Yes. The taste argument was not that it should be consumed at that temperature but brewed at that temperature.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: McD claimed that they served it this hot so that it would stay hot during the commuter's trip, despite their own internal research that showed consumers wanted to drink the coffee right away instead of at their destination?

Since when is research legally binding?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That McD had received over 700 reports of burns of varying severity in the preceding ten years and had paid over $500,000 in claims for scalding injuries in that time? How many reports of burns did the competitors have? Were the McDonald's claims disproportionate? [QUOTE]Originally posted by JazzMan: Did you know that she wasn't even driving at the time, that she was a passenger in a stopped car?

Ya, this I would need to see or hear more evidence on. I would probably say the car was parked if I was suing for bazillions, or to not sound like an idiot. If the car was parked, maybe she should have just gone in and got her coffee?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That her initial claim was just medical expenses, less than $25,000? That McD offered $800 to settle and never offered a penny more?

Interesting would like more facts, change of lawyers maybe? Bad PR move maybe but don't know if not taking someone's first offer in a settlement proves anything.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That the 180-190° serving temps were at least 20 degrees warmer than actual tested temps in other restaurants in the area?

The wikipedia article stated that other national chains serve their coffee even hotter.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That McD attempted to blame the severity of her injuries on her age, saying that old people have thinner skin?

Is this not true? How old was she? were her hands unsteady also? Maybe she should have asked her son to handle the coffee for her?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That McD said they knew their coffee could cause serious burns but never bothered to consult burn experts about it?

Coffee is hot, why do they need an expert to tell them hot **** can burn you. Not knowing from the expert how much damage it caused how could they foresee it?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That they deliberately decided not to warn consumers about the severe burn risk despite the fact that most people wouldn't think it was possible that a spilled cup of coffee could put you in an intensive care burn ward and leave you needing years of treatment and skin grafts?

Do most people think that spilling a cup of coffee on you feels good? It's not like it was sold to be applied to the skin instantly.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That the victim was found 20% liable, and her award was reduced accordingly? That the final money paid was a fraction of the original award?

I think 20% was pretty generous. Is it McDonald's fault her bloodsucking lawyers took most of the settlement?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The jurors at the beginning of this case were annoyed about being put on a "coffee spill case", but after seeing *all* the facts and testimony and seeing McD's behavior in court and in the record came to change their paradigm.

Translation: Pictures of a poor little old ladies mangled coochie got a pretty big emotional response?

[This message has been edited by Scottzilla79 (edited 04-07-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Didn’t read all the comments but didn’t the last guy/woman who got their butt glued to a toilet seat in a store end up being the culprit. I mean the guy glued himself to the toilet seat in order to sue the store?

That's kind of what I'm thinking... Who sits down without checking the seat for crap (pun intended)?

tytehead--thanks for taking the time to give us the legal explanations.

Now--moving right along......(answer to the next ? needs no legal language)
did the guy get to wipe his nasty butt before they hauled him out on a stretcher?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: But did you follow up by researching the facts of the case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...nald%27s_Restaurants http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Did you know that McD sold the coffee at the temperatures they did (180°-190°F) claiming it was for flavor, despite the fact that attempting to drink the coffee at that temperature would cause virtually instant critical burns and was completely undrinkable? McD claimed that they served it this hot so that it would stay hot during the commuter's trip, despite their own internal research that showed consumers wanted to drink the coffee right away instead of at their destination? That McD had received over 700 reports of burns of varying severity in the preceding ten years and had paid over $500,000 in claims for scalding injuries in that time? Did you know that she wasn't even driving at the time, that she was a passenger in a stopped car? That her initial claim was just medical expenses, less than $25,000? That McD offered $800 to settle and never offered a penny more? That the 180-190° serving temps were at least 20 degrees warmer than actual tested temps in other restaurants in the area? That McD attempted to blame the severity of her injuries on her age, saying that old people have thinner skin? That McD said they knew their coffee could cause serious burns but never bothered to consult burn experts about it? That they deliberately decided not to warn consumers about the severe burn risk despite the fact that most people wouldn't think it was possible that a spilled cup of coffee could put you in an intensive care burn ward and leave you needing years of treatment and skin grafts? That Dr. Knaff, an expert witness testifying for McD, told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually? That seemed to say that because the burns were rare compared to the number of cups sold that they didn't matter. That the victim was found 20% liable, and her award was reduced accordingly? That the final money paid was a fraction of the original award? The jurors at the beginning of this case were annoyed about being put on a "coffee spill case", but after seeing *all* the facts and testimony and seeing McD's behavior in court and in the record came to change their paradigm. From wiki: A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000. The judge in the case called McD's conduct reckless, callous and willful. From: http://www.vanosteen.com/mc...s-coffee-lawsuit.htm POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature. ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. To sum it up, She got everything she deserved, wish she'd gotten more. She never received what the deliberate purveyors of false information claim she got, not even close, not even in the same order of magnitude.

