Bizarre lawsuits

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't disagree, however I think it's not McDonald's fault for not serving it at exactly that temperature. When you order coffee I think it is on you to be clear that it may be up to 100°C. Obviously you don't usually get burned even with that hot water, she was in extraordinary circumstances some up to her, some not and it's just not fair to blame the person/company selling exactly what the woman wanted to her.

hey, cool, and if it had been a one off, freak accident, where their coffee was abnormally hot, I'd say McDonalds was less at fault. But, at least according to what I posted, the staff had a policy of keeping the coffee at a temperature they knew was too hot for people to drink. I bet if you asked the average coffee drinker if they wanted hot-yet-safe coffee or hotter-yet-might-burn-you-terribly, they would probably not only prefer the first, but expect that this is what they are being sold by a store.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though I feel this is a totally different argument actually. I think what many people are annoyed with is the huge amount that she was awarded, which doesn't seem to have fit, even if it was 100% McDonald's fault.

we agree on that. I'm not against "pain and suffering", but there is no real way to make it anything but entirely arbitrary. Even then, this was excessive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However that's not her fault of course, she didn't ask for that much money and we don't know how much she ultimately accepted. So, again, I don't agree with dadudemon's rhetoric against her.

fair enough

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh also, I know what Tim Hortons is, I've been to Canada. Yeah, I'm that cool.

we'll make you an honourary hoser

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, of course. Something I find funny (quite funny, actually. I laughed pretty hard when I was typing it out) is something you wouldn't find funny. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you get a laugh out of anything on KMC. What DOES make you laugh, KK? hmm

However, I found it relevant to the debate. It puts into perspective what exactly was happening for 90 friggin' seconds. Sure, it's absurd, but it makes you wonder; what WAS her grandson doing while her crotch was cooking, literally.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I couldn't care less what was going on for 90 seconds... if 7 seconds was enough, than that's enough damage that even if she got it off for the other 83 seconds, it was still negligent on starbuck's part.

McDonald's. And I don't think that in the 7 seconds the amount of damage was done that she ended up with.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I couldn't care less what was going on for 90 seconds... if 7 seconds was enough, than that's enough damage that even if she got it off for the other 83 seconds, it was still negligent on starbuck's part.

What Bardock said. So, lemme get this straight, if she started choking on her food because it was too big for her to gum up and swallow, it's still McDonald's fault, right? Not her grandson's whom should have cut her food up, ensured that she wasn't improperly handling it, etc.? Right?

And, like Bardock said, if you order some water that was boiled and sent through ground up coffee beans, you should expect that sh*t to be hot. 😬 Can you blame that coffee making company if you spill your own home brew on yourself? It just so happens that McDonald's saved you the time of having to pour in your coffee grounds and boiling water through the filter and grounds. What you do with it after you get it is up to you. Butt Chug it while it's hot, for all I care, but don't whine when you spill it because you're a shaky old fart.

Why are you **** arguing about 90 seconds or 7 seconds, when it's irrelevant, unless she sat in the cup of coffee while it was being actively heated, her [severe] burns would have happened within the first couple of seconds, ie the spill. Coffee would have cooled quickly once it slipped/spilled out of her decrepid hands.

If you doubt me, boil some water, stand up and pure it over your face, you'll burn just the same, no need to "sit in it."

Originally posted by Robtard
Why are you **** arguing about 90 seconds or 7 seconds, when it's irrelevant, unless she sat in the cup of coffee while it was being actively heated, her [severe] burns would have happened within the first couple of seconds, ie the spill. Coffee would have cooled quickly once it slipped/spilled out of her decrepid hands.

If you doubt me, boil some water, stand up and pure it over your face, you'll burn just the same, no need to "sit in it."

I don't think that's quite true. However, like I said I don't think the time matters much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that's quite true. However, like I said I don't think the time matters much.

8-10oz of hot fluid would cool fast once spilled, not to cold mind you, but not hot enough to burn you like the wounds she sustained. The damage she got happened from the initial spill and the first couple of seconds after, not from sitting in it for 'X' amount of time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why are you **** arguing about 90 seconds or 7 seconds, when it's irrelevant, unless she sat in the cup of coffee while it was being actively heated, her [severe] burns would have happened within the first couple of seconds, ie the spill. Coffee would have cooled quickly once it slipped/spilled out of her decrepid hands.

If you doubt me, boil some water, stand up and pure it over your face, you'll burn just the same, no need to "sit in it."

That's incorrect. Most of the burns wouldn't have happened had she gotten up and pulled off or wafted her pants. She didn't. The amount of heat lost to the coffee would have been quick, right after she spilled it, because the lack of heat, compared to the coffee, on her skin, pants, and air, would have taken lots of the heat energy away. That's a large surface area for the liquid. She had to cook her self. She had to have sat in it a long time in order to get the burns that bad...which is true: she sat in it for 90 seconds.

More likely, she wouldn't have gotten burned as bad had she or her grandson mitigated the situation within 20 seconds. She may have still gotten 3rd degree burns, but they wouldn't have been as bad or as large. Guess what you're supposed to do when you get hot water poored on a thick cotton clothing item? Take it off. Know why? Cause you can cook your flesh for quite a long time while keeping the item on.

