quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Nuul
Do any of you guys remember that woman suing Mc Donalds for the hot coffee?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Nuul
Do any of you guys remember that woman suing Mc Donalds for the hot coffee?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Nuul
Do any of you guys remember that woman suing Mc Donalds for the hot coffee?

quote:

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.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
ummmm, you should probably read this site:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

but I'll give you the best part:



people throw around the case because they love to try and blame the victim, who in this case was a 79 year old woman who had third degree burns all up in her junk.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Some of those juries must be on something much stronger than pot

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"That man defrauded me out of $10 million dollars!"
"We can make him give you ten bucks."

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Real tort reform refers to idiots like the old ***** getting to sue someone from millions of dollars, a burgler suing for falling on their victims kitchen utensils, etc.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
What that fails to mention is:


She sat in that shit for 30+ seconds.




Still remains that she burned herself, the container had a warning on it, and she tried to sue someone else for her own damn problem.


She shouldn't have gotten any money out of the case and McDonald's shouldn't have had to pay a single dime.

185F? I boil my water before making it into hot chocolate.

By the time she actually started to "open" the coffee, it had probably cooled to something closer to 170. Doesn't matter because that old b*tch just sat there.


The fact that she sought ANY money speaks of how backwards and ****ed up the average thinking of a person is in America. At first, she was encouraged to seek just the cost of the medical bills. Then, some hot shot a**hole lawyer got wind of it.






They put some sort of harmful substance in the coffee that could kill upon consumption? Sue.

The person at the window throws the coffee in her face, burning her badly. Sue.

The coffee isn't kept hot, gets some sort of harmful bacteria growing, and it makes her sick or kills her. Sue.

You spill your own damn hot coffee on yourself, and the container says "caution hot". You don't sue. You freak the **** out, pull your pants off, and go the hospital. Then, you make sure that your grandson prepares your coffee for you in the future because you're obviously too much of a dumbass and have the old people shakes that you are not in good enough condition to be removing lids off of hot coffee.



I will never ever ever agree that the old b*tch suing anyone was the right thing to do. Maybe, just MAYBE, McDonald's was slightly at fault for keeping their coffee hot like their customers demanded. But, I think that society should sue all a**holes involved in that case for perpetuating the absurdity of thinking it was right to sue because of their own damn faults.



I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.




You're right. It's the drug called, "Whiny bitches entitlement syndrome."

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Liberator
"Nebraska's longest-serving state senator filed an unusual lawsuit against a higher power."

I looked it up on wiki, apparently this fellow, a certain Ernie Chambers filed a lawsuit against god. hahahahahaha.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
What that fails to mention is:


She sat in that shit for 30+ seconds.




Still remains that she burned herself, the container had a warning on it, and she tried to sue someone else for her own damn problem.


She shouldn't have gotten any money out of the case and McDonald's shouldn't have had to pay a single dime.

185F? I boil my water before making it into hot chocolate.

By the time she actually started to "open" the coffee, it had probably cooled to something closer to 170. Doesn't matter because that old b*tch just sat there.


The fact that she sought ANY money speaks of how backwards and ****ed up the average thinking of a person is in America. At first, she was encouraged to seek just the cost of the medical bills. Then, some hot shot a**hole lawyer got wind of it.






They put some sort of harmful substance in the coffee that could kill upon consumption? Sue.

The person at the window throws the coffee in her face, burning her badly. Sue.

The coffee isn't kept hot, gets some sort of harmful bacteria growing, and it makes her sick or kills her. Sue.

You spill your own damn hot coffee on yourself, and the container says "caution hot". You don't sue. You freak the **** out, pull your pants off, and go the hospital. Then, you make sure that your grandson prepares your coffee for you in the future because you're obviously too much of a dumbass and have the old people shakes that you are not in good enough condition to be removing lids off of hot coffee.



I will never ever ever agree that the old b*tch suing anyone was the right thing to do. Maybe, just MAYBE, McDonald's was slightly at fault for keeping their coffee hot like their customers demanded. But, I think that society should sue all a**holes involved in that case for perpetuating the absurdity of thinking it was right to sue because of their own damn faults.



I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can't the defendant appeal to the judge to toss out the case on the grounds of it being absurd, though? I know that for certain things the defense can force the prosecution to prove that their claim has merit in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, blaming the victim is the first step