Yes, I have done research on this case before this thread. I love proving chain e-mails wrong.

I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't talk to me in a condescending tone. We disagree, and that's all there is to it Jazzman.

Good day.

And from that day forth, I have yet to be able to buy a cup of coffee more than lukewarm.

quote Originally posted by Synthesis: I don't know about you, but when I am forced to use a public restroom of any kind because my body has betrayed my "NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS" rule... I ALWAYS check the seat, cause you never know if the person before you had poor aim and did not bother putting the seat up to do their business... Add to that the general lack of hygiene that many people seem to have (more than you would actually believe), and the last thing I want to sit down on is someone else's sweaty ass-crack residue on the back of the toilet seat...

Urine is sterile. It contains no bacteria and no viruses. And there is more bacteria on your hands than on your butt. If you are so afraid of a little sweat or pee, you should check your own urine immediately and make sure it isn't pink.

quote Originally posted by crazyd: Urine is sterile. It contains no bacteria and no viruses. And there is more bacteria on your hands than on your butt. If you are so afraid of a little sweat or pee, you should check your own urine immediately and make sure it isn't pink.

Aids is transferred from person to person by body fluids. Just how sterile is urine now?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/reso.../qa/transmission.htm
Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 04-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: did the guy get to wipe his nasty butt before they hauled him out on a stretcher?

NOW the real question is: did they make him wash his hands before leaving the bathroom?? Did they all wash their hands before leaving? What if a little kid walked out of the other stall when they were leaving and saw the firefighters not washing their hands and he didnt either? He then went and told all his little buddies and they stopped.. then years from now we have a new generation that wouldnt wash their hands after going to the bathroom.. then plaque and viruses spread from all this contamination due to non hand washing. Thats how it all starts.. just ONE person.....

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Aids is transferred from person to person by body fluids. Just how sterile is urine now? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/reso.../qa/transmission.htm Steve

Apparently you didn't even read your own link Steve, urine is not listed as a bodily fluid that transmits HIV.

quote Originally posted by crazyd: Apparently you didn't even read your own link Steve, urine is not listed as a bodily fluid that transmits HIV.

ever hear of blood in your urine?

steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

UTI's in men are extremely uncommon, and you're just splitting hairs.

quote Originally posted by crazyd: UTI's in men are extremely uncommon, and you're just splitting hairs.

Ya you could conceivably get from hairs as well, I think that was not the thread. The point was always check the seat first. You never know what is on it.

And Now back to the original subject.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: Sorry for that last part...this case just really shows how not knowing all the facts can lead you to the wrong conclusion. So Mid Engine Mechanic if you spilled hot coffee on your junk and the skin literally bubbled off it and you required numerous surgeries to repair your tool, and it was because someone making 8 bucks an hour didn't put the cap on correctly and someone else making $250,000 a year decided it was more profitable to pay out over a million dollars a year to burn victims than to make the coffee the same temperature as it was served everywhere else....you would not feel like McDonald's owed you anything.....riiiiighhht.

Really, no I wouldnt...I may do a lot of stupid stuff, but when I screw up and hurt myself--its my fault and my problem....I dont go running to the hospital to get bandaged every time I get a boo-boo....hell, I dont even go anymore unless there is bone poking thru the skin, and I most certainly have never run asking for money for something I did to myself....and putting a hot coffee between my legs so it can spill on my junk is definatley in the "gawd, how stupid can you be, Mike" catagory, same as if I use a radio plugged in while I am in the shower--I deserve what I get, if I do that...I may be a dumb-ass, but I dont ask anyone to pay me for it. Jeeze, I once broke an arm jumping a ramp on a BMX bike...maybe BMX owes me a couple mil for not warning me that ya can get hurt doin stuff like that ??....NOT.

