Originally posted by inimalist
so, courts in DDM's universe:It is only corporate negligance if: Coffee is left out such that it becomes a biohazard and is THEN served to customers
A corporation is only liable if: There is as much intent to harm as would be seen in a server deliberatly throwing coffee in the face of the customer
also, a substance made for human consumption may pose as much danger as mechanical yard equipment being used improperly. This is not negligant of the corporation at all, because, if people making machines that have inherent risk involved can put people in danger, god damn it, their food can too!
Well, I think it's not negligent if the product's definition is dependent on the danger that caused the accident, like coffee, being made with boiling water, for example, that danger is clearly labelled, personally explained or universally understood and the accidentee caused the accident to happen by wrongly or negligently handling the product.
I don't know the exact happenings at that McDonald's law suit, but from everything I heard including what you said in this thread it just wasn't McDonald's fault. I mean, I feel sorry for the old lady, and it sucks being old you can't handle stuff as well, you're shaky, but again, the accident is not McDonald's fault, if anything it's nature's fault for making people stupid and/or old. I understand why she wanted someone to blame, she obviously had to go through a lot of suffering, and McDonald's is a good target cause it is disliked by a huge amount of people and it has a shitload of money, but really, if she had been fair and reasonable, she would have sat in the hospital with her new skin and thought "Damn...I really shouldn't have spilled this coffee on my lap"
Additionally, if the sit 30 seconds in the hot coffee is really true, it's even more her fault...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Lol, it boils down to...
😖hifty:
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think it's not negligent if the product's definition is dependent on the danger that caused the accident, like coffee, being made with boiling water, for example, that danger is clearly labelled, personally explained or universally understood and the accidentee caused the accident to happen by wrongly or negligently handling the product.I don't know the exact happenings at that McDonald's law suit, but from everything I heard including what you said in this thread it just wasn't McDonald's fault. I mean, I feel sorry for the old lady, and it sucks being old you can't handle stuff as well, you're shaky, but again, the accident is not McDonald's fault, if anything it's nature's fault for making people stupid and/or old. I understand why she wanted someone to blame, she obviously had to go through a lot of suffering, and McDonald's is a good target cause it is disliked by a huge amount of people and it has a shitload of money, but really, if she had been fair and reasonable, she would have sat in the hospital with her new skin and thought "Damn...I really shouldn't have spilled this coffee on my lap"
Additionally, if the sit 30 seconds in the hot coffee is really true, it's even more her fault...
You see, that's all very logical, and it is actually legally sound. In fact, most of these types of cases, including the McDonald's one, are thrown out by reasonable judges. The cases are retried from different angles until they get a judge that will hear the case. In fact, part of common law Tort, in the US, excludes unreasonable injury to self: i.e., sitting in hot coffee for 90 seconds that you spilled on yourself. It's basd on "common sense" that "most people would avoid or understand the dangers/consequences."
This case falls right in line with that "common law common sense."
That's why the case is consistantly cited as reasons for tort reform: the common sense application of tort was completely avoided/overlooked.
Blame it on the judge? Sure.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Where did you get that 90 second number though? Inimalist contrary to it claims 7 seconds.
No.
2-7 seconds before the skin burns at that temp. That's what inimalist was referring to.
She DID, however, sit in it for 90 seconds...much longer than needed to get burned, which is why she got burned so badly.
Also, you can find information on this by googling lieback vs. mcdonalds.
Originally posted by Robtard
"A Wisconsin man sued his cable company for providing four years of free service that had unwelcome effects on his family."This one is funny, he sued because the free cable-service made his family fat, so he claims.
Did he win?
If he did, that's a really good example. If it was thrown out, I hope he paid for all of the legal fees.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No.2-7 seconds before the skin burns at that temp. That's what inimalist was referring to.
She DID, however, sit in it for 90 seconds...much longer than needed to get burned, which is why she got burned so badly.
Also, you can find information on this by googling lieback vs. mcdonalds.
Aight, I read the first 6 results on Google now, nowhere does it mention that she set in it for 30 or 90 seconds, except in the Wikipedia article which claims a book as a source. Are you sure you couldn't produce a link to a source that claims that?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Aight, I read the first 6 results on Google now, nowhere does it mention that she set in it for 30 or 90 seconds, except in the Wikipedia article which claims a book as a source. Are you sure you couldn't produce a link to a source that claims that?
No. It's just what I heard. 🙂
Can you produce a link that shows it as 7 seconds?
Edit -
LOL!
20 seconds of searching and I found it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2545263/liebeck_v_mcdonalds_restaurants_or.html?cat=17
Originally posted by dadudemon
No. It's just what I heard. 🙂Can you produce a link that shows it as 7 seconds?