Originally posted by Robtard
8-10oz of hot fluid would cool fast once spilled, not to cold mind you, but not hot enough to burn you like the wounds she sustained. The damage she got happened from the initial spill and the first couple of seconds after, not from sitting in it for 'X' amount of time.

Incorrect. Even the case indicates that part of the problem was her sweatpants.

Originally posted by Robtard
8-10oz of hot fluid would cool fast once spilled, not to cold mind you, but not hot enough to burn you like the wounds she sustained. The damage she got happened from the initial spill and the first couple of seconds after, not from sitting in it for 'X' amount of time.

I thought that one of the big parts for her getting these severe burns was that she had sweat pants that soaked up the hot fluid distributing it all over, might be wrong though...

Additionally of course the time it takes for water to cool down would depend on how much surface area is exposed to what material at what temperature, no?

[edit] Also, this has some interesting claims and discussion on the times

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html

If you search for "second" you'll find the relevant parts

Please take by boiling water to the face challenge.

Originally posted by Robtard
Please take by boiling water to the face challenge.

I'm good for now. I also have some problems with the scientificity (real word) of the whole set up....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm good for now. I also have some problems with the scientificity (real word) of the whole set up....

That was directed at DDM, you've got too pretty of a face to ruin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I thought that one of the big parts for her getting these severe burns was that she had sweat pants that soaked up the hot fluid distributing it all over, might be wrong though...

Additionally of course the time it takes for water to cool down would depend on how much surface area is exposed to what material at what temperature, no?

[edit] Also, this has some interesting claims and discussion on the times

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html

If you search for "second" you'll find the relevant parts

The size of the burn would have been by the spreading, I'm talking about the severity of the burns themselves, if the fluid was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, they would have happened in the first couple of seconds; not a minute+ into it, as her body would have already absorbed much of the heat.

Personally, she was right to sue, but millions for a burn is rediculous, considering people have gotten far less from losing limbs.

Well, lets put it that way, I wouldn't feel like the law had failed had she been awarded in the 20 000 - 40 000$ area.

Originally posted by Robtard
That was directed at DDM, you've got too pretty of a face to ruin.

The size of the burn would have been by the spreading, I'm talking about the severity of the burns themselves, if the fluid was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, they would have happened in the first couple of seconds; not a minute+ into it, as her body would have already absorbed much of the heat.

Sure, in some places, but not all. I've been over this already.

Originally posted by Robtard
Personally, she was right to sue, but millions for a burn is rediculous, considering people have gotten far less from losing limbs.

Shouldn't she sue herself since it was her fault? What about her grandson for negligence?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, in some places, but not all. I've been over this already.

Shouldn't she sue herself since it was her fault? What about her grandson for negligence?

How was the temperature of the liquid her fault?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the lawsuit, the coffee was WAY hotter than it should have been, no?

Originally posted by Robtard
How was the temperature of the liquid her fault?

Cause she bought a beverage that is supposed to be hot, and had a warning on it that said, "Caution Hot." Your food being hot is not regulated by government. Too cold, sort of by the FDA (for cooked meats.) But nothing about being too hot.

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the lawsuit, the coffee was WAY hotter than it should have been, no?

No. There is no law on how hot coffee should or should not be. I do know that there are regulations on how much yucky stuff can be allowed into the coffee grounds, though. hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
What Bardock said. So, lemme get this straight, if she started choking on her food because it was too big for her to gum up and swallow, it's still McDonald's fault, right? Not her grandson's whom should have cut her food up, ensured that she wasn't improperly handling it, etc.? Right?

And, like Bardock said, if you order some water that was boiled and sent through ground up coffee beans, you should expect that sh*t to be hot. 😬 Can you blame that coffee making company if you spill your own home brew on yourself? It just so happens that McDonald's saved you the time of having to pour in your coffee grounds and boiling water through the filter and grounds. What you do with it after you get it is up to you. Butt Chug it while it's hot, for all I care, but don't whine when you spill it because you're a shaky old fart.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, lets put it that way, I wouldn't feel like the law had failed had she been awarded in the 20 000 - 40 000$ area.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When you get the coffee, you expect it to be edible.

No I don't. When I get it, I expect it to be hot, has to be sipped very very slowly, until about 10 minutes later. (Since I find coffee nasty, I'm replacing it with Hot Chocolate.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
When it was served, consuming that beverage would have caused damage to the inside of her mouth.

You do know that you can sip boiling water, slowly, without damage to the mouth, right?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The spillage is at best a secondary issue, imo, the point is that the coffee was served at an unreasonable heat level, and mcdonalds knew serving it at that level would lead to multiple people being severally burned.

No, it was served at the level that some of the customers demanded of McDonald's.

And, just like Bardock said, that's a pretty good accident rate, if it was a little over 700 spills out of tens of millions served coffee. McDonald's customers are pretty good about not spilling their drinks, apparantly. Maybe it was the "Caution Hot" that made them be more careful?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that you can sip boiling water, slowly, without damage to the mouth, right?

Do it and put it on Youtube. Call it "dumbass sips boiling water", who knows, it might become a meme like Chocolate Rain or that Panda.