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: Don't get me started on the McDonald's Coffee case. That woman deserved every penny the jury gave her and actulally was left with less that one quarter of the jury verdict when it was all said and done.

exactly
coffee gets spilled on people EVERYDAY
by the time you are done reading this - someone will have coffee spilled on them - yet - no lawsuits. why is that?
may want to look at what actually is the truth, before spouting the simplistic "dont spill hot coffee, dummy"

maybe those who think this was a BS case should go ahead and have 170* coolant from a radiator hosed on them. that is WARM coolant - not even HOT. thermostat hasnt opened yet. should be A-OK, right? this coffee was hotter. "HOT" is a subjective & variable term.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: exactly coffee gets spilled on people EVERYDAY by the time you are done reading this - someone will have coffee spilled on them - yet - no lawsuits. why is that? may want to look at what actually is the truth, before spouting the simplistic "dont spill hot coffee, dummy" maybe those who think this was a BS case should go ahead and have 170* coolant from a radiator hosed on them. that is WARM coolant - not even HOT. thermostat hasnt opened yet. should be A-OK, right? this coffee was hotter. "HOT" is a subjective & variable term.

232 degrees...the open point on a Mopar thermostat......but somehow, things just worked themselves out in the end..I learned not to take a rad cap off when the macine is hot--good lesson, really......but I guess now Crysler owes me 90 mil for it.....

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Don't agree with Tyte on the McDonald's case either so not picking on you jazzman. I just like your post better for rebuttal structure-wise.

Given your behavior toward me on this forum to date I find that claim to be ludicrous on it's face. Really.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: But did you follow up by researching the facts of the case?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I did. I read the wikipedia link when you first posted it.

I posted more than just the wiki link, I posted links to legal websites with more in-depth information as well, which I assume you ignored based on your comments below.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Did you know that McD sold the coffee at the temperatures they did (180°-190°F) claiming it was for flavor, despite the fact that attempting to drink the coffee at that temperature would cause virtually instant critical burns and was completely undrinkable?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Yes. The taste argument was not that it should be consumed at that temperature but brewed at that temperature.

No, the taste argument was that it be held and served at that temperature; brewing was actually done at a higher temperature. During discovery McD provided its operations and training manual which specified that coffee must be brewed at 195-205°F and held at 185°F plus or minus 5°F for "optimal taste", thus yielding the 180-190°F temps I mentioned. If you'd bothered to read the other links I provided you would have known this and not made the erroneous statement you made above.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: McD claimed that they served it this hot so that it would stay hot during the commuter's trip, despite their own internal research that showed consumers wanted to drink the coffee right away instead of at their destination?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Since when is research legally binding?

Since it is introduced in court as sworn testimony and evidence. In other words, a McD executive stood up in court and swore under binding oath that the research he introduced as evidence was true and accurate.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That McD had received over 700 reports of burns of varying severity in the preceding ten years and had paid over $500,000 in claims for scalding injuries in that time?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: How many reports of burns did the competitors have? Were the McDonald's claims disproportionate?

This case was about McDonald's coffee being served dangerously hot, not about their competitors. As an aside, a previous survey of Houston-area restaurants yielded the result that 9 of the 12 hottest temperatures were from McDonald's. If you'd followed the links I provided you would have known this as well.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Did you know that she wasn't even driving at the time, that she was a passenger in a stopped car?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Ya, this I would need to see or hear more evidence on. I would probably say the car was parked if I was suing for bazillions, or to not sound like an idiot. If the car was parked, maybe she should have just gone in and got her coffee?

Again, if you'd bothered reading any of the other links you'd know what the facts of the case were. You can pretend she was driving, or whatever, all you want, but it can't change reality anywhere except inside your own head.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That her initial claim was just medical expenses, less than $25,000? That McD offered $800 to settle and never offered a penny more?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Interesting would like more facts, change of lawyers maybe? Bad PR move maybe but don't know if not taking someone's first offer in a settlement proves anything.