I'm not arguing against you, I want to know how much it really was and I can't find evidence of that. I don't think it matters actually. What matters is that coffee is supposed to be served at 85+° C.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not arguing against you, I want to know how much it really was and I can't find evidence of that. I don't think it matters actually. What matters is that coffee is supposed to be served at 85+° C.
lulz
That reminds me.
Remeber that one time I converted C to F with the F to C formula, in my head, and I got a result that was retardedly off and you were like "WTF? That doesn't make sense." And I was , "It's right." Then you were like, "no." then I was like, "lulz, I'm stupidz."
Dumb moments....brought to you by, dadudemon.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Did he win?If he did, that's a really good example. If it was thrown out, I hope he paid for all of the legal fees.
Not sure.
The punchline, part of his claim (the other being $$$) is asking Charter Cable to provide him with a lifetime of free cable and internet access.
I agree, one way to stop these BS lawsuits, have the plaintiff of the BS be liable for the defendants legal fees.
/sigh
Bardock, DDM, not to just play the "human psychology of injury" card
but...
being that we are biological organisms and not robots who can react to every situation with cold, calculated responses, 90- 2 minutes, hell, 5 min, are actually not unreasonable responses to being injured.
So, forgiving that she is 79, maybe a bit slower, and they were in a car, which means movement is a little bit more akward and slow anyways, the body does this thing called "shock" when it is injured. This effects many people in different ways. For instance, shock for me is generally a very quick burst of energy (30 seconds maybe) followed by a near complete passing-out as my blood pressure drops. Freezing and being incapable of producing proper movement is actually an expected response from someone undergoing shock. Another comparison, though not exactly valid, is the drowning person. It is NEVER adviseable to try and grab someone who is drowning (depending on the size difference, I could grab a kid who was drowning no problem, but if it was DDM, and he was in panic mode, no ****ing way) because they will try to use you as a flotation device. People don't think when they panic, and to expect split second descision making in a panic situation is ridiculous. Might reacting quicker have saved her from some injury, sure, no doubt, nut 90 seconds? Smash your hand with a hammer and tell me how quickly 90 seconds pass.
This is also ignorning that, by their nature, you don't feel a third degree burn immediatly, because they burn the touch receptors in the skin, and because of shock. I recieved one on my hand from working at mcdonalds and was at home long before i felt the pain of it.
But no, I get it, you guys want to blame her, so blame her, lol, I'm way more involved in this than I should be. I should have just stuck with the nationalist "Our courts are better"
Originally posted by inimalist
/sighBardock, DDM, not to just play the "human psychology of injury" card
but...
being that we are biological organisms and not robots who can react to every situation with cold, calculated responses, 90- 2 minutes, hell, 5 min, are actually not unreasonable responses to being injured.
So, forgiving that she is 79, maybe a bit slower, and they were in a car, which means movement is a little bit more akward and slow anyways, the body does this thing called "shock" when it is injured. This effects many people in different ways. For instance, shock for me is generally a very quick burst of energy (30 seconds maybe) followed by a near complete passing-out as my blood pressure drops. Freezing and being incapable of producing proper movement is actually an expected response from someone undergoing shock. Another comparison, though not exactly valid, is the drowning person. It is NEVER adviseable to try and grab someone who is drowning (depending on the size difference, I could grab a kid who was drowning no problem, but if it was DDM, and he was in panic mode, no ****ing way) because they will try to use you as a flotation device. People don't think when they panic, and to expect split second descision making in a panic situation is ridiculous. Might reacting quicker have saved her from some injury, sure, no doubt, nut 90 seconds? Smash your hand with a hammer and tell me how quickly 90 seconds pass.
I considered this, as well, that shouldn't have prevented her grandson from taking any action, should it? If both of them just sat there for about 90 seconds, how silly is that?
Also, it took between 2-7 seconds for the burns to be complete. On top of that, it took a bit for the liquid to fall into all the cracks and crevices, cooling along the way.
She would have felt an immense amount of pain while this occured.
In fact, it would have taken quite a while for some her of junk to get the 3rd degree burns beacuse the liquid would have cooled off, significantly, before reaching some of her junk. It would have been terribly painful while it burned her flesh to the 3rd degree, and would have taken quite a while.
And, this whole time, her grandson is just looking, right? Why does not one else think the grandson is primarily at fault?
Originally posted by inimalist
This is also ignorning that, by their nature, you don't feel a third degree burn immediatly, because they burn the touch receptors in the skin, and because of shock. I recieved one on my hand from working at mcdonalds and was at home long before i felt the pain of it.
You do feel the burn, however, in the surrounding flesh, big time. I received a 3rd degree burn, myself, while working at McDonald's. It was immensly painful in the surrounding area, but not dead center where the 3rd degree burn occured.