Nope, no change of lawyer. She only sued because she had no other choice; an articulate former department store clerk, she stated under oath that she'd never filed suit before. She spent two years recovering and tens of thousands in medical expenses. Even the pre-trial arbitrator assigned to them by the judge recommended McDs settle for $225,000, a recommendation they rejected to their detriment. The lawyer would have settled for $150,000. Again, all facts in the links provided above that you would have been aware of if you'd only chosen to read them.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That the 180-190° serving temps were at least 20 degrees warmer than actual tested temps in other restaurants in the area?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: The wikipedia article stated that other national chains serve their coffee even hotter.

That sentence is in the wiki, but the cite provided goes to a definitely biased website. I checked out that website and found it to be nothing more than rambling misinformation and outright lies. Liebeck's attorney argued under oath that McD's coffee was substantially hotter than many competitors, a fact that's mentioned in the links I provided above.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That McD attempted to blame the severity of her injuries on her age, saying that old people have thinner skin?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Is this not true? How old was she? were her hands unsteady also? Maybe she should have asked her son to handle the coffee for her?

The point of the statement was that McDs was trying to blame her age for being burned, not the temperature of the coffee which is proven capable of producing full-thickness third degree burns in as little as two seconds on any human skin, regardless of age. If you'd read the links, you'd be aware of this as well.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That McD said they knew their coffee could cause serious burns but never bothered to consult burn experts about it?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Coffee is hot, why do they need an expert to tell them hot **** can burn you. Not knowing from the expert how much damage it caused how could they foresee it?

My point as you so unwittingly made for me is that McD's showed a pattern of deliberately not consulting experts despite the hundreds of claims of serious to critical burns, presumably so that they could try and claim they "couldn't foresee" the dangers. That backfired on them. I don't know about you but if I was selling a product that had produced over 700 serious burn claims in ten years and cost me over half a million dollars in settlements I'd sure be consulting a burn expert to see what I could and should do differently. Sure, everyone knows coffee can burn you but how many know that McDonald's coffee can put you in the hospital for eight days and cause you to need major skin grafts?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That they deliberately decided not to warn consumers about the severe burn risk despite the fact that most people wouldn't think it was possible that a spilled cup of coffee could put you in an intensive care burn ward and leave you needing years of treatment and skin grafts?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Do most people think that spilling a cup of coffee on you feels good? It's not like it was sold to be applied to the skin instantly.

Read my reply above...

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That the victim was found 20% liable, and her award was reduced accordingly? That the final money paid was a fraction of the original award?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I think 20% was pretty generous. Is it McDonald's fault her bloodsucking lawyers took most of the settlement?

I think you meant something different than what you wrote here, by saying that her 20% liability was generous. Please provide evidence with cites that indicate how much commission her lawyer (singular) received. I suspect he got less than half, probably less than 1/3, of the final settlement which was a fraction of the original jury award.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The jurors at the beginning of this case were annoyed about being put on a "coffee spill case", but after seeing *all* the facts and testimony and seeing McD's behavior in court and in the record came to change their paradigm.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Translation: Pictures of a poor little old ladies mangled coochie got a pretty big emotional response?

You are one cold, heartless person, a real piece of work. Your grandmother still alive? Have her read the facts of this case then look her in the eye and say this "Pictures of a poor little old ladies mangled coochie got a pretty big emotional response" to her face. I dare you. Better yet, tell it to the grandmother of someone nice and big and strong, I'd like to be there to see him twist your head off like the cork out of a champagne bottle.

Your depth of ignorance is only equaled, perhaps even surpassed, by your complete lack of human empathy and concern for your fellow beings.What makes it even more poignant is that for the most part it's deliberately self-inflicted, something that you tenaciously cling to for no reason that can make sense to me. Actually, it just occurred to me why you're deliberately working so diligently to maintain your ignorance of the facts of this case: It's so that you can continue to wave it around it as a symbol of all that you perceive is "wrong with the American legal system" without suffering from the pangs of cognitive dissonance. If you knew the facts and had any desire to be true to yourself you'd be unable to continue decrying this case as you have done.

Note: I did not write this as an attempt to correct your utter misunderstanding of the facts of this case. I'm convinced that no amount of effort on my or anyone else's part would help you in this case, that you would rather die, literally, than admit you are wrong. The way I see it, the audience reading this is of three varieties: Those who know the facts of this case, those that don't care about the facts of this case (such as yourself) and those who have heard the misinformation and lies propagated by others and want to know what the real facts are. This post is aimed at the latter group, they're the intended audience, they're the ones that matter.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You are one cold, heartless person, a real piece of work. Your grandmother still alive? Have her read the facts of this case then look her in the eye and say this "Pictures of a poor little old ladies mangled coochie got a pretty big emotional response" to her face. I dare you. Better yet, tell it to the grandmother of someone nice and big and strong, I'd like to be there to see him twist your head off like the cork out of a champagne bottle. Your depth of ignorance is only equaled, perhaps even surpassed, by your complete lack of human empathy and concern for your fellow beings.What makes it even more poignant is that for the most part it's deliberately self-inflicted, something that you tenaciously cling to for no reason that can make sense to me. Actually, it just occurred to me why you're deliberately working so diligently to maintain your ignorance of the facts of this case: It's so that you can continue to wave it around it as a symbol of all that you perceive is "wrong with the American legal system" without suffering from the pangs of cognitive dissonance. If you knew the facts and had any desire to be true to yourself you'd be unable to continue decrying this case as you have done. Note: I did not write this as an attempt to correct your understanding of the facts of this case. I'm convinced that no amount of effort on my or anyone else's part would help you in this case, that you would rather die, literally, than admit you are wrong. The way I see it, the audience reading this is of three varieties: Those who know the facts of this case, those that don't care about the facts of this case (such as yourself) and those who have heard the misinformation and lies propagated by others and want to know what the real facts are. This post is aimed at the latter group, they're the intended audience, they're the ones that matter.

You mean my behavior toward you where I have been nice, complimented you on a post, and gone out of my way to say I was only joking and not trying to insert politics in another thread. Who's benefit do you think that was for?

You don't know me at all. I am not a cold ,heartless person, but I am not the law. The law should apply to my grandmother just as it would to me. Perhaps I was too colorful in pointing out that attorneys often appeal to the jurors' emotions, even though they don't belong in a court of law, to win a case.

Which of my grandmothers do you want to talk about? The coal-miners widow who was left with nothing and had to live with her son most of her life. Who had all 5 sons serve in WWII Korea and Vietnam? Who died in a crappy nursing home with Alzheimer's? We did the best we could and didn't demand the goverment or some faceless corporation fix it for us.
How about my other grandmother who worked until she died in her late 70's scrubbing floors, flipping burgers, shuffling garden supplies around at Wal-mart before dying alone in her bathtub. She had stopped paying for her colonial penn insurance so left nothing to pay for the funeral. We all pitched in for a cremation. SS benefit was a joke and even went to her estranged husband who beat her and my mother. We did not demand money from anyone just because it was really sad.
Actually the audience isn't blinded by hatred or some deep seeded issue that they are foisting on everyone else, and therefore can probably recall me apologizing, or admitting I didn't know something. I'm tempted to post links here but would you read them? If you would like I will post them for you.
I read only the wiki link, did not claim otherwise. If it was biased or incorrect then why did you post it? How many others here even read one of the links you posted?

This is the last time I'm going to be civil with you after you have called me a horrible person 2 or 3 times already.

quote You are one cold, heartless person, a real piece of work. Your grandmother still alive? Have her read the facts of this case then look her in the eye and say this "Pictures of a poor little old ladies mangled coochie got a pretty big emotional response" to her face. I dare you. Better yet, tell it to the grandmother of someone nice and big and strong, I'd like to be there to see him twist your head off like the cork out of a champagne bottle.

I am 6'2", 210 pounds, and lift a 300 pound slush freezer with a bear hug...is that big and strong enough ??...yer out of line, Not Scott, and nobody is twistin anybody's head off.....I'll tell it to my own mother, if she is dumb enough to put a hot cup of tea down there...but she aint that dumb, so there is no need to tell her...........

I guess I just dont get humans....who the frack holds coffee with a cootchie anyway ????--ive seen those videos on the net, but they were crack-whores, who puts a hot drink in thier lap..whines about thier own stupidity, and walks away rich ?

As if size is everything either. Jazzman doesn't sound like he's been in a lot of physical altercations. A small man who knows how to fight can put a big man down easily.
Jazzman also doesn't know what I look like. Here is a picture of me. Bring it Jazzman.