Originally posted by inimalist
But no, I get it, you guys want to blame her, so blame her, lol, I'm way more involved in this than I should be. I should have just stuck with the nationalist "Our courts are better"
It was her fault. Why shouldn't we blame her?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I considered this, as well, that shouldn't have prevented her grandson from taking any action, should it? If both of them just sat there for about 90 seconds, how silly is that?Also, it took between 2-7 seconds for the burns to be complete. On top of that, it took a bit for the liquid to fall into all the cracks and crevices, cooling along the way.
She would have felt an immense amount of pain while this occured.
You do feel the burn, however, in the surrounding flesh, big time. I received a 3rd degree burn, myself, while working at McDonald's. It was immensly painful in the surrounding area, but not dead center where the 3rd degree burn occured.
that isn't true
look up the literature on third degree burns, the burning of the receptors AND THE SHOCK act together. I had large second and first degree burn on my hand, it was inhibited.
this is an extremly common symptom of third degree burn. Like, so common it is part of text-book definitions.
(that being said, yes, when I get the third degree burn, it was the 1st and second ones I felt first, still though, it wasn't for 30-40min)
Originally posted by dadudemon
It was her fault. Why shouldn't we blame her?
oh, clearly you should
Originally posted by inimalist
/sighBardock, DDM, not to just play the "human psychology of injury" card
but...
being that we are biological organisms and not robots who can react to every situation with cold, calculated responses, 90- 2 minutes, hell, 5 min, are actually not unreasonable responses to being injured.
So, forgiving that she is 79, maybe a bit slower, and they were in a car, which means movement is a little bit more akward and slow anyways, the body does this thing called "shock" when it is injured. This effects many people in different ways. For instance, shock for me is generally a very quick burst of energy (30 seconds maybe) followed by a near complete passing-out as my blood pressure drops. Freezing and being incapable of producing proper movement is actually an expected response from someone undergoing shock. Another comparison, though not exactly valid, is the drowning person. It is NEVER adviseable to try and grab someone who is drowning (depending on the size difference, I could grab a kid who was drowning no problem, but if it was DDM, and he was in panic mode, no ****ing way) because they will try to use you as a flotation device. People don't think when they panic, and to expect split second descision making in a panic situation is ridiculous. Might reacting quicker have saved her from some injury, sure, no doubt, nut 90 seconds? Smash your hand with a hammer and tell me how quickly 90 seconds pass.
This is also ignorning that, by their nature, you don't feel a third degree burn immediatly, because they burn the touch receptors in the skin, and because of shock. I recieved one on my hand from working at mcdonalds and was at home long before i felt the pain of it.
But no, I get it, you guys want to blame her, so blame her, lol, I'm way more involved in this than I should be. I should have just stuck with the nationalist "Our courts are better"
Lol, that's hilarious, especially since I said I don't think it matters how long she sat in it and that I made the exact same point about her being old and obviously not as well equipped to handle things just a few posts back. I also don't think that I am hell bent on blaming her at all, I can realize that some things are accident, however her reaction was to blame McDonald's and I just don't think they are at fault for selling coffee the way coffee is made.
She ordered "boiling water filtered through ground beans", she receied it and then had an accident with it.
I don't think that the woman was particularly stupid or malicious either actually. She behaved a bit irrational by blaming McDonald's but all she wanted was her medical expenses paid at about 20 000$.
If you want to say that it should be illegal to purchase or sell boiling water, fair enough, however I don't think it should be.
Additionally, the link you sent is heavily biased in her favour, there would have been better ones out there actually showing both sides of the story. Apparently some of the claims of her lawyers are also inaccurate.
Originally posted by inimalist
that isn't truelook up the literature on third degree burns, the burning of the receptors AND THE SHOCK act together. I had large second and first degree burn on my hand, it was inhibited.
this is an extremly common symptom of third degree burn. Like, so common it is part of text-book definitions.
(that being said, yes, when I get the third degree burn, it was the 1st and second ones I felt first, still though, it wasn't for 30-40min)
But, it is true. I've read plenty of what a 3rd degree burn is like. It's a misconception that you don't feel a 3rd degree burn, especially if it takes a while for the burn to set in, such as the old ladies case. (She sat in it a long time.)
It's not the 3rd degree burned flesh, it is the second and first degree burned flesh that hurts surrounding the tissue. If you think I'm lying or talking out o the *ss again:
"Because the nerve endings in the skin are destroyed, the burned area may not be painful, but the area around the burn may be extremely painful. Pain causes the breathing rate and pulse to increase. Some areas of the burn may appear bright red, or may blister."
http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/b/burns3.htm
edit - I didn't get treatment for my third degree burn. It was gross, though. It took prolly 5 years for the scar to get light enough that you have to look really hard to see that I have a scar there. But it looked nasty for quite a while.
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, clearly you should
But, how about addressing